Dale is a boys name.

It pains me to disagree with you in any way, ERV, but "Dale" is also the name of Flash Gordon's girlfriend, and she's definitely All Woman.

LOL Dude, its just a Firefly joke :P

Dale Evans

I'll show you I've got girl parts...

well, not really, since I'm a boy, and thats Terry with a "y" thank you very much

The article both invokes the Courtier's Reply (PZ doesn't know enough about the deeper mysteries of religion) and it also manages to be pretty damn dishonest about the whole Expelled fiasco, making PZ into a stalker to boot (he hunts down Mathis at public gatherings!).

part egotist, part bigot -- his behavior is clearly designed to insult, hurt and intimidate

Takes one to know one.

Thanks for the link to the reavers article, my favorite part is how it ends...beggin for money!

You'd think thier god could provide, they keep claimin he does, and yet I've yet to see any religious group not beg for money..

Ahem... That is Dale "O'Leary"!!!???!! Oh Noes!

We must do everything within our power to make sure that they are never in same city on the same day, or we will have a cosmic catastrophe! (Although she couldn't POSSIBLY be a more catastrophic writer than Denyse.)

ps: Please! No more sad stories about Arnie!

Yeah, well, guess what 'Catholics'. PZ hasnt raped a kid. Not even one. Hes still better than you.

The majority (99.99%) of Catholics haven't raped kids either. Using your shoddy line of argumentation, since a few female teachers have been guilty of hooking up with their male students ... men are better than women. Makes sense, right? Nope, and neither does your comment.

Yes, Dale is a boys' name, a girls' name, and MY name and I'm quite proud of it!

TomJoe, you are not used to ERV's brand of sarcasm, are you? Find yourself an easier target before you embarrass yourself too much.

his behavior is clearly designed to insult, hurt and intimidate Catholics

I don't get that. It's just a cracker.

I honestly don't see how Catholics could be insulted, or hurt, or intimidated when all they have to do to remove the insult/hurt/intimidation is to believe that the cracker in PZ's hand is, indeed, just a cracker.

But they demonstrably get insulted or hurt, even though obviously not intimidated. (Intimidated people don't make death threats.) I'm guessing it's because their priest/authority figure told them to be... if their witch doctor had told them to laugh they'd have laughed instead. Which means that the persons causing the feelings of hurt were the Catholic leaders, not PZ.

Remember Roy Rogers and Dale Evans?

Regarding that cracker: As any fool can plainly see, it started out as a cracker at the cracker factory. During the ceremony it was changed into human flesh by a magic spell. If the conjuror didn't like what the kid did with the crispy flesh chip, he should have cast a spell to turn it into something else, like the Pope's anus. That would really have fixed PZ's wagon.

Again the Christofascists frothing at the mouth and misrepresenting the truth. Lying for Jeebus all over again. These freaks have no morals.

Ooooh! A link to the very handsome "Evilutionary Biologist"!
;-)

Jayne was my favorite character. We could use Vera right about now!

Looks like TomJoe got butthurt by a relatively mild sarcastic jab from Abbie...yeah, he's not gonna last long around these parts.

That Myers has the equivalent of a junior high school education in religion is glaring. He understands little about the history and function of the Catholic Church and even less about the place of the Eucharist in the lives of Catholics. When I told him that many have laid their lives on the line to protect the Blessed Sacrament, he recoiled in disbelief, saying, "Really? People really do that!?"

There was so much in that article that made me laugh my butt off I wasn't sure where to start. Anyway, once I collected my thoughts, I settled on the paragraph above.
Let's think a little about the history of the Catholic Church. Here's an organization that has through its history managed to relieve the credulous poor of what little money they had in the interests of the Church's own aggrandisement, institutionalised sexism and homophobia, frequently (and sometimes viciously) resisted the advance of scientific knowledge, protected paedophiles so that the "moral" authority of its clergy wouldn't be challenged, opposed the use of barrier contraception and thereby condemned thousands to HIV/AIDS... Need I continue? PZ understands the history and function of the Catholic Church all too well, which is precisely why has has such contempt for it.
I'm an escapee of Roman Catholicism. My liberation occurred shortly after I had my first mouthful of the "Body of Christ" (which, by the way, tastes suspiciously like A FRACKIN' CRACKER, and crappy one at that). The obvious nonsense of this and the glaring internal inconsistencies of the Bible were what got me out. I can assure you there really is nothing worth knowing the Eucharist beyond that fact it is nonsense.
My last gripe: how dare the half-wit who wrote this article - a person who freely drapes himself in patently foolish superstition that shields him from understanding the very real wonders of the natural world - accuse a scientist and educator of PZ's standing of lacking education?

Looks like TomJoe got butthurt by a relatively mild sarcastic jab from Abbie ...

I didn't know we were posting for points. At any rate, if Abbie is writing for a clique, which knows of her trend to sarcasm, so be it.

I couldn't bring myself to read 'The Dignity of Women'. It seemed like some over-intellectualised tosh designed to apologise for (or distract from) the fact that the Catholic Church has spent years ensuring that women remain second class citizens. I was reminded of an incident a few years ago involving a devoutly Christian couple with whom I was friends. The guy had been at church and someone had helpfully given him some magazines that who surely delight his beloved...

It didn't turn out so well. I only remember the title of one of the magazines - 'Woman Alive' - but I remember the reaction well. Needless to say she was horrified, as were those of us there to witness the event. My well-meaning but utterly misguided guy friend was at a loss to understand why his girlfriend was so taken aback.

Fortunately, however, he learnt the error of his ways and they are now very happily married... (They're still big-time faith-heads though - you can't have everything.)

Oi! You are unfairly maligning the Reavers. At least when they rape you to death and eat your flesh they do not claim divine dispensation for it.

Tom-- When one is claiming to be The Moral Authority(TM) of everyone and everything within this universe... when one is attacking someone who did something they, personally, found distasteful... it is best one doesnt belong to an organization that supports/encourages the raping of children.

Im just sayin.

So when are you moving out of the USA, Abbie?

I think the issue is a bit more complex than the cavalier manner in which you speak of it. Because some individuals acted like scum of the earth, doesn't mean that the rest of the members should be tarnished with that same brush ... especially when they advocated for the strict punishment of the offenders. That doesn't seem to matter much to some though I suppose.

*waits for the fanboys to chime in*

Tom-- When have I claimed that the US is The Moral Authority(TM) of everyone and everything within this universe? When have I claimed that those who live in Sweden are 'part egotists, part bigots -- their behavior is clearly designed to insult, hurt and intimidate United States citizens' when they point out the US is not The Moral Authority(TM)?

Do you think I would stay in Sigma Xi, if it came out in tomorrows newspaper that they encouraged the raping of children?

Do you think I would ever speak Richard Dawkins name again, if it came out in tomorrows newspaper that he encouraged the raping of children?

I dont want my name associated with that shit. Some people dont have that much self respect. To each their own. But they cant ever claim moral superiority over me. Ever.

I don't ever recall reading that the Catholic Church encourages the raping of children. I do recall a number of priests being total scum, but I also recall that their numbers run pretty much similar to the general population, which basically tells us that, as much as it'd be nice to believe these men can stand above such reprehensible behavior, some of them slip through the efforts of the Catholic Church to weed them out of the seminary. Just like the State of Florida seems to have a problem keeping a number of their female teachers from sleeping with their male students. The whole "Moral Authority" argument is a smokescreen which allows you to attempt to eat your cake without looking hypocritical.

As a Catholic, I don't want my name associated with pedophiles and child abusers, and I don't think my name is, whether or not you believe your red herring ... regardless of whether or not a few members of the Catholic Church turned out to be scum.

A very curious article. The writer gave PZ ample space to explain himself without slashing and burning like the Expelled producers did, and yet still couldn't really come to terms with the fact that PZ was making perfectly reasonable arguments. He reminded me of MC Simon Milligan from Kids in the Hall, trying to point out how evil he and Manservant Hecubus were, and making himself look sort of silly and hysterical in the process.

At the end of this November I mark six years of faithlessness and apostasy from the RCC. I'm glad to see myself being proven right.

I don't ever recall reading that the Catholic Church encourages the raping of children

By having church authorities with an official policy of covering up the crime and buying off the victims and witnesses it encourages the problem. Too bad you don't understand morality enough to understand the rot starts at the top.

The problem isnt a few 'bad apples'. The problem is, there was (is?) a concerted effort, encouraged by the Vatican, to keep child rapists safe. Not the children of the Church, nono, the rapists.

Meanwhile, the Vatican calls me a murderer for taking birth control. Tens of thousands of people attacked PZ for not respecting crackers. The Vatican refuses to support condom use in Africa. etc. etc. etc.

You bow to that. You would kiss the Popes ring.

And youre surprised when people vomit?

Tommy, it's actually pretty simple: the Catholic Church not only shielded child rapists but shuffled them around to other dioceses, thus putting them in a position where they could sexually assault more victims. Voluntarily giving your assent to such an organization revokes your credibility when preaching about morality.

And btw,...

*waits for the fanboys to chime in*

Preemptively dismissing any counter-arguments you may receive on a public forum doesn't make you any less of a moron.

I love coming to science blogs where Browncoat jokes/references are par for the course. Keep it up.

And Tom? Seriously? You don't think that the RCC is associated with child abuse? Wow, where've you had your head buried for the last 20+ years?

I should make the following in my above post more explicit:

Voluntarily giving your assent to such an organization revokes your credibility when preaching about the morality of cracker abuse.

I've got to chime in and add to the point that TomJoe seemed to miss.

150 years ago, the Catholic church used to drum priests out of the clergy when they did something as despicable as abusing a child. It was official policy to get rid of them and hand them over to secular authorities.

When that policy changed to a system of cover-ups and denial, any right to the moral high ground was lost.

I've always thought the Papacy could have avoided a lot of trouble back in 1059 by not forbidding the clergy to marry.

The problem is, there was (is?) a concerted effort, encouraged by the Vatican, to keep child rapists safe. Not the children of the Church, nono, the rapists.

I have seen no evidence indicating that the Vatican encouraged several American bishops to make seriously bad decisions (i.e., Cardinal Law), unless of course you're arguing guilt by association (which you shouldn't do). I'm of the mind that those priests who were rapists should be handed over to the law, prosecuted, and thrown in jail, for an extremely long time. Also, that the Bishops who allowed such behavior to persist should be removed from their positions ... which is basically what has been happening. Was it handled properly? In many instances, unfortunately, no. I don't intend to sit here and become an apologist for the priest scandal, I just think it's shitty to pull out an appeal to emotion to slander every Catholic ... which is what started the whole issue. You seem to be content defending that decision ... so be it.

Tens of thousands of people attacked PZ for not respecting crackers.

Tens of thousands? Come on, exaggerate much? I think PZ was pretty stupid for what he did, and criticizing him isn't an "attack". Not unless of course, if you want to start labeling all criticism as "attacks".

Those who issued death threats? Idiots, every one of them. But I doubt they numbered in the tens of thousands.

The Vatican refuses to support condom use in Africa.

Ah, this old canard. So the Vatican preaches abstinence and monogamy. You have to give me the fact that obviously people in Africa are ignoring the monogamy message, but then expect me to believe that they're listening to the Vatican when it says not to use condoms? That dog simply isn't going to hunt for me, sorry.

So you think that the Catholic Church should lower it's standards? That'd be sort of like watching Science and Nature drop the need for peer review.

And youre surprised when people vomit?

I ceased, long ago, to be surprised when people do anything. It's the age we live in I suppose.

Can I say that both sides are wrong?

The original cracker thief was clearly and intentionally being an asshole. If you don't want to take part of the Church's silly ceremony then either just sit quietly not taking part or leave the church. It really that simply, not to mention common decency.

That being said the Catholics really went for one of the most nasty and stupid overreactions that I have heard of in a very long time. The priest should asked the cracker thief not to come back until such time as he could behave. If he persisted ask the police to remove him and get an injunction barring him from the premises. If they want go to small claims court to recover the cost of one cracker then fine, but that is the most they are legally and morally entitled to. And make it clear that no follower is to take any action beyond that. After all: WWJD?

Then PZ comes in. If he would have merely pointed out the obvious (it is just a cracker) then that would be swell. But he decided to be an asshole as well. He knew that offense would be taken and intentionally stirred up Catholic anger. Naturally just another round of stupid Catholic over reaction occurred. I am still wondering what PZ was thinking? If he really want to convince people that no religion is the way as opposed to merely grandstanding to his own choir then he would persistently reminded people that it was a cracker, pointed out that the Catholics were in a massively stupid and hateful overreaction, and not taken actions to make nonbelievers look like smug jerks.

As for the Catholic priest child abuse thing. No the Church was not intentionally trying to abuse kids though its actions certainly resulted in abused kids. No what they did was one of the oldest of institutional stupidities around: they covered up. They did not want to admit that a priest could go bad and thus the many cover ups over the last century. It certainly shows that the hierarchy cared more about their reputation then about their followers' kids. The sad things is that I really don't think the damage would have been all that bad and virtually no one would have blamed if they immediately turned over a bad priest to law enforcement. That way no other persons would have been harmed and would have set an example for any other bad priest. What happened to the Catholic Church is what will happen to any organization that tries to cover up bad deeds of its members without imposing appropriate consequences. Many people will tend to do things that they want to do if they think they can get away with.

To bad the Catholic Church did not have leadership moral enough to knew that the cover up was wrong. And leadership wise enough to know that the cover up would eventually backfire in a way many times more harmful to the church then the mire revelation of a few bad apples. Too bad there does not exist something that inspires those leaders to be moral and wise. You know, like say...a God.

Ok TomJoe, so you apparently think that the abstinence message of "don't have sex", and the "don't use a condom", are equally hard to follow for most people in Africa? And you're pretending to be rational?

Here's a little newsflash: most people want to fuck, and it's going to take alot more then some priest to stop them. Using or not using a condom tends to be alot more of an open question.

If Dale Evans had died before Trigger, would Roy Rogers have had HER stuffed and mounted, instead?

I think the main point is that the money and time the Roman Catholic church is spending (wasting) on the whole abstinence/monogamy story would be put to much better use on REAL education and making condoms availiable or even helping to provide anti-retrovirals for everyone.

This is an old debate, just like how time and time again it has been proven that the 'abstinence-only' method of sex-ed doesn't work in the U.S. Except in this case you're trying it in places where HIV infection rates are at 30% of the adult population. Completely irresponsible.

You mean, like this? Detailed here, with another article here.

Come on, this is old news. You're going to have to do better than that. Sheesh.

@a lurker: No, both sides 'weren't' wrong. There was no "original cracker thief" There *was* the original guy who wanted to show his seatmate what the host looked like. There *was* the lady who physically assaulted him for not consuming it right away. There *were* the psycho-nutjobs who sent him death threats for not eating it right there and taking it home instead. There was only one side in this entire sordid affair that was in the wrong. The RCC and its cannibalistic minions who believe that the host actually turns into the flesh of Jesus after a spell of trans-morgification er.. sorry. a blessing, is said over it.

The current pope is known to have written a letter which encouraged the cover-up of rampant child abuse by the clergy. The fact that he was selected as pope with this background shows, I think, the level at which the rest of the RCC hierarchy is concerned with this abuse issue. That is either none at all, or that they condone the cover-up of abuse.

Here's a link for information about the letter I mentioned in my above post. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection Some key quotes show that Ratzinger stated that the Church had "jurisdiction" in cases where a minor had been abused by a priest. For 10 years... For ten years AFTER the child turned 18 that is. Talking about an abuse case is subject (in the letter) to excommunication because abuse cases were declared a "pontifical secret".

Seabhag, by your own version of events (which are no doubt true) then the cracker thief was indeed a thief. That cracker was not freely given. It was given in exclusively to people who have agreed have a communion. No one forced him to get in line to have a communion. And no one forced the guy to take the stupid cracker home. Remember when in Catholic Church you have, by simply being there, agreed to live by there rules. If you are unwilling to comply: Leave. This does not simply apply to Catholic Churches (and Malcolm Reynolds' boat), but for any private space.

I don't know why you seem to be thinking that I am downplaying what the Catholics have done. Indeed if Wal-Mart had treated someone who stole a single, small small item that cost a few pennies in such a manner they would probably find themselves in a major lawsuit. So really the church got off way to easy for their asinine behavior. (Retail employees are not, as a general rule, allowed to assault someone they suspect of wrong doing for this very reason.)

The "damages" to the church was one damned cracker. And they eventually got it back after a bunch of illegal threats. But if they think that cracker is damaged, I would be more than willing to offer them a nickle so they can get a new cracker (but only if no one else already has). That the church so overreacted to the minor offense of an immature person is telling. If God provides wisdom to Catholics, they would not have acted in such a manner. This incident can and should be used as evidence of the character of Catholic faith in the United States.

That is why I would have wished that P.Z. had not decided to be an asshole himself. When the other side is issuing violent threats, the best rhetoric is not to not to try to ramp-up the hate. Their own actions shows their true nature. And intentionally trying to offend people, no matter who they are, is almost never a good idea. And in a world where most people think that non-believers are amoral, it even a worse idea. Indeed it detracts from the message: Catholics are getting violent over a damned cracker.

But that being said, being an asshole is a extremely minor offense compared to the criminal offense of threats of violence.

Uh. "a lurker" Not every RCC church requires the host to be eaten right away. Having attended RCC churches with relatives I can say from personal experience that some members take the host back to their seat before they consume it. To simply walk back to his seat before consuming it doesn't violate the host. But, remember, he was assaulted BEFORE he got back to his seat. Not on the way out. BEFORE he did anything that could possibly be construed as anything approaching 'wrong'. Remember, a member of the church seemingly acting in a position of authority assaulted him for not eating it when she thought he should (mind you, this from a member of the same church that threatens excommunication for attempting to dedicate a female as a priest). Sure he walked out with it after being assaulted. But I really can't see how anyone could consider that a theft. Especially since the a member seeming to claim to represent the church broke any contract explicit or implied by physically assaulting him before he committed any wrong.

On top of his not having been a thief, he wasn't "clearly and intentionally being an asshole." His own story was that a friend (who was thinking of joining the church) was curious about what the host looked like. I have a real hard time seeing how bringing it back to his seat to show his friend before partaking in the host could possibly be construed as "clearly and intentionally being an asshole." Physical assault? Death Threats? Attempts to fuck his education up because of malicious intent? That would be a better definition of an asshole. All of this because he wanted to help out a friend who was interested in joining the church (I'm gonna guess that he's not so interested anymore).

The reason why I seemed to think that you were downplaying what the Catholics have done was because you seemed SO insistent on making the claim that he was a thief who seemed to deserve what he got (from your paragraph in the first post claiming that he'd intended to walk out of the church from the very beginning with the host and that he was a thief). I apologize for not being able to describe what's bugging me so frelling much about your Wal-Mart analogy as I'm about 2.5 sheets to the wind and my logic processing facilities seem to have shut down.

Of course this is all perspective, and without audio/video/neural evidence displaying exactly what everyone was thinking/did we will ALL have different perspectives on what we are hearing 2/3/4th hand. Part of my personal bias is that having come out of a VERY fundamentalist upbringing I instantly suspect any Christian (Catholic or not) of deceit and lies unless convinced through their actions that I should think differently. So, I'm very apt to disbelieve any claims made by the Catholics in this case; and attempts to place a person that I see as having been wronged by the Catholics in a position of having committed a crime rubs my sense of justice the wrong way.

As far as PZ goes, I thought what he did was needed. The outcry it caused made even my fundamentalist parents pause and think about the whole situation. Which I hope will in time weaken their hard-line (nearly Dominionist) philosophy.

Seabhag: Double Standard much?

You: His own story was ...

You: I instantly suspect any Christian of deceit ...

So, the Catholics shouldn't instantly suspect someone of improper practices, even though that individual was clearly acting unusual* ... yet you sit here and pontificate? That dog isn't going to hunt either. This is clear proof of the "Do what I say, not as I do." attitude which plagues most self-righteous individuals.

*It doesn't matter what some Catholics do in parish X, Y or Z ... if the Catholics in parish A have been doing it a specific way for decades. You know, that whole ... "when in Rome" thing. If you deviate, it's not too hard to figure out someone might question you as to why you've deviated. Especially when the matter is perceived as a very important one (and whether you like/agree about it or not, Communion is an important issue for Catholics).

Seabag wrote:

Not every RCC church requires the host to be eaten right away. Having attended RCC churches with relatives I can say from personal experience that some members take the host back to their seat before they consume it.

The proper communion protocol is to consume it right away. The fact that some people don't eat it until later doesn't mean that the RCC officially sanctions this practice (which it does not).

TomJoe: That individual wasn't 'clearly acting unusual'. That was the point of my entire post. You make the claim that if Catholics in parish X, Y, or Z have been doing it one way he should do it the same way. But I've seen in parishes where it ISN'T consistent. One person takes the host back to their seat to meditate on it, another consumes it right after being presented with it. For all we know he could have come from a parish similar to what I've experienced, and if he is like some of my Catholic relatives. He doesn't consistently attend Mass, so he might not have known what the 'norm' there was.

That said, because of my lack of trust of Christians I should have applied it to Cook as well; as he is (supposedly) a Catholic. But, given the level of rancor spewed against him by Catholics I'm more likely to believe his story then theirs. (It's like that puzzle with the two people, one who always tells the truth and the other who always lies. Except in this case we don't know what the individual will do. But know that the trend for the hive-mind is to lie if it benefits them.)

I don't get where you guys see anywhere in this story that he was 'clearly acting unusual.' Maybe it's the lens you observe the world with that makes you think the Catholics who sent the death threats and the member who assaulted him were in the right? I'm all about individual liberties to do what one wants as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Taking the host back to your seat to show a friend shouldn't hurt (physical harm, offense doesn't count or nothing would every get done in the world) anyone. Physically accosting/assaulting someone does count. Attempting to get him kicked out of a state university for perceived insults or slights (that haven't harmed anyone) counts as harm in my book.

As far as self-righteousness goes. I know I don't always get everything right. It's why I'm an agnostic-atheist instead of a Christian. At least now it's okay to admit that my position and view of the world was wrong if I'm presented with good evidence. The environment I was raised in was one in which there was no possibility of compromise; because that would violate the interpretation of the Bible held by the cult I was raised in. Most of the Christians I've meet (living here in the Mecca of the Assemblies of God I meet a LOT) are quite arrogant and self-righteous because they 'know' they have all the answers. But they blind themselves to reality and insist that scientists who don't specifically agree with the Bible are liars, immoral, and only looking for a reason to deny the existence of God so that they can 'sin'. I even get this from my parents to this day (me their eldest son, and a scientist-in-training). So, if I appeared self-righteous I apologize, I didn't mean to come across as such. But I can't fully take back what I said without evidence it is wrong. (Hopefully I clarified my view on such that you can understand why I have it. However, I also know I'm a horrific communicator; as words do not come easy to me, so I probably made my reasoning as clear as mud. For that I do apologize because it's something I'm still working on.)

I get pissed off when people try to defend the Catholics who have done massive wrong in this case and try to make Cook look like some evil host-desecrating Jewish (apologies to our lovely hostess) criminal. Even if he had done something wrong by taking the host back to his seat (I can't imagine how that could be wrong but let's assume). Does that really, truly justify the level of hate that has been directed at him? I thought Christians were all about love? My observations of the Christians in America seems to be that they love the hate-filled god of the OT, and forget the teachings of Matthew 5. You know, things like "Blessed are the peacemakers for the shall be called the children of god." or "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." Or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." How about the Scripture (can't quote it off the top of my head sorry) where Christ tells his followers to turn the other cheek? I know Matt. 5 says that Christians are blessed when they are reviled and persecuted. But it does and and says "for righteousness sake." I think the reviling and antagonism directed at the Catholics in this case isn't a matter of it being for righteousness sake. It's because the people who sent in death threats, and attempted to get the university to expel him were acting like complete and utter tools. If Christians want to claim the whole "Reviled and Persecuted" title that they'd better act more like the guy who supposedly told them that, then acting like the OT god(s?) and seeming to love a good round of plagues and atrocities.

Adrienne: Mine you I've never seen the official RCC protocol for host consumption. I'm only speaking from what I've observed first hand. Yes, I know anecdotal evidence isn't good for making final conclusions. But it does help to inform those I'm talking with of what my experiences have been and in turn how I view the situation. Our experiences shape our perceptions. So for me the perception is that taking the host back to his seat wasn't out of the ordinary, and was instead intended to be a helpful gesture to a friend.

TomJoe #38

You mean, like this? Detailed here, with another article here.

All these links show is that the rcc is willing to spend millions comforting people infected with a disease when they could help prevent the spread of it by just saying, "It's OK to use condoms." For free. If they did both, THAT WOULD BE INSPIRING. I don't see how this is in anyway a display of compassion or a morality one should follow. Jesus might have been compassionate enough to sacrifice himself for our betterment, like Socrates, but none of his churches seem so inclined.

Back to the cracker, from My Fox Orlando (the site that PZ got his info from)it is clear that the mass was held on campus at UCF, a state university. This isn't a case of someone going to a church and dissing a sanctified space, but of a church coming into a secular space (to I guess promote themselves) and then being surprised that someone didn't take their woo seriously. What do they expect? And quite frankly, it doesn't matter to me if it was a church on the campus. It's a state funded school, a church has no business there in the first place. I would like some clarification of the issue thu.

As for PZ mistreating a cracker sent him: BFD. We no have proof that this cracker was blessed by a cracker, and therefor sacred to the rcc, or if someone sent him a cracker that was just a cracker: PZ did not offer the providence of the cracker, if he even knew it. Some people are offended by that, but that's going to happen in a pluralistic society. I'm offended by the christian insistence that I warrant eternal torture for not agreeing with them. Should I demand that they all be removed from their jobs? If anyone's faith can be shaken by a nail in a cracker, how strong can that faith be? And if they followed the teachings of their perfect person and kept their religious expressions private, we wouldn't have these dramas. As far as I've witnessed the religious pacifier is bad for the moral teeth.

TomJoe being an idiot:

Ah, this old canard. So the Vatican preaches abstinence and monogamy. You have to give me the fact that obviously people in Africa are ignoring the monogamy message, but then expect me to believe that they're listening to the Vatican when it says not to use condoms? That dog simply isn't going to hunt for me, sorry.

It's not that people are ignoring the Vatican's message, you lame twit, but that the Vatican would put out such an idiotic message in the first place. The sex drive of human beings is simply too strong to expect most people to ignore it forever! And I sincerely consider most of those priests and bishops who took vows of celibacy to be hypocrites. It's all an illusion, like most of religion itself.