Pharyngula

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 30, 2009 1:40 PM

At least he's quite definite that you have the right to free speech, including the "cracker incident."

But only if you don't actually use such a right. That seriously calls such rights into question.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Gus Snarp | November 30, 2009 1:44 PM

Why is it that no one recognizes what you really did by "desecrating" the cracker? Knowing full well the level of hate and the threats of violence that would come your way, you chose to "desecrate" the cracker, thereby drawing all of that hate away from the poor kid in Florida who was being attacked and took it on yourself. One might even call such an action Christ-like.

Posted by: Def-Star | November 30, 2009 1:49 PM

Hey PZ, it looks like they have a poll, too:

"Supreme Court won't hear appeal from girl who was punished for talking about religion in graduation speech.
Should religious speech be allowed during high school graduations? "

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 30, 2009 1:53 PM

Yikes... what a rambling, fact-deficient, long-winded, pointless, defensive, silly piece of hate-mail, printed as an editorial.

Other than his obvious mis-representation of the "crackergate" incident and clear ignorance of the events leading up to it, there's nothing really of any substance in that fetid piece of tripe to even argue against.

Seems like an awfully big soap-box to be standing on for such an "obscure village".

I'm reminded of the old Calvin and Hobbes adage " 'I'm significant'... cried the dust-speck".

The entire first paragraph as nothing more than a self-created "penis-size contest" claim.

I'm guessing, however, that PZ could probably fairly easily dispute his "obscure village" claim by showing him just one of the residual checks received as a result of site visits... just show him one... not even the largest one, really... in true "Penis-size contest" spirit, just take out enough to win.

Posted by: Greg | November 30, 2009 1:57 PM

I always find it odd that the majority of the times I see the incident of crackergate retold in the MSM, they always seem to omit two pertinent, contextual details: that the 'desecration' was reactionary to Catholic insanity, and that the Eurcharist was not the only thing disposed of.

I dunno about anyone else, but omitting those tid bits seems extraordinarily dishonest to me.

Posted by: Upliftingmofo | November 30, 2009 1:59 PM

I love how the "Live Free or Die" poster is displayed just to the right of this article, and then below the following text:

"NOTE: Our View editorials uphold a proud tradition at The Gazette of advocating individual freedom, constitutional law, faith, and limited government. Editorial opinions have no connection with The Gazette’s news division, and do not express the views of all Gazette associates."

So he can say anything he wants, but if you desecrate a CRACKER you're in trouble? The insanity of this world astounds me.

And I LOVE his comment about how they are specially trained to handle the crackers - talk about the Emperor's New Clothes!

"And if thine Cracker toucheth the ground, thou art to flagellate thyself 5 times - neither 4 nor 6 times shall thou flagellate thyself, and definitely not 3, but 5 times wilt thouest flagellate thyself."

Really I just wanted to use "flagellate" in a comment.

Posted by: Alan | November 30, 2009 2:00 PM

If PZ is causing this editorial writer to get his sanctimonious panties in a bunch, PZ is definitely doing something right.

Perhaps PZ can be nominated as the patron saint of logic, reason, and the right to free expression ....

Posted by: Holytape | November 30, 2009 2:02 PM

Blasphemy gets you nowhere. Now, let me tell you how evil these other relgious are...

Posted by: Lola | November 30, 2009 2:04 PM

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, I mean altar. This wafer is the same material that those great candies were sealed in. They were multi-colored sprinkles sealed in a flying saucer and I think they were called flying saucers. As a matter of fact, I think both these products are based on science fiction. Remember when idolatry was taboo? Well, this sure sounds like a case of idol worship. It's like a statue, a stand-in for the real thing.

Posted by: blf | November 30, 2009 2:05 PM

Greg@10, Don't they (USAIan MSM) also tend to ignore or dismiss the amount of hate mail et al. Pee Zed got; and that (as far as I know), all of it came from known, suspected, or self-admitted adherents to the We Hide Child Molesters, Officially, Church?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | November 30, 2009 2:05 PM

"For those unfamiliar with Catholicism, the Eucharist is a consecrated communion host. It is the religious community’s most sacred object, handled in the church only with methodical reverence by those who’ve been trained.

Right. Perhaps they should talk to some real, honest Catholics, if any exist. As a former altarboy, I'll say that when you can't even sit down in church without genuflecting first, the term 'methodical reverence' loses more than a little meaning.

But we have been forewarned about the Myers of the world.

I'll say this for the mythologised Jesus: he successfully predicted that his followers would be so full of sanctimonious hypocrisy that they're barely tolerable by any other than their own. Score!

I wonder if the first law school professor to make an 'ambulance chaser' joke to his class should similarly be considered messianic.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 30, 2009 2:10 PM

Also, there is a poll on that web page that needs some thoughtful attention: "Supreme Court won't hear appeal from girl who was punished for talking about religion in graduation speech" "Should religious speech be allowed during high school graduations?"

I wish there were an option for "this is a poorly worded, badly misleading question".

I'm all for a person expressing their religion in a speech given to a class... they can give thanks to god, alah, buddha, whatever... even state that they could not have achieved their success without god, in their belief. Yes, even at a public school. However, this is clearly not what this girl did.

What she did was first, in fine christian fashion, lie to school officials about the content of her speech, which fist had to be approved. She did not recite what she gave them, intentionally. Then she gave a speech, acting as a representative of a public school, advocating christianity and proselytizing to a captive audience at a public school. This is clearly more than simply a "religious speech". And it clearly violates the separation of church and state. Furthermore... she was not denied graduation... her punishment was to write a letter to parents informing them that her views were of her own personal nature and did not represent the views of the school.

There's a reason the Supreme Court is throwing out the case... it has no merit.

Of course it's much easier when you have a religious agenda to just simply fucking LIE and misrepresent the truth by leaving out context and detail and simply profess "this poor girl was PUNISH-ED for DARING to speak of RELIGION at her graduation speech!"

God I fucking hate religion.

Either way, the pole is shit and should be skewed on principal alone, despite the lack of an accurate response.

Posted by: Endor | November 30, 2009 2:15 PM

Wow. If this : "You claim that Christians are trying to push their morality on everyone. Why aren't you complaining that non-Christians are trying to push their immorality on everyone, then? Do you not realize that the ball is served in both courts?

Do you think that only non-Christians should have the right to stand up for what they want or believe in?

The right to petition is for all, not merely the select few that you agree with. If Christians can't have the right to "legislate" then neither should non-Christians."

Is the apparent intelligence level of the Colorado Springs Gazette reader, then I think its safe to say "yeah, don't think I'll be moving THERE."

Posted by: Lana | November 30, 2009 2:21 PM

"Little" Paul? Now I've never had the pleasure of meeting PZ in person yet, but I don't think he's a little guy. Not that there's anything wrong in that. If you're going to go with a disparaging nickname, at least it should be accurate.

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

What kind of "newspaper" is this, anyway?

The kind that decides what to print based on how many copies it will sell. In that way, it is different from precisely no others.

Posted by: PlaydoPlato | November 30, 2009 2:24 PM

Here we go...

Revenge of the Son of the Night of the Living Dead Cracker... Talk about a gift that keeps on giving.

It happens that I just read another article about the Catholic Crimes(TM) in Dublin before reading the excretory stylings of this Colorado Springs kook. In light of the Catholic church's rich history of child rape, I'm amazed that anyone can still work up any sympathy for that Citidal of Pedophiles.

Side Note: I was at the movie rental store last week and happened across Angels & Demons. According to the blurb on the DVD cover, the Illuminati tries to destroy the Catholic Church. So we're supposed to feel bad about this? We're supposed to root for Tom Hanks as he tries to prevent the destruction of the Catholic Church?

I actually burst out laughing at that point. I mean, WTF planet is Dan Brown from anyway. Might as well make a movie about the Illumunati going after NAMBLA... probably elicit just as much sympathy.

Posted by: Jordan | November 30, 2009 2:28 PM

"For those unfamiliar with Catholicism, the Eucharist is a consecrated communion host. It is the religious community’s most sacred object, handled in the church only with methodical reverence by those who’ve been trained."

I thought the most sacred object was young children "handled in the church only with methodical reverence"? I guess I was wrong.

Posted by: qwertyuiop | November 30, 2009 2:31 PM

Good job tsg

Now to fix the answers:

Yes. The Supreme Court should have protected this girl's right to free speech and to proselytize in school. However free speech only applies to her religion and nobody else's, especially not to the devil's minions, atheists.

No. Separation of church and state forbids promotion of religion in state sponsored schools.

I'm too much of a coward to be honest about what I believe.

Posted by: flyonthewall | November 30, 2009 2:36 PM

I loved the last line

Take down these putrid videos, before they turn YouTube into a digital sewer.

what's the phrase that comes to mind. oh yes...

that ship has sailed bro!!!

Those "blasphemous" videos are merely golden nuggets - "the corn" if you wish. The undigested "kernels of truth", in what is the collective verbal diarreha of mankind.

Posted by: Kraid | November 30, 2009 2:45 PM

*applause*

I don't know how you do that, Cuttlefish, but please don't ever stop. :)

Posted by: Joffan | November 30, 2009 2:47 PM

Lana

If you're going to go with a disparaging nickname, at least it should be accurate.

Posted by: ERV | November 30, 2009 2:50 PM

... went viral, much like a flu virus...

--ERV, a virus

Posted by: blf | November 30, 2009 2:52 PM

I don't know how you do that, Cuttlefish

Tentacles on the keyboard, I assume.

but please don't ever stop.  :)

Seconded. And thanks!

Posted by: Lyle | November 30, 2009 2:55 PM

I posted the following as a comment to Mr. Laugesen's rant...

Mr. Laugesen has decided to take the moral low road by starting his rant with a derogatory nickname for P.Z. Myers, i.e., "Little Paul". Mr. Laugesen either does not know the whole story of Dr. Myers and the Eucharist, or he chose to ignore the fact that it was in response to a student being assaulted, in church, during mass, by catholic church goers, because he did not eat the cracker right away. After that incident, people started calling for the student to be expelled or worse. The student even started getting death threats from those fine religious people because he didn't return the cracker he was given. Dr. Myers got involved to show that those people were overreacting. A cracker, no matter what superstitious mumbo-jumbo was recited over it, is not more important than a person's life. So Dr. Myers did NOT initiate the fight, that was done by the catholic church goers who assaulted the student and those people who sent death threats to the student. Dr. Myers actions were a response to the actions against the student.

The fact that some people hold a cracker sacred does not obligate everyone else to do so.

Mr. Laugesen does not understand the concept of free speech. First, we do not protect our free speech rights by choosing not to use them when someone else might be offended. It is the offensive speech that needs the first amendment protections, in fact, the entire purpose of the first amendment is to protect speech that others might find offensive. Second, the first amendment protects free speech from the government taking action against the speaker. For YouTube, or any other non-government entity, to decide not to carry someone's free speech is not a violation of the speakers free speech rights, no matter what the basis for their decision. People have the right to free speech, not the right to an audience for that speech. YouTube can pull any video they choose, for any reason, or without a reason.

I would guess that the code of conduct of the University of Minnesota Morris applies to faculty conduct in representing the University, and is not meant to apply to matters where the University in not involved. Otherwise, the code of conduct would be in violation of the First Amendment rights of its faculty. The University, being a part of the state government, is bound by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (because of the Fourteenth Amendment).

It appears that Mr. Laugesen’s rant was inspired by a mentality that religion must always be respected and must never be questioned. He has the right to his own opinion, but the days of unquestioning respect for religion are quickly coming to a close, and none too soon.

Posted by: Tyler | November 30, 2009 3:06 PM

I stopped at "Though mostly forgotten..."

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 30, 2009 3:11 PM

Lyle #48,

Dr. Myers actions were a response to the actions against the student.

Endor #26,

If this [insanity not shown] Is the apparent intelligence level of the Colorado Springs Gazette reader, then I think its safe to say "yeah, don't think I'll be moving THERE."

Posted by: Peter G. | November 30, 2009 3:13 PM

On the plus side there is little chance of a diseased pig being turned into bacon. It's always nice to be right side of the food chain.

Posted by: BpB | November 30, 2009 3:17 PM

#49:
I agree. I currently live in Colorado Springs. It has both beautiful scenery and people. The ugly ones hang out on the north side around the American "Vatican City" of Focus on the Family. Talk about your village of idiots. There are a great deal of good rational people all around but are often shouted down by the Xians.
The Gazette is an odd paper very influenced by the right wing-nuts of C Springs.
PZ please keep up the good fight. Some of us fight in the "lions den" on a daily basis but we are slowly getting through at least to next generation.

Posted by: Joe Bleau | November 30, 2009 3:29 PM

This is my favorite quote from the dreck that is this joke of an editorial:

Instead of engaging in dialogue, and challenging a religious belief they don’t like with their own reason and logic, they choose hurtful confrontaion[sic].

This is what the religious (and their faitheist fellow travelers) will never, ever get - challenging religious dogma with reason and logic is a lot like trying to put out a grease fire by throwing water on it. Based on previous experience with fire, you might be excused in thinking that it's a good thing to do, but try it once and you'll quickly learn that this kind of fire ain't like those other kinds...

Posted by: blf | November 30, 2009 3:37 PM

So you're saying you're a cannibal?

I understand the cracker is supposed to be the flesh of bozo who got himself nailed to a tree several millennia ago. I've no idea how they keep the flesh edible, or why they make it into crackers, but, yes, eating such crackers is cannibalism.

Posted by: Ed Kohler | November 30, 2009 3:40 PM

Wow, you've sure gotten some traction out of your Eucharist action. Or is it people who continue to use it as fodder for columns who've gotten the most traction?

Posted by: daveau | November 30, 2009 3:41 PM

...has no claim to fame beyond an infantile expression of bigotry that went viral, much like a flu virus.

It went viral, like a virus? Terrific simile. Pure friggin' genius. Pulitzer, please.

So now I'm tempted to make some desecration videos for YouTube.

Posted by: Joe Bleau | November 30, 2009 3:49 PM

My second favorite part of this piffle is his analogy of using the Second Amendment to illustrate how some rights become threatened when abused. Let's see: when someone "misuses" their right to bear arms, any or all of the following things might result: property damage, minor injury, grave injury, death. When someone "misuses" their free speech rights by mocking religion, people's feelings get hurt. Yet, to the theologically blinkered, they pretty much feel like/amount to the same thing.

Sadly, this dunderhead and his ilk will forever remain too dense to appreciate the sheer deliciousness of the way in which they continually prove the very point that P-Zed was making with his little passion play.

Not to mention, it really pisses me off when people who fancy themselves as arbiters or gatekeepers of patriotism, freedom, and "rights" nonetheless fail to grasp the simple fact that it is one's support of rights, especially when they are "misused", that proves one's commitment to the principles enshrined in the constitution.

What whiny pissy little cowardly milquetoasts they are...

Posted by: nick.t. | November 30, 2009 3:51 PM

"For those unfamiliar with Catholicism, the Eucharist is a consecrated communion host. It is the religious community’s most sacred object, handled in the church only with methodical reverence by those who’ve been trained."

with a few quick changes:

"For those unfamiliar with plumbing, the plumber's snake is a consecrated professional implement. It is the plumbing community’s most sacred object, handled in the workplace only with methodical reverence by those who’ve been trained."

It all makes sense. And believe me, a plumber's snake does more good for communities than a whole sacred bakery full of hosts.

Posted by: konopelli | November 30, 2009 4:01 PM

It's a fucking crust of matzo.

even they don't revere the brittle, tasteless things til they're "consecrated" by their priests.

Before that you could feed 'em to birds for all the mumbo-jumbo harm it would do.

yes mishandling their token does represent a certain disrespect for superstition, but frankly i don't regard that as a bad thing.

or as the priests say, if it offends you, offer it up in sacrifice...

at least that's what they usta say...

Posted by: Joe Bleau | November 30, 2009 4:11 PM

Josh @69,

Aye Caramba. Dude has gone Full Metal Godwin on us. Then he drops this little nugget:

I hate playing the Hitler card, and it's almost never appropriate. But when someone on this forum characterizes more than 1 billion Catholics as comprising an "immoral, unethical cult," it seems more than an appropriate context for the comparison. Little seeds of hatred lead to big acts of destruction.

Right, Wayne. Your repeated invocation of the word "Jewry", the obvious relish with which you are savoring the word, letting it roll around your palate - it's pretty clear how much you hate the Hitler card. You poor little man - I hope you have some extra-strength mouthwash handy to rinse out the distaste!

Oh, and another thing: little seeds of willful pig-ignorance and unblinking dogmatic adherence and obsequiousness to stale ideas that are several millennia past their shelf-life have also been known to lead to some pretty big acts of destruction.

Posted by: konopelli | November 30, 2009 4:17 PM

The poll is as dishonest as the column.

Should religious speech be allowed during high school graduations?
Yes. It's a free country. The Supreme Court should have protected this girl's rights.
No. Free speech has limits, and this girl broke the rules.
Undecided.

Freedom is NOT the 'right' to impose one's own superstitions and delusions upon one's fellows, regardless of whether they are of the same persuasion as the speaker because the speaker is discussing "God."

and: It is NOT limiting free speech to forbid such an imposition in a public, non-sectarian forum like the graduation ceremony at a public school...

Jesuitical sophistry, and I don't mean that in a good way...

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 30, 2009 4:17 PM

"Little Paul" did the dirty deed some 16 months ago and it's just now got the this bozo's attention? I'd think Colorado Springs was back in the early 19th Century, before telegraph got to the region, but Laugesen has heard of YouTube.

Posted by: pwned | November 30, 2009 4:21 PM

You got yourself PWNED.

" Myers initiated a fight, by committing a hateful act, for no reason other than to indulge an expression of his own disrespect and intolerance of others. This puts him in company with a teenager in Greece who urinated on a Holocaust memorial last year and posted his act on YouTube. Just like the teen urinator, Myers went out of his way to antagonize, disrespect and insult a demographic he dislikes."

Other than your minions who follow you blindly and clamor at every opportunity for a photo with you, your the same as that teenager.

Your minions have certainly kept your 15 minutes of fame going.

Posted by: Chester Burton Brown | November 30, 2009 4:29 PM

In my own experience, people tend to focus on the "tone" of an argument only when they have no other leg to fall back on. It is, in effect, a thrust of last resort.

Similarly those who spend more time expounding on how they feel insulted or disrespected by an argument than they do counter-arguing with support for their points.

These straws are grasped at when no truly cogent reply is available.

Yours,
CBB

Posted by: Carlie | November 30, 2009 4:32 PM

Interesting - I asked him for his sources on the accusation of everyone lying about the death threats, and he's conveniently ignored it in his latest comment. Typical. So is this paper a real newspaper, or is it some privately-owned conservative rag?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 30, 2009 4:34 PM

#78

Umm... was that quoted for inaccuracy, doofus?

If the "demographic" he was trying to insult was essentially all persons who hold any objects as more sacred than human life, then yeah... he nailed it (pun most definitely intended)... I'm guessing, though, that his this loser's persecution complex has a pretty catholic fixation.

Did you read the post that PZ wrote surrounding the incident, and the "desecration", puddin?

Nooooo... of course you didn't... which is why you don;t know what else was "desecrated" along with the silly cracker... just like the craptacular failure who wrote this "editorial".

Your cannibal worship is stupid... your treatment of a piece of bread as "sacred" is stupid. Now you and the friggin author... grow up and get over it.

Posted by: The Clapp | November 30, 2009 4:36 PM

> insists on addressing me as "Little Paul" throughout

He called you "Little Paul" twice and "Myers" 10 times. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Joe Bleau | November 30, 2009 4:37 PM

@78

d00d, wat a 1337 h4x0r ur!!!!!!

So up on the modern lingo, these kids!

Posted by: Thorne | November 30, 2009 4:46 PM

Wait, PZ has acolytes?

No, no... common mistake... PZ has ACO lights.

They're not cheap, but they do help keep his parking lot well lit, and well drained, apparently. I have no idea why he even has a parking lot, of course...

So he has someplace to park his acolytes.

Posted by: tsg | November 30, 2009 4:48 PM

I can't be bothered to read the comments over there. Has any of them threatened to wipe his ass on somebody's mother's picture yet?

Posted by: Yahzi | November 30, 2009 4:59 PM

Did he ever respond to the question of cartoons in newspapers?

I mean, clearly, if PZ's cracker attack was unacceptable, then printing pictures of Mohammed is unacceptable. Right?

BTW, in my religion it is unacceptable to *not* post nude pictures of Allyson Hannigan in every newspaper column. So would somebody please let the editor of the Gazette know, and tell me when they've finally stopped insulting my sacred religion.

Posted by: Nastasie | November 30, 2009 5:05 PM

@RevBigDumbChimp # 53

And we're all sycophantic. And sophomoric, let's not forget.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 30, 2009 5:08 PM

pwned pwned itself with comment #78.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 30, 2009 5:16 PM

insists on addressing me as "Little Paul" throughout

Well, you are kind of short...

Posted by: Minion099339 | November 30, 2009 5:19 PM

I wonder if you can get gluten-free Jesus?

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | November 30, 2009 5:25 PM

blf @ 60:

I understand the cracker is supposed to be the flesh of bozo who got himself nailed to a tree several millennia ago.

Posted by: DJ | November 30, 2009 5:32 PM

Unsurprisingly, in the exact same way as the right wing conservatives leave context behind and engage in pure hyperbole, this unoriginal editorial manages to mangle the whole story of the crackers.

It is really pathetic that these misdirections and outright lies are taken as gospel by those who take the gospel seriously. Apparently if you are an atheist who is vocal you are a brainless follower of the tentacled one. PZ lead us, PZ protect us, PZ eat us last...

I'm really starting to dislike these fools.

Posted by: Randomfactor | November 30, 2009 5:41 PM

This is the complete list of all the victims that PZ and his evil minions have caused:

- Beginning of list.
- End of list.

I think the god of the gaps fits in nicely between the two, no?

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 30, 2009 5:46 PM

Minion099339,

I wonder if you can get gluten-free Jesus?

Posted by: Josh | November 30, 2009 5:51 PM

He is the former editor of "Soldier of Fortune" magazine...

Oh. He was one of--them.

Posted by: Qwerty | November 30, 2009 5:54 PM

Over and over the author says we should respect each other and he demonstrates this by calling PZ "Little Paul" and comparing him to a pig.

Can anyone say inconsistent?

That said, two posts at the Colorado Springs Gazette amused me. One was from a former alter boy who says he regularly stole Eucharist wafers and snacked on them on the way home. Another post say this probably wasn't sacriligious as these wafers were probably not consecrated yet.

As a former Catholic in the post-cracker gate era, I've noticed that the "faithful" have always taken the word of an atheist that the cracker he desecrated was consecrated when in actuality I don't think this can be proven.

Yes, another amusing post-crackergate incident.

Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 30, 2009 5:56 PM

So is that all you've got to read when you live in Colorado Springs? Poor people...

Posted by: DJ | November 30, 2009 6:04 PM

What can I say for myself but I am curious to watch everyone else be eaten first!

I don't want to muster up the energy to do much more than mildly dislike these people... hopefully it won't backfire on me. I can see it now, they will come for me with torches chanting teabagger slogans and prayin' to Palin.

Maybe I should be more upset.

Posted by: tsg | November 30, 2009 6:16 PM

As a former Catholic in the post-cracker gate era, I've noticed that the "faithful" have always taken the word of an atheist that the cracker he desecrated was consecrated when in actuality I don't think this can be proven.

One of my favorite bits about Crackergate was the odd believer wandering in wanting proof that it was consecrated. I could only laugh and say "you're learning, grasshopper."

But of course most of them were only too willing to believe it had been because then they get to be persecuted. And outraged. Can't forget the outrage.

I swear, some people aren't happy unless they have something to be really angry about...

Posted by: SteveM | November 30, 2009 6:21 PM

Myers initiated a fight, ...

There is the lie. As others have already noted, the "desecration" was a response to a hateful act, it did not initiate it.

Posted by: Eric R | November 30, 2009 6:32 PM

Wow. So there other people in Colorado Springs who read this blog (other than those I told to read it)? It would be nice to meet some like-minded people here.

Less surprising is that such drivel would be published in the Gazette.

This is an ultra-conservative area. Not only do you have Focus on the Family and New Life Church, but the city has fully succumbed to the tea-bagger mentality. People are so anti-tax that they don't care about the effects on essential city services or the local school districts.

Posted by: tsg | November 30, 2009 6:35 PM

For those of you unfamiliar with Catholicism, the Eucharist a cracker made from the Holy Grain, crushed and pulverized between common stones, sullied and contaminated with heathen ingredients and burned in an unholy fire which a devil in a robe waves his hands over mumbling an ancient curse. This, they believe, causes it to turn into the flesh of a 2000 year-old dead guy, which they then eat in ritualized cannibalism.

Millions of pounds of the Holy Grain are defiled each week in a brazen display of sacrilege for no other reason than to express hatred and revilement of the Wheat Worshippers. Now, they are well within their rights to do this, but they should be drawn and quartered and the pieces jumped up and down on until they've had enough.

Posted by: eyesoars | November 30, 2009 6:41 PM

@111

The Gazette would have difficulty endorsing a wild-eyed liberal like Barry Goldwater. Even John Birch might be a little far left. Except that he was a foreigner and never accepted Jesus into his heart, Attila the Hun would have gotten a ready endorsement.

Both Denver papers (when the Rocky Mountain Times still existed) regularly referred to Colorado Springs as "staunchly conservative Colorado Springs".

Posted by: No BS | November 30, 2009 7:27 PM

Sacred wafers at $11 per 1000;

http://www.kingdom.com/Communion-Wafers-Cavanagh-Communion-Breads-p/rcwcwa.htm

Not a bad price, I wonder what they taste like with cheese whiz....

Posted by: SakanaUshi | November 30, 2009 7:44 PM

Someone should get ahold of another consecrated wafer and a fistful of regular ones, and then challenge all the outraged Catholics to find the jebus cracker.

Wait, what happens if they consecrate the same cracker twice? Does it turn into Super Jebus Cracker X? Does it toggle its jebushood, turning it back into a cracker? Or does it remain a little slice of jebus?

Man, cannibalism is confusing.

Posted by: Sepia Latimanus | November 30, 2009 7:59 PM

Oh PZ, why didn't you just engage in dialog?

Posted by: glory whore | November 30, 2009 8:26 PM

I think PZ is a first class glory hound.

All of this attention he gets from the teenagers and pseudo intellectuals in their first year of college who worship him, he eats it right up.

PZ seems like the kind of guy who would get excited at the prospect of telling a bunch of 5 years olds that Santa isn't real and they're all deluded fools for having believed in the first place.

PZ Myers, a real winner. * roll eyes*

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 30, 2009 8:58 PM

Note to self: If I'm ever in the mood to get satirically slammed, nudge Smoggy out of somnambulance.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 30, 2009 9:07 PM

shorter glory whore:

blah blah blah blah blah

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 30, 2009 9:14 PM

Dearest Glory,

Speaking of embarrassment, would you mind not doing business on the front porch? Every bum in town is lined up outside with his nickel waiting for his ten minutes. When I asked them what the hell they thought they were doing, one old fart told me he'd joined the 'Glory Hounds' and he was waiting his turn with the old bitch. I don't know why you can't call them all Johns, like the other whores do.

Posted by: glory whore | November 30, 2009 9:16 PM

Batzrubble OM4Jesus;

I bothered to read your bizarre post. Get psychiatric help you sick fuck.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 30, 2009 9:22 PM

Dear Glory Whore, my love,

You never used to talk to me like that! Why the anger? Whatever happened to, "Oh Yes! Oh, YES!, Smoggy! Smoggy! You know I love a threesome with a sheep!"

And, might I remind you, that that was AFTER we got psychiatric help!

Might I also remind you that you christened yourself "Glory Whore" and went touting on Pharyngula for business. Someone who gives it out so easily can't complain when they get it back with interest.

Yours in sick fucking
Smoggy

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 30, 2009 9:33 PM

Glory Whore,

The first lesson of Pharyngula is "when you're in a hole, stop digging."

Posted by: Laurie | November 30, 2009 9:42 PM

Colorado Springs has got to have the slowest dial-up in the world if the editor of the local paper has just noticed Crackergate. Maybe they'll do a story about lolcats sometime soon.

Do you think the eucharist fits the Atkin's diet?

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 30, 2009 9:51 PM

Ho ho ho! Between Cuttlefish, Smoggy being called a "sick fuck" by "glory whore" and 'Tis telling "glory whore hole" to stop digging, this is a AAA thread.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 30, 2009 10:10 PM

Gus Snarp @ # 4: Knowing full well the level of hate and the threats of violence that would come your way, you chose ... drawing all of that hate away ... and took it on yourself. One might even call such an action Christ-like.

It is a testament to our esteemed host's para-divine forbearance that you weren't banned for that one, Gus.

Gus?

Gus?

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | November 30, 2009 10:27 PM

Ouch. "Diseased pig"?

Please be careful, PeeZed. We'd for Ken Ham to sneak up on you to rape you, as he's wont.

Posted by: Anti-theist | November 30, 2009 10:46 PM

OMG LOLROMFArollerCOASTER

Hold still piggie as we remove the illness of atheism

http://www.coldtruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/swab_pig.JPG

I think Jesus gave us the swine flu because of non-theism. I am going to hafta google Pattie Robertson and see what he has ta say on this subject. If I find any evidence of this I will be sure to destroy it!

Posted by: BBCaddict | November 30, 2009 11:28 PM

Roh-ROhh! They be citin' teh LAW! I'm so scared!

Yawn
Why is it "hate speech" only applies to religious bullcrap when theres one HUGE hate speech outlet (Focus on teh Famblee) right in Colorado!
Oh right...

Posted by: Joel | December 1, 2009 12:12 AM

Nick.T@147:

Funny, how you so-called Christians always turn to science in the end. Did throwing holy water and brandishing a crucifix.. gasp, horror.. NOT WORK?

Not only that, but as of 5:44 PM, Professor Myers has not even been smited by the hand of god for his unholy crackercide!

You would naturally think he would be upset at the blatant blasphemy, but you would be mistaken. That must have happened on his golf day.

Posted by: Wayne Laugesen | December 1, 2009 1:00 AM

Re: "I now want a 'Little Paul' P-Zed bobblehead doll that has a karate chop cracker-destroying arm movement."

Can I get one? In fact, PZ, may I get your permission to market those?

Re: mostly pointless (well, other than its demand that we censor youtube)

Let's be real, PZ. The editorial asked that YouTube censor YouTube, not that "we" censor YouTube. Big difference, can't you see?

I agree, lots of fun.

Wayne Laugesen
editorial page editor
The Gazette

Posted by: nejishiki | December 1, 2009 1:26 AM

The comments section of that article is suffering from an infestation of Internet Lawyers. Priceless!

Posted by: jakc | December 1, 2009 2:18 AM

Wayne, what's next for the Gazette? An editorial condemning cartoons of Mohamed?

Posted by: Rorschach | December 1, 2009 4:01 AM

The Gazette editorializes frequently about various religious beliefs, including atheism

Not-stamp-collecting and all that.

Posted by: scooter | December 1, 2009 5:39 AM

Wow that guy is on the cutting edge of the News cycle.

CGM3@45

Wait, PZ has acolytes?

You will know them for they are anointed with specks, and those specks are the holy spittle.

Those of monkey are winged, and those of tender years are juvenile.

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

All this talk of pig and going viral. If the Eucharist were a bacon slice instead of a cracker the whole thing would be more convincing, and also if the blood of jESUS were lettuce and tomato, we'd probably all be cATHOLIKz

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | December 1, 2009 8:31 AM

Gus Snarp | November 30, 2009 2:19 PM

The kind that is going broke:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iiVzAbjB16b6HWyqMeNHwi6fuTngD9BV1BTG1

Every now and then, the "invisible hand of the free market" gives the "Do what sells" crowd a well earned wedgie.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 1, 2009 8:50 AM

Rev. BigDumbChimp @ # 53: Minions or sometimes, horde.

Also jumping swarming legions.

Posted by: Joe Bleau | December 1, 2009 10:43 AM

Those two links provided by Wayne Laugesen are actually pretty interesting - I'll summarize in case y'all don't feel like rewarding his rag with the linky love...

The second one is basically a decent riff against those vile "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8" t-shirts. He's reminding people that imprecatory prayer isn't all that loving and Christ-y. Which, of course, is the only reasonable position to hold unless you are batshit crazy and/or a raging asshole, but maybe that's what passes for a courageous position in Col. Springs these days. So kudos, at least, for that.

The first one is IMO the interesting one. Basically, he says that a) the high school student who ad-libbed her graduation speech to include some old fashioned witnessin' probably shouldn't have done it, and b) the Supreme court is possibly not wrong, and might even be right, in rejecting her lawsuit, and c) the school handled the situation badly by creating a big fuss, allowing the girl to fashion herself as a martyr, and d) it's silly for schools to try to enforce restriction on the content of graduation speeches; kids should be free to praise whoever they want.

Honestly, I was with him up until d), although he is being quite naive if he thinks that gentle disapprobation would have been any less of a fuel for the fires of the histrionic drama-llama martyrdom junkies of a certain Christian stripe. She's probably just working herself up into a frenzy to combat this year's War on Christmas.

But I'm really curious how he squares d) with his previous op-ed excoriating PZ, and his fine whines about how Youtube should censor content that is critical of Catholicism. This baldfaced inconsistency (and especially his loathsome comparison between PZ and the Nazis) to my mind serves only to justify PZ's tone and tactics. Too many people in America live in a self-imposed bubble, where they can hardly even conceive of the danger presented by the granting of special sanctified privilege to certain types of religious expression. They only recognize the hurt and the threat when the expression is aimed at them, and then happily head back into their bubble to provide aid and comfort to the status quo, and even pat themselves on the back as they do it for being so nice, polite, and ecumenical. Being polite and nice ain't gonna penetrate their bubble. Being rude and mean might not, either - but it's certainly a valid tactic to try.

Well, in any event, thank Zenu that our founding fathers understood the danger of smug sanctity enough to put the establishment clause in the Bill of Rights...

Posted by: BAllanJ | December 1, 2009 11:22 AM

I don't know if ERV (#44) is going to come back to this thread, but if she does, I want her to know that at least somebody got her adaptation of Marshall McLuhan by way of Woody Allen.

lol

Posted by: cag | December 1, 2009 1:46 PM

The ironic part of this to me is that atheists are much more likely to read a newspaper than fundies. If there were more atheists then newspapers may not be failing as frequently.

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 1, 2009 5:15 PM

-The ironic part of this to me is that atheists are much more likely to read a newspaper than fundies. If there were more atheists then newspapers may not be failing as frequently.-

Given the quality of the average newspaper, the cost to get the paper up to meet our journalism expectations wouldn't be worth it.

Posted by: PhilB | December 2, 2009 7:45 PM

*Sigh* Unfortunately, that editorial is a pretty good representation of Colorado Springs.