Pharyngula

Posted by: Mark | November 23, 2009 1:48 PM

I would think that this would be looked at as extortion, as much as any other form. Any time someone looks at you and says "do this or else..." it can't end well. Hopefully, he can stand up to the pressure and say no.

Posted by: Michelle R | November 23, 2009 1:49 PM

I'd request the damn excommunication at this point. :P

Posted by: freelunch | November 23, 2009 1:53 PM

Yes, the Roman Catholic Church reminds us once again that they are willing to try to intimidate other people who disagree with them, but Cardinal Law is still hiding from American law in the Vatican.

I would love to see a lot of Kennedys resign from the Catholic Church, I'm sure they can find an Episcopal Church that works for them if they feel the need to go to a church.

Posted by: Ben Zvan | November 23, 2009 1:57 PM

Poisoned wafers? They'd kill Jesus again just to get to you?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | November 23, 2009 2:01 PM

No loss. I don't think the church is using the best cuts anyway.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 23, 2009 2:02 PM

My question is that if Kennedy finds a priest who will actually administer to him the holy sacrament, would that priest get excommunicated?

It's only in Rhode Island, so far, where this is in effect. The Bishop there has no power in Massachusetts, Connecticut, or anywhere else. Kennedy can go across the border and have no issues whatsoever....yet.

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | November 23, 2009 2:06 PM

The RCC has every right to deny people communion or excommunicate them for failing to follow their rules. (And I don't think PZ is disputing this.)

It's the inconsistency that makes it sad and ridiculous. You molested a child? Here, we'll move you to another parish. You protected and abetted child molesters? Here, we'll promote you to Cardinal. You think that the government shouldn't dictate what women do with their bodies? BEGONE WITH YOU!

The Church is officially opposed to the death penalty, too, on the same "sanctity of life" grounds, yet I don't see it denying communion to Catholic politicans who support the death penalty.

Posted by: daveau | November 23, 2009 2:08 PM

Mark A. Siefert@11

...and, consequently, the end of his political career.

I meant privately. Maybe this has already happened. Of course he would have to lie to his constituents in order to be electable.

Posted by: daleof | November 23, 2009 2:11 PM

You still have those communion wafers? From the crackergate thing? What's the use by date for the flesh of the son of a judeo-christian deity I wonder?

Oh, also funny story!
I was in hospital with appendicitis (in ireland) & a woman was going through the wards giving out communion. There was a woman in the bed beside me who, like most of us in that ward, were fasting for surgery. When she tried to tell the woman she was fasting for surgery she said, "this is the body of christ, you're in a hospital sure you'll be fine". I heard an amen from behind the curtain so I think she took it.

Here's a yahoo answer thing in case you need to read about why fasting before surgery is so important.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080702080629AAyJC9G

But ah no sure you're in a hospital you'll be grand.

There's something so Irish about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Whbc5YJz7OU

Posted by: Mike Raaymakers | November 23, 2009 2:11 PM

My parents were excommunicated when my mom, the widow, married my (step-, but adopted me, my natural father died when I was very young)dad, the divorcee. It was nice for awhile when we did not go to church, but then we secretly went to a church on the other side of town. When my dad finally got his annulment from his previous marriage (not sure how that applies to the kids from that marriage then. This is getting complicated, more on that later), they were accepted back into the church. I often asked my mom why, "Why try so hard?" Add to that, her disdain for the pope. She always gave some esoteric, spirituality, loving jesus mumbo-jumbo answer. The punchline, if you will, came after my mom died (very sad, and not the punchline), about a year and a half after my dad. My dad's sister said, "Well, now she's up in heaven with your dad. ...oh, and your other dad." Thanks Aunt Rosie.

The point of all this is, not only did they stick with the catholic church, but they went out of their way to be accepted back into it after being shut out of it. None of this did anything to put them off. So, a catholic might not necessarily shrug it off and go, "Welp, I'm outta here, then!"

Posted by: NitricAcid | November 23, 2009 2:17 PM

I wonder if this Kennedy is brave enough to mention the idea of taxing churches that don't seem to believe in the separation of Church and State.

Posted by: freelunch | November 23, 2009 2:18 PM

Mike Raaymakers -

I have heard that many annulments have been expedited by the application of bakshish to help the bishop remember that the first marriage was a fake. It strikes me that annulments have to be every bit as cynical as the way they moved the child-raping priests around, though the damage is far less.

Posted by: kopd | November 23, 2009 2:20 PM

Of course he would have to lie to his constituents in order to be electable.

Isn't that part of the job anyway? [/snark]

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | November 23, 2009 2:21 PM

#25
Protestants think the cookie is just a cookie to remember Jesus by, not his literal flesh.

Posted by: Lynna | November 23, 2009 2:24 PM

I posted this link on the endless thread as well. The news comes out of New Orleans, and is accompanied by comments from a distressing number of religious types who are glad to see the Bishop kick Kennedy's ass.

Link to the website where the spelling-challenged are posting: NOLA

Hooray for the bishop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The old Kennedy arogance stills lurks.............how can Mr. Kennedy claim to be a practicing Catholic and then throw that faith away when it was "policitical expident". AROGANCE!

Posted by: freelunch | November 23, 2009 2:27 PM

Michelle -

The Roman Catholic Church is the Christian church that dominated Christianity in Western Europe until the Reformation Era. The Christian church in eastern Europe was the Orthodox Church which was not as tightly controlled from the top. Aside from the Orthodox congregations in the US, almost every Christian sect in the United States is directly or indirectly descended from the RCC.

Do not believe any supposed Christian who claims that the RCC is not Christian. That is their own politically inspired dogma.

Posted by: Torrie | November 23, 2009 2:30 PM

Church is so morbid. People in the dark ages had nothing to do and eating flesh seemed cool. But, why have most humans never progressed past a lot of that junk. They aren't sacrificing sheep in special ways anymore, so why do all the other crazy stuff. No one reads the goddamn bible. people need to start hearing all that trash in there. we need a tv station dedicated to reading all that crap to people so they can get a grip. seriously, i think that is what we need. we can't teach them science until we get those archaic thoughts and ideas out of their brainwashed heads. their cult is impeding their progress.

Posted by: freelunch | November 23, 2009 2:33 PM

There was a bishop in New Orleans who excommunicated members of the Citizen's Councils.

Which was a very good thing to do, since the Citizen's Councils were the racists trying to keep Jim Crow in place. Now, sadly, the Republicans and the RCC have both betrayed their past to sell out to the same types of people in the South.

Posted by: Lynna | November 23, 2009 2:34 PM

In good news, the Swedish government is making it illegal for schools to teach religious doctrine as if it were true.

Posted by: Islander | November 23, 2009 2:37 PM

OT, but a new Symphony of Science video has been released.

Posted by: maxwell | November 23, 2009 2:40 PM

Although the RCC certainly has the right to make whatever rules they want, and to insist that their members follow them, a little consistency might help their cause. I'd love to see some cardinal or bishop do the same to a pro-death penalty or pro-Iraq War conservative.

Pope JPII was pretty clear in his stance: all killing is equally sinful from conception to "natural" death. Executions and unnecessary wars are just as sinful as abortions. Let's see some repugs excommunicated too!

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 23, 2009 2:46 PM

My dad's sister said, "Well, now she's up in heaven with your dad. ...oh, and your other dad."

It would have been a great opportunity to cite Mark 12:25 / Matthew 22:30

For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | November 23, 2009 2:52 PM

Patrick Kennedy has been barred from taking communion by the Catholic church.

So this is a punishment?

Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 23, 2009 2:54 PM

What are the legal limits on the sort of inducements you can offer a politician to influence his vote in the legislature? Obviously, saying you will or won't vote for them next election is OK, but offering them money is (theoretically) not, as is threatening bodily harm. This seems like an in-between case -- the RCC is withholding a benefit (ie. presumed as such by both parties, whatever the rest of us may think of it) in order to influence his vote.

Not that the courts would touch this with a three-meter pole.

Posted by: Lynna | November 23, 2009 2:56 PM

In other religious news, the religious majority in Utah helped to pass laws in 2004 that allowed them to tax some businesses more than others -- and you can bet the extra taxation did not include the churches. The law was challenged, and on November 20th, 2009, upheld. This sets a bad precedent, and religious or socially conservative leaders in other states may follow suit. Tax those sinners, goddamnit.

In 2004, the Utah Legislature became one of the first in the country to enact a 10 percent tax on sexually explicit businesses in an effort to pay for sex offender treatment. The tax covered everything a sexually explicitly business sold -- admission, T-shirts and hamburgers included.
A group of escort agencies and strip clubs challenged the constitutionality of the law, saying it was overbroad and violated their First Amendment rights. Meanwhile, a host of other states held off on passing their own sexually explicit business taxes while the case made its way through Utah's court system.
The Utah Supreme Court ruled that the Sexually Explicit Business and Escort Services tax is not a violation of First Amendment rights but that it is unreasonably vague when it comes to escort services...

Posted by: raven | November 23, 2009 3:02 PM

...only 15 percent of gen x catholics attend weekly mass. photo via Brent Cameron. From the blog Intentional Disciples "...only 15% of Gen Xers attend weekly. ...

31% of all Catholics attend mass any given week.
Only 23% attend regularly.
Younger people less than that.

The RCC hasn't been able to get good priests for a long time. No one wants to be a lifelong virgin any more.

It is starting to show. Even the heirarchy seems stupider and crazier than they used to be. Trying to run an organization with morons and nutcases doesn't seem to be working out too well. There is a huge and growing gap between the members and the leadership.

Who would jesus blackmail and extort?

Posted by: Lynna | November 23, 2009 3:08 PM

Below are few responses from Utah citizens regarding the sin tax there -- these comments cut to the chase. Local people, even some religiously-minded, don't like the heavy hand of a church dictatorship. I wish there were more Catholics standing up for people like Kennedy, standing up for those who may want to remain a church member while retaining their personal integrity.

The irony of this rationale is that pedophiles,molesters and sex offenders rarely are the types to frequent nude bars. You are more likely to encounter them in school,church or at a boy scout function.
     This is nothing more than a sin tax imposed by the tyranny of the majority because they can. What are cigarettes up to now? Six bucks a pack? I noticed the other day that the state liquor stores are now taxing an additional sales tax on top of the per/bottle fee that used to be included in the price.

I don't think it is a proper tax at all. The business is taxed, the food is taxed twice, as are the drinks, and any 'memorabilia' they sell.
I could understand if they wanted to list it as an entertainment tax. But that would get too many churchgoers mad.
And isn't it interesting that the tax rate in a perfect number. Just matching what a 'proper tithe' should be.
But the businesses better beware. They may get the property taken over by the city/state and sold to the church like main street was.
The law is a foolish one meant to drive out these clubs. How many attempts does this make over the last 30 years?

besides what does nude dancing have to do with sex offenders. It seems there are more offenders in church and boy scouts- lets tax them instead.

Posted by: Shamar | November 23, 2009 3:09 PM

Fundies want us to pay for prayer....it was struck out of the house bill, now they are trying to sneak into the Senate Bill

http://bit.ly/RuUcx

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 23, 2009 3:13 PM

Not necessarily. Consider Pete Stark.

location, location, location

Posted by: Clint | November 23, 2009 3:15 PM

They have to cast a spell on the cracker to actually make it Jesus, so they could have poisoned a normal cracker.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | November 23, 2009 3:16 PM

Drip by rancid drop the RCC are losing the plot.

Before threats like this were issued mainly in private, certainly not as a general press release, this has the old style 'catilik' hallmark, not seen since the inquisition, of whipping the docile congregation into some sort of conga line.

Tis simply a ..."See what happens when you cross us" kindda of gambit. A typical bullying tactic.
They are still avid purveyors of deep spiritual and actual fear are the slimy cowards, they have learnt nothing since the crusades.

If Patrick stands up to them they are finished in the bizzyness of fear merchants, they are going for a desperate gamble, it might be the end of total subservience to their delusion.
If he caves they win, if not they are mortally wounded for sure.

I hold no such illusions though, politically it would also be difficult for the man, but I think there is an opportunity to break the crows, but that depends on Patrick.
Maybe having decency and compassion not to mention common sense is deeply incompatible with 'catolik 'dogma, I hope he sees the dichotomy and not the carrot of political subservience to the magisterium.

It really Reeks of RCC losing control and if that is happening in USA they really are in serious and rapid decline, the fuckers are panicking.

Such blatant and desperate measures, and so hysterical they do not care what the rest of non-RC society thinks.

As I suggest, in putting the metaphorical thumb screws on the dude they are using it to get their own way and at the same time using it as just a crude cattle prod to their own, they are freaking out and trying to put the fear of their deity into everyone just for old time sake.

Oh happy days the RCC is imploding in their own stench and rhetorical vomit.

Posted by: hollahhollahme | November 23, 2009 3:19 PM

Faith will seem as foolishness is evident by many of the comments here.

The Catholic church is indeed separate from the government, and can, and should, express what it deems right to its believers ... No one is obliged to be Catholic.

Posted by: daveau | November 23, 2009 3:21 PM

Strip clubs in Utah? Really? Just not able to get my head around that one.

Posted by: Lynna | November 23, 2009 3:25 PM

@63

If going for my Master's degrees falls through, I'm stealing this idea. It will be the Church of the Feminine Form. I shall build it and they will come.

Posted by: anonymous | November 23, 2009 3:27 PM

Why doesn't the government Tax these so called Religious Groups? All I ever hear from them is Political Views, especially on Fox News !. They want 10% per person. Yet contribute $0 to this country. It would take a bite out of the National Bite.

Posted by: anonymous | November 23, 2009 3:33 PM

Why doesn't the IRS/Government Tax these so called Religious Groups? All I hear from them is Political Propaganda. Ever watch Fox News.? What the tax free Status.? The Religious Groups ask 10% Tithe per member/person. Yet they Contribute $0 to the Country and $0 to the National Debt.

Posted by: Nick Johnson | November 23, 2009 3:36 PM

I don't see the problem in sending him some of your wafers. Christians can take deadly poison and be unharmed - the bible says so!

Posted by: hollahhollahme | November 23, 2009 3:37 PM

#71 You are basically saying that political conderns can't be dealt with by the church, that the views of any religion must not spoken to its members as it wants ... Isn't that then breeching separation of church and state?

Posted by: lose_the_woo | November 23, 2009 3:48 PM

Well, I think the obsession with sex is the matter here. Control sex, and you pretty much control a lot of a person.

Perhaps so. It almost looks like the church wants to be the holder of all things pleasurable, painful, moral, just, eternal, etc.. As soon as a person strikes out on their own accord and realizes that the church doesn't actually control those things, the church gets very nervous and angry.

It reminds me of the behavior of a spoiled haughty 3 year old screaming "I'm the Boss!!".

Posted by: Larry | November 23, 2009 3:50 PM

#66:

Just not able to get my head around that one.

Just think of hot 12-year olds in magical underware.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 23, 2009 3:53 PM

As Karl Marx observed (nor was he the first), religion is nothing but a tool of oppression.

Posted by: AF Comm Guy | November 23, 2009 3:54 PM

Nuke the Vatican. It's the only way to be sure.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 23, 2009 4:00 PM

#76 what I am saying is that when a religious organization uses its charity status as a front while engaging in political bullying, which the the catholic church is so good at, they should be stripped of their tax exempt status.
And no, taxation is not a violation of church-state separation. Not that I see why that would be a worry for the church anyway; it's not like they've ever been champions of the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 23, 2009 4:05 PM

It's only blackmail if you believe that it has any affect whatsoever.

I get the impression -- and I may be wrong -- that it was Patrick himself who announced about a private instruction from his local bishop to not take communion. If so, that leads to some interesting thoughts.

He obviously resents having pressure put on him. Making it public makes it clear that there is pressure being put on him, and makes him something of a martyr to his constituents. It also hints at defiance -- and this defiance may give support to others who are being similarly pressured, who are perhaps more worried about it than he may be, and are similarly resentful.

Are there priests who sympathize with him enough to give him communion anyway?

As a tangental note, Hitler, and other Catholic fascists and dictators with some huge body counts to their rules, never had similar pressure put on them, so far as I know.

The only political leader who was excommunicated after the 20th century was Juan Perón.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 23, 2009 4:08 PM

Sorry that was meant for the troll @85.

Posted by: SteveM | November 23, 2009 4:16 PM

Okay okay... Excuse me, but I still can't make the bloody difference between catholics and christians. They're the same thing to me. What's the difference?

The point is that christians who are not Catholic want it to be perfectly clear that they are not Catholic. That is what is meant by "Christian" (capital "C") vs Catholic. Yes they are both "christian" (little "c") as followers of Christ, but it is the Catholic heirarchy and ritual that makes all the difference.

Posted by: anonymous | November 23, 2009 4:20 PM

Patrick, this is God whispering in your ear to walk away from this cult of hypocrisy. Prayer & Worship are between you & God.

Posted by: Rick R | November 23, 2009 4:26 PM

"... until faith made all the sense in the world to me."

Head injury?

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 23, 2009 4:32 PM

I see you are still regurgitating the "you don't have to be a catholic" crap. Ever heard of hellfire and brimstone?

Well, sure you don't have to be a Catholic...

It's just that if yer not, you are DAMNED to the FIRES of HELL!!

(... extra exclamation marks omitted, bucking the tradition...)

... okay, actually, amusingly, I seem to recall hearing somewhere someone whining that technically, Ratzinger at least does not formally and technically consider Protestantism a heresy exactly anymore... rather, it is in some category of theology that is 'yet to be determined'*... Which, I might add, lead them to conclude the der Panzer Pope is not, in fact, quite mediaeval enough for their tastes.

... and incidentally, re the difference between Protestants and Catholics, the central one, as far as I've understood, has generally concerned the role of the priesthood (and, by extension, the pope, which has seemed to be one of the sticking points, generally). In somewhat non-theo-obscurantist language, Luther basically said you didn't so much need the priests to hold your hand while you were talking to god. Certain (many) priests seemed to have had some objection to this, and much ugliness has since ensued.

(/*So, in other words, Protestants in fact may not be DAMNED to the FIRES of HELL anymore... rather, this is yet to be determined... It's more they may be DAMNED to the FIRES of HELL; we'll have to get back to you on that later... As to the rest of us--not Christians of any sort--last I heard it was the fires of hell thing... But I may not be current... There's only so many hours in the day, and tracking the opinions of madmen in simply charmingly frilly frocks on who goes where post-mortem hasn't generally been a high priority.)

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 23, 2009 4:35 PM

Urgh re 'the der'... And let's all pretend that was supposed to be 'the dear', not redundant articles 'tween languages. 'Cos that would be--umm--annoying.

Posted by: octopod | November 23, 2009 4:46 PM

#53 --
"In Heaven they have no beer/That's why we drink it here..."

Posted by: Lola | November 23, 2009 4:54 PM

Perhaps TCC (the catholic church) has bitten the hand that feeds it. What right does TCC have over a woman's decision to abort or not to abort? They are all celebate, aren't they? How could they possible understand what's involved, and would they like to adopt the unwanted children that would be the result? Oh, yes, they would, come to think of it. More little boys.

Posted by: H.H. | November 23, 2009 5:04 PM

If the Catholic church decided to withhold communion from anyone who doesn't totally submit to the edicts of their religion, they'd be preaching to an empty building. Funny how a woman's right to choose is the one thing they feel comfortable taking a hardline stance against.

Posted by: R. Schauer | November 23, 2009 5:15 PM

Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus

-Insert My Rousing Applause Here-

Posted by: Dick Marti | November 23, 2009 5:17 PM

Why does the Catholic Church still have tax-exempt status after all the political meddling it is involved in?

Posted by: Slaughter | November 23, 2009 5:25 PM

Oh, those Catholic pikers, chewing on some mere wafer to get the taste of human flesh! Me, I go for the real thing!

Um, perhaps I've said too much ...

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 23, 2009 5:42 PM

Dear brother Smoggy,
As ingenious as your solution is, I think the good bishop will not be interested.
After all, if you quietly pull the politician you don't like to the side and tell them not to show up for the cannibalism orgy next Sunday, what have you achieved? How is the "my way or it's gonna cost you votes" point going to be made?
Publicity is the whole point of the exercise. And the more, the merrier.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 23, 2009 5:52 PM

What might be an interesting alternative notion is for North American Catholics to schism. I'm thinking of American/Canadian Catholic liberals here, but Mexican Catholics might also be involved. I don't know that there are enough actual liberal archbishops/cardinals to agree to such a thing, of course.

Well, if it works, almost all First World Catholics are going to join.

... okay, actually, amusingly, I seem to recall hearing somewhere someone whining that technically, Ratzinger at least does not formally and technically consider Protestantism a heresy exactly anymore...

If so, that was about Lutherans as found in Germany and Scandinavia. Southern Baptists? Snake-handling tongue-twisting Pentecostals? First, Second, and Third Wave? Probably even the Missouri Synod? Burn.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | November 23, 2009 5:56 PM

What was most disgusting, to me, was hearing the media talking heads on the morning shows tripping over each other to defend the church.

Lawrence O'Donnell was on MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning as the only person willing to call it like it is: that this is just an attempt by a religious authority to interfere with politics. Joe Scarborough and his ilk were saying such insipid things as "Somebody speak up and defend the church! The church of Saint Peter!"

These people abandon their rational faculties entirely when their precious institution is losing face. They scramble to go into "defend at all costs" mode, and it's embarrassing to watch.

Posted by: History Punk | November 23, 2009 6:02 PM

At the National Archives, I was using CREST, the database of declassified and digitized documents maintained by the CIA. While researching my thesis, I came across a book and a letter to one of the Dulles brothers (the one who ran the CIA) about the threat Catholics would pose if Kennedy (JFK, not this one) became president.

One of the main arguments was that because they answer to a trans-national entity that lacks loyalty to the United States, Catholics would be subjected to whims and dictates of the Holy See. If Rome opposed a policy, Catholic politicians would have to do so too. At the time, I thought it amusing conspiracy nonsense and printed up myself up a copy of the book and associated materials for fodder with which to impress people at cocktail parties.

Now, with this action, the Roman Catholic Church might actually makes this a reality. If this action causes Kennedy to capitulate and oppose abortion, from here on out, any action of a Catholic politician will be seen as taken at the order of Rome and never again could any Catholic brand as nonsense any conspiracy theory that holds the Catholic Church controls portions of the American government or that Catholic politicians are agents of the papacy.

Hopefully Kennedy will reject this effort at celestial intimidation and the RCC will bring his bishop to heal. Otherwise, a Dan Brownesque view of the RCC in America will become the norm.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 23, 2009 6:08 PM

Dear Brother Smoggy,
I believe I have come to see the light. Congratulations, your brilliant plan to beat the straying not-godly-enough elected officials back into line now makes perfect sense to me.
Of course, the cynics among us might contend that for the consecrated hosts to have the desired benefit, some degree of "chemical" treatment may also help.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 23, 2009 6:23 PM

Insightful Ape @ 122,

I replied to your comment, but my reply has been send to PZ for moderation. I fear I am in trouble for my godly witness. Perhaps I will be banished to the dungeon.

Posted by: Lowell | November 23, 2009 6:30 PM

Hollahhollahme @95

But would you deny any church, or any group, the freedom to speak their views? You are free to speak your's.

You're not getting it. No one says churches can't "speak their views." It's their tax-exempt status that is at issue.

We have a compromise in this country where religious institutions are tax-exempt under the Internal Revenue Code as long as they do not participate in the political process.

You may not like that. And it is debatable whether the RCC's actions with regards to Patrick Kennedy constitute prohibited activity. But that's the way it is.

You could at least get the issue right if you're going to spout off like you've got all the answers.

Posted by: Church Boy | November 23, 2009 6:38 PM

It's simple enough. If you are going to be a member of the churhc, you have to play by the rules, else you get kicked out. Same as any other organization. He clearly favors murder through abortion. The churhc does not. The church has the right to do this if his actions go against Biblical perspectives and teachings. He can repent or stay away. It's that simple.

Posted by: Lowell | November 23, 2009 6:51 PM

Church Boy,

Did you read the same post I did? Because the one I read didn't deny that the church has the prerogative to say who is and isn't a member.

Posted by: Lola | November 23, 2009 6:54 PM

Dick Marti #110: Why does ANY church have tax-exempt status? All the states are bankrupt; they should be taxing the heck out of these freeloaders. The separation of church and state means the church is treated like any other citizen - pay up or go to jail.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 23, 2009 6:59 PM

Of course he would have to lie to his constituents in order to be electable. - daveau

So, nothing new there then!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | November 23, 2009 7:03 PM

Church Boy #128

He clearly favors murder through abortion. The churhc does not.

No, Kennedy favors a woman's right to chose.

The church has the right to do this if his actions go against Biblical perspectives and teachings.

Where exactly in the Bible is abortion prohibited? Please cite chapter and verse. Or admit that a bunch of misogynist professional virgins are more concerned with punishing women for having sex than protecting children. We know that protecting children is not a high priority for the Catholic Church, since Benny Ratzi made it official policy to protect and support pedophile rapists.

He can repent or stay away. It's that simple.

Repent what? Not inflicting church teachings on non-members? It's not simple at all.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | November 23, 2009 7:05 PM

"As Karl Marx observed (nor was he the first), religion is nothing but a tool of oppression."

No, he didn't. If it were that simple, it would be so much easier to dispense with. His full description is much better. "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Religion offers benefits - feeling good, community, beauty, hope, pie in the sky when you die. That's the bait in the trap, of course.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | November 23, 2009 7:12 PM

He clearly favors murder through abortion. The churhc does not.

To call abortion murder is a gross distortion of both word and meaning. To equate a clump of cells to a fully aware and conscious human, newly born or otherwise, is a disgusting perspective on reality.

An apple seed is not an apple.

Posted by: Peter G | November 23, 2009 7:20 PM

A recipe:
1) Roll slightly spray dampened slices of wonder bread until all air is removed.
2) Cut disc of flattened bread with 1 inch circular punch(available at any hardware store).
3) Bake discs at low heat to avoid caramelization until they hard. Avoid over baking to maintain total lack of flavor.
When they're ready conduct religious ceremony as described in this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f72CTDe4-0

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 23, 2009 7:22 PM

It's simple enough. If you are going to be a member of the churhc, you have to play by the rules, else you get kicked out.

What you're arguing is a violation of the separation of church and state, because any politician must follow the rules of their church in making public policy. And what right does his church have to enforce its rules on the rest of society?

Posted by: Ted | November 23, 2009 7:24 PM

However, life is a continuum from the single cell state until death. Since any "Life" is unbroken un til death, so also is the inherent uniqueness and validity of the creature.

As a valid participant in reality, all others must respect your being. Abortion is wrong on all counts.

Posted by: eddie | November 23, 2009 7:29 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/Peter_Tobin

Respect for life my arse.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | November 23, 2009 7:37 PM

However, life is a continuum from the single cell state until death. Since any "Life" is unbroken un til death, so also is the inherent uniqueness and validity of the creature.

As a valid participant in reality, all others must respect your being. Abortion is wrong on all counts.

That analysis is so completely oversimplified as to not even warrant any vitriol. It's a cluster of facile misrepresentations devoid of any detail regarding the facts of the situation and condition. My opinion of anyone espousing such feeble notions is that perhaps they should learn more about the subject matter and grow a brain.

Posted by: Mr T | November 23, 2009 7:42 PM

However, life is a continuum from the single cell state until death.

Since any "Life" is unbroken un til death

, so also is the inherent uniqueness and validity of the creature.

Posted by: Art | November 23, 2009 7:44 PM

This wouldn't matter a jot to me except it makes me hesitant to vote for a Roman Catholic.....who did I vote for? The Candidate? His Bishop? or parhaps The Pope? What happens if blasphemy or some oher basic right end up as the Pope's next big issue.....will RC politicans vote to restrict my speech to keep their right to eat a slice of dry bread? Worrisome for sure!

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 23, 2009 7:50 PM

Good to see the Roman Catholic, er bitches ain't shit contingent making its presence known.

The RCC is an anti-woman hate organization.

Posted by: Ted | November 23, 2009 7:58 PM

ema
That is false. Unique it is.

This a science blog. Sure it's full of the lies, vitriol, nonsense, vulgarity and failed logic that is so common among the junk-science community, but it is at least hosted by a group that want to pretend this is science.

Even among this horde, no one will fall for your nonsense.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 23, 2009 8:03 PM

Anybody who wants to think about the commencement date for the human right to call oneself “human” should consider the following.
1. Lawsuits successfully actioned by and on behalf of people who suffered damages in the womb.
2. Pharmaceutical companies marketing products intended solely to benefit the unborn child.
3. Medical science directing resources to save the life of premature babies born at a point which in many jurisdictions would be within legal abortion time limits
4. A woman holding a baby in her arms has a duty of care not to drop that baby. A woman can similarly choose (her body her choice) to have an unborn baby inside her womb. She is holding the baby in her womb just as if it were in her arms.
5. Subjective definitions about what qualifies as “human life” have historically resulted in the mentally disabled, Jews, “Blacks”, slaves, women, being classified as not fully human.
6. A woman asserting that nobody else has any say in what she does with her body is undermining the logical rights of women to be supported during pregnancy by – loving spouses, partners, government welfare agencies, charities, etc.
7. The life of a frog begins when an egg is fertilized and becomes a tadpole. Who can draw a line demonstrating the precise point at which a frog’s life begins?
8. Some people may say the ability to live outside the womb is a benchmark yet a miscarried embryo could remain alive for some time outside the womb as could an abandoned baby left wrapped in a blanket on the sidewalk.
Lion (IRC)
PS - Deliberate avoidance of Mr Hitchens quotes on abortion.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 23, 2009 8:08 PM

Brother Smoggy - While your invitation is tempting (you sinner) I must decline. I'm on a spank free sabbatical for the next few months. The joys of my throne will suffice.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 23, 2009 8:13 PM

Lion - How many times today have you been told you're a moron?

Posted by: Rorschach | November 23, 2009 8:20 PM

1. Lawsuits successfully actioned by and on behalf of people who suffered damages in the womb.

WTF

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 23, 2009 8:30 PM

Hey Ted-nice of you to stop by.
It's really interesting that you are surprised, non-science subjects are covered in a science blog. Maybe, just maybe, if science weren't under assault today from religion and politics, it wouldn't be necessary.
But above all PZ's blog is the best place to meet good for nothing bums like you, who have nothing better to do with their lives than troll the intertubes and insult others.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | November 23, 2009 8:36 PM

Patricia asked:

Lion - How many times today have you been told you're a moron?

I don't imagine that, based on the intellectual capacity he's displayed in his postings, Lion can count that high.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 23, 2009 8:44 PM

The moronic and sophomoric Lyin' Lion still has the delusion that we care what he thinks. He can't even produce any physical evidence for his imaginary deity, or any holy book not being mostly myth/fiction. He is just a total loser from the get go. Lyin' Lion, we respond only to hard evidence, not bad sophistry, which is all you have. You have no honor, no truthfulness, no integrity. You are just a liar and bullshitter, and a terrible philosopher. On a one to ten scale, you offer us a minus two. If you had even an iota of cogency, you would have left a week or so ago.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 23, 2009 8:57 PM

Lion - Where is your gawd when he's most needed? Why didn't he save people during hurricane Katrina? They were up on the roof tops praying. Where was he during the tsunami? Gawd didn't save anyone, people did. You are a pathetic moron believing in Santa for adults.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 23, 2009 9:22 PM

Belief in Flying Spaghetti Monster surely does seem as foolishness to those who do not recognize its value ... This is very evident to holla the troll.
And, no, he doesn't trivialize the horrendous wrongs perpetrated by the Catholic church in history, or now ... it's just not the topic here. Makes holla the troll uncomfortable, that's all. His church cannot claim to be the protector of "life" when its hypocrisy is exposed.
Do consider that openmindedness, if truly "open", ought not to rule out the possibilty of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. When belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is grasped, it does make all the sense in the world.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 23, 2009 9:30 PM

hollahhollahme wrote,

Do consider that openmindedness, if truly "open", ought not to rule out the possibilty of a creator.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 23, 2009 9:37 PM

Do consider that openmindedness, if truly "open", ought not to rule out the possibilty of a creator.

I realize that "openmindedness" for a xtian means something different then for a normal person.

But you are wrong to think that non-believers arent open to the possibility that a higher being of some kind might exist.They just have decided for themselves that such a being is very very unlikely, certainly not needed to explain life the universe and everything, and if it was to exist it wouldnt be a white male with a beard sitting on a cloud and watching everything you do under the sheets.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 23, 2009 9:44 PM

In what then do you have faith?

Parsimony, empirical evidence, skepticism, and reason.

I'll say it again, faith makes a lot of sense, and I mean intelligent sense. I recognize how it is seen as foolishness by those not recognizing this.

That argument doesn't make sense -- if by "faith" you mean "Christianity".

If you don't mean Christianity, you need to unpack what you mean by "faith".

(Are we in for another presuppositional argument?)

Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 23, 2009 9:47 PM

In what then do you have faith?

That there is no god, no jesus, no allah, no devil. No supernatural being saves, forgives or redeems anyone. You are an ass. I mean that with all sincerity.

Posted by: Mr T | November 23, 2009 10:08 PM

I don't know about you guys, but I define faith in a creator to be something like the following:

I define a creator to be the totally awesomest sky daddy in sky daddy land.

Because I think I can imagine the totally awesomest sky daddy in sky daddy land, then it exists.

Therefore a creator exists. QED

See, you just have to be "open-minded" about it, ignore evidence, turn your head in the correct direction so your brain falls out, and it makes a lot of sense. No, not just sense, but unintelligent sense!

Posted by: L.Minnik | November 23, 2009 10:29 PM

As for the RCC, I'm currently in Poland and trust me, you don't want to let the it get to the point that it's here -
- illegal abortions (except risk to the mother's health, permanent and severe fetal anomaly, the pregnancy is a result of crime)
- limited availability of contraceptives
- 'pro-family education' for kids in school (like asking an 11-year-old to match behavior with gender on an answer sheet)
- obligatory viewing of anti-abortion graphic movie in biology class in HS
- 96% identify as Catholic (2006)
the list goes on and on...

There just has to be a point when to say - this is too much; it has to stop!

Can anyone seriously claim that the RCC isn't very active in politics in the US? After Maine, DC, this:

...in August, Cardinal Seán O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, stole a private moment with Mr. Obama to deliver the same warning: The bishops very much wanted to support his health care overhaul but not if it provided for abortions. The president “listened intently,” the cardinal reported on his blog. Bishops implored their priests and parishioners to call lawmakers. ..

Posted by: ema | November 23, 2009 11:16 PM

Ted

No need to get so discombobulated when people point out that the basics elude you. You can always rectify that. Maybe start with dictionary.com and go from there if you want to play here.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 23, 2009 11:36 PM

I'll say it again, faith makes a lot of sense, and I mean intelligent sense. I recognize how it is seen as foolishness by those not recognizing this.

(Brief personal history: agnostic/disinterested until early twenties; washed in the precious blood 1974; by virtue of not having turned off that part of my brain that notices little details and says "wtf" agnostic (but too well armed to be disinterested) again by 1978; over the years since a rapid and complete loss of faith in things that haven't been proven to my personal satisfaction according to what I know to be true about the world around me.)

When I parse your statement I can see just exactly how you came to be able to actually say it. The difference between you and people like me is that you did manage to turn off part of your brain. And I can't fault you for it, as easy as it was for me. I really do understand.

What I can't understand is how a person could manage to keep part of their brain turned off. The notion seems as probable as turning off the growth of hair or nails. Part of my lack of understanding obviously comes from lack of personal experience but I still know people who said the sinner's prayer at the same time I did; less than half still have more than a token faith. The smaller portion, the faithful, all have troubled personal lives and what seems like more than their fair share of poor luck.

It's little details like that that my brain notices and then I get to thinking . . .

Good luck to you, nonetheless.

Posted by: MadScientist | November 24, 2009 2:10 AM

@idlemind #189:

Yes, there is a procedure for excommunication. Basically a bishop (with or without prompting from a priest or any other catholic) may write to the pope to recommend that X be excommunicated for reasons Y1 .. YN. The bishop then receives an official letter declaring that X is excommunicated. I would be surprised if excommunication were not used exclusively as a tool of coercion; it certainly has been in all cases that I am aware of - there are quite a few relatively recent (past 20 years) cases. For the last 100 years being excommunicated hasn't been so bad for people - for the most part they can get on with their lives. Historically that was the end of any career and business; enormous bribes had been paid to the catholic church to overturn excommunications. Even today there are countries where public servants can lose their job if they dare upset the catholic church. The Spaniards even have a peculiar expression of doubt: "not without the power of the catholic church".

Posted by: Cimourdain | November 24, 2009 3:49 AM

A little blatant heresy might be enough to get them to help Kennedy escape fully from the clutches of that cult.

This might be inspiring or principled if it weren't for the fact that P.Z. completely wimped out at the time of the cartoon crisis. I guess there are limits to heresy...

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 24, 2009 6:26 AM

Lion, if you pretended to be an atheist, you would last about 3 posts before we realised you weren't meaning it. Although you know what they say...fake it till you make it!

I'm confused why we need "faith" in things anyway? I expect certain things ot happen but thats about it.

Every cell in your body is "alive". When you scratch, you kill cells. Scratching is a type of abortion. Slippery slope and all that.

Thing is, if you make abortion illegal, it still happens, just illegally. It is a necessary evil. You can scream and cry and villianize it all you want but it doesn't change the fact that our biology is physically based. With all the shit that comes with that.

Christians need to stop fretting over what "should be" because frankly their ideal isn't even human or the least bit interested in humanity.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 24, 2009 6:51 AM

The notion seems as probable as turning off the growth of hair - Crudely Wrott

Oh, I'd managed that over most of my head by my mid-twenties!

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 24, 2009 7:02 AM

There is also a possibility that my long lost uncle left me £27 million,/I> - 'Tis Himself

I dunno - uncles, eh? They're like socks and biros! I've lost five altogether, two of them before I was even born, and now have only one left.

Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz | November 24, 2009 8:54 AM

Of course no Pharyngula discussion about the RCC can go without the prescriptive fatwa envy by some enraged theists.

Well, they can keep dreaming as they are never going to get back the power they had during the Dark Ages when they imposed their dogmas with steel and fire.

And anyway, they are, as usual, wrong. Why is it that no theist seems to be able to check the facts? It's so easy to do in cyberspace. Is it laziness, incapacity or hubris?

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 24, 2009 9:06 AM

-Back hair on the other hand, underrated.-

Its more an aquired taste ;)

Posted by: Spidergrackle | November 24, 2009 11:46 AM

I also got threats to send me poisoned wafers from a few good Catholics

Which itself is highly ironic, since according to Catholic doctrine, adulterating "The Sacrament" with a poison would be as serious an abuse as anything you could conspire to do to it.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 24, 2009 1:50 PM

I replied to your comment, but my reply has been send to PZ for moderation. I fear I am in trouble for my godly witness. Perhaps I will be banished to the dungeon.

Weep, brother, for God has forsaken thy comment – PZ gets loads of spam that's being held for moderation, and has no time, so he just deletes it all. Post it again in several parts so you get around the limit of 2, 3, or 4 (varying with the weather) links per comment.

I'm not quite sure what a "churhc" is

An abomination somehow connected to the Austrian xenophobic politician H.-C. "HC" Strache.

I could just pretend to be an atheist in here so I can post pharyngula blogs and not get banned

Read the list of High Crimes and Misdemeanors; being a Christian is not on it. In fact, the first-ever Molly winner is a confessing Christian.

Is it only the communion he can't have? Is he still supposed to go to confession?

Yes. This is also what happens to people who got divorced (completely irrelevant according to the Church, because there's no such thing as a true divorce) and then married again (adultery, because the previous marriage has not been and can never be divorced, see above) – a very, very common occurrence over here.

That is false. Unique it is.

Unique? Then how many is "it"? At that stage, individuals can split and merge. That's how identical twins, triplets, etc. etc. come to be.

Is every armadillo quarter-unique, because every armadillo belongs to a litter of identical quadruplets?

A woman asserting that nobody else has any say in what she does with her body is undermining the logical rights of women to be supported during pregnancy by – loving spouses, partners, government welfare agencies, charities, etc.

I don't understand.

I know the place where they get the communion wafers used in RI.

But there they're not consecrated yet.

Do consider that openmindedness, if truly "open", ought not to rule out the possibilty of a creator.

"Rule out"? What about just not needing that hypothesis to explain anything?

There is a possibility of a creator. There is also a possibility that my long lost uncle left me £27 million […] A certified check for £27 million would be convincing in either case.

LOL! Day saved! :-D

96% identify as Catholic (2006)

Nowhere near all of those actually go to church, though.

The catholic him or herself alone is responsible for determining whether he or she is eligible for communion. No Bishop can make that determination.

On which planet? See above for remarried divorced people.

This might be inspiring or principled if it weren't for the fact that P.Z. completely wimped out at the time of the cartoon crisis.

Huh?

And if you're right, what about the Great Desecration? That wasn't just the cracker, it was the cracker, pages from an English Koran translation, and pages from The God Delusion. PZ apparently didn't know that translations aren't acknowledged as the real thing by most or all Muslims…

Every cell in your body is "alive". When you scratch, you kill cells.

Wrong. The entire outermost layer of the skin is dead – several layers of dead cells. Living cells are too delicate to be directly exposed to air.

Posted by: Fabric Softener | November 24, 2009 7:46 PM

I see that someone ( Cath the Canberra Cook) is quoting that evil facist bastard karl marx. His name and his teachings should be buried with his evil facist followers and never heard from again. This facist freak has caused mankind plenty of trouble. He is in hell right now screaming for mercy. He brought it on himself.

--------------

Loc,

Actually I an not a catholic, so your list would not affect me. Ha ha!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 25, 2009 1:59 AM

I see that someone ( Cath the Canberra Cook) is quoting that evil facist bastard karl marx. His name and his teachings should be buried with his evil facist followers and never heard from again. This facist freak has caused mankind plenty of trouble. He is in hell right now screaming for mercy. He brought it on himself.

Someone needs a history lesson on Communism and Fascism.

Posted by: anonymous | November 25, 2009 11:28 AM

So What is the Bishop to do with All the Pro Choice, Tithe Paying Members NOW.? Restrict All of Them. How about those that had abortions or participated in them? Don't Ask, Don't Tell.!? Is there really any other way to be a Catholic.?

Posted by: Lou | November 27, 2009 4:35 PM

This is a politically motivated action to intimidate a politician into supporting a position on a political issue opposed by the church, abortion rights.

No, this is a morally motivated action, to state publicly that a politician may not stand by while a moral

A little blatant heresy might be enough to get them to help Kennedy escape fully from the clutches of that cult.

Wow...is this liberal tolerance in action?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | November 27, 2009 4:55 PM

No, this is a morally motivated action

When did the Catholic Church ever concern itself with morality?

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 28, 2009 12:17 AM

So...basically this is a banal church bashing blog....giving into uneducated fears and misunderstandings?

No, it's a pro-science anti-superstition blog. We prefer educated fears and understandings.

Posted by: Mr T | November 28, 2009 2:43 PM

Ah....so anyone who believes in God is simply superstitious, huh? That rules out an awful lot of people in the world.

Is "God" supernatural? If so, then it's a superstitious belief. If your "God" is supposed to be natural, then it would be possible to give empirical evidence for its existence. If you have none, but believe anyway, then it's a superstitious belief.