It actually feels kind of good, considering that my job is secure, and that these critics are looking increasingly rabidly insane. I just sit back and watch their hysteria grow. Case in point: Rod Dreher, who seems to be crawling the walls and screaming right now. In his 'review' of the desecration issue, nowhere does he mention the cause: the violent over-reaction of Catholics to a student in Florida walking away from Mass with a communion wafer, and the subsequent uproar calling for expulsion and punishment from Bill Donohue.
His parting shot to believers: "Nothing must be held sacred."
He doesn't believe that, of course. The hateful Dr. Myers and his spittle-flecked supporters insist that their right to profane symbols that Catholics and Muslims hold most sacred is absolute and sacrosanct. To be sure, there's little doubt that what he did - obtaining a consecrated Host and a copy of the Quran and defiling them - violates no criminal statute.
No, actually, I do believe that. Nothing is sacred; nothing receives its value from an imaginary connection to a deity or supernatural force. Objects and people gain importance to us from their human connections. But yes, I insist that no one can be forced to bow down to the symbols and dogma of a religion, especially a religion to which they do not belong. Jews cannot tell Catholics that they can't eat ham, Catholics can't tell Muslims to worship their cracker, Muslims can't tell me to pray 5 times a day. When a religion oversteps its bounds and starts ordering people to respect their foolish rituals, it's time for people to step up and demonstrate that no, they can't do that. You can believe your god is a cracker in your church, Mr Dreher, but you can't tell me that I must honor your crackers in my home.
Dreher thinks this is the first step in the destruction of society.
But his audacious act of sacrilege crossed an important moral, social and psychological line, one that calls up metaphorical demons that, once summoned, are difficult to control. It is one thing to say that belief in God is foolish and wicked and that Catholicism and Islam deserve scorn. It is quite another to physically desecrate the artifacts believers hold sacred.
Talk about hyperbole…this is a classic religious defense. Why, if we don't keep cutting the hearts out of sacrificial victims, the sun won't rise tomorrow. You want the sun to rise, don't you? Throw a cracker in the trash (an act I did not consider audacious at all, but entirely trivial), and the entire social fabric will crumble! We must stop him!
It's also supremely hypocritical. Only a few weeks ago, what was Dreher saying?
If P.Z. Myers had any guts, he would put out a call for someone to send him a Koran so he could blow his nose and wrap fish in it. After all, it's nothing but frackin' ink on paper, right? So what's stopping you, Big Man? It's easy to shit on what Catholics regard as sacred. But just try doing the same thing to what Muslims regard as sacred. Let's see what you're made of.
What? Mr Dreher! I thought that physically desecrating the artifacts believers hold sacred would cross "an important moral, social and psychological line, one that calls up metaphorical demons that, once summoned, are difficult to control". Apparently, this is only true of the artifacts Dreher reveres.
Dreher is not alone. I've got way over 10,000 emails from devout Catholics shrieking the same old message — that Eucharist is literally the body of my god! You hurt me when you hurt that cracker! Here's a Koran — destroy it instead! I want you to lose your job! I want you to die! You're going to burn in hell! The monster from the id is out and exposed, and it isn't the atheists who have crossed the line.
Here's another example of an obsessed Catholic kook who has spotted a witch. He actually went through all of my posts from Spring term and noted the date and time.
When considering only the days UMM was in session for the spring semester of 2008 and cross-referencing these with standard university hours (8a.m. to 4 p.m.), during this time Myers posted 334 times to his blog. That is Three-Hundred Thirty-Four Posts! He averaged close to five posts a day to his blog during university hours. Note to the chancellor: This information was there for the taking. I did not even have easy access to his Internet records as the university does.
Now, this gets a little more interesting when looking at Myers' class assignments. Many times Myers posts just before class as well as in-between classes. Frequently there are posts during a three-hour biology lab that Myers was in charge of. Sort of, "I'll keep the students busy and post on my blog." His professional duties obvious were secondary to supporting his hobby and hate-mongering.
Oh, my. What a remarkable exercise in futility. As I'm sure all of you other university faculty know, there is no such thing as 8-4, 5-days-a-week schedule for us. I've spent many weekends and late nights with my head buried in papers; even more time in prep work for lectures, which, when you've got 8am classes, gets done at all hours of the day; and as a developmental biologist, I am at the beck and call of embryos that develop on their own schedule that isn't always in sync with mine. The university is not going to want to open the can of worms that would involve defining exactly when their salaried employees are on the clock and when they're not — if professors could bill for overtime, universities would go bankrupt.
And, I'm sorry to say, I'm apparently much, much smarter than a certain devout Roman Catholic and social conservative. I know the stats on traffic to blogs: they peak in the early afternoon, my time. I know that to maintain interest it's a good idea to have new posts up when people are looking in. And I also know how to use the post scheduling feature in MovableType to have articles magically appear without my immediate intervention at times when I am not online, such as when I'm in a lecture or lab.
I'm sorry to disillusion everyone who noticed the occasional nod to Oceania with posts appearing at 1 or 2 or 5am my time, and thought I was the Sleepless Brain, but those are scheduled, too.
Oh, well. They can keep on exposing their ignorance with their rants. I'm having a grand time, while they stare at the kerning in my articles.
- Log in to post comments
Just wanted ytou to know there are some positive "reviews" of your involvment in this whole f'd up situation.
http://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/cracker-gate-just-another-o…
And you are "spittle flecked" no less... this godless spittle-flecking is totally inappropriate
I like how he fails to mention the atheist work you also "desecrated" (although technically you can't desecrate an atheist work.....).
Oh, Ron... you had me at "spittle-flecked".
Oh, no -- I'm not spittle-flecked. It's you people.
Oceania? OCEANIA?! We have always been at WAR with Oceania!
Check to see if Mister Dreher has "Bell & Howell" tattooed on his ass, because damn if he isn't a world-class projector.
But you didn't address Dreher's suggestion; you just made fun of it. Why would you not subject the Koran to the same kind of treatment you did to the cracker? Although it doesn't affect my question, I'm a atheist and generally don't care much about religion one way or the other, as long as it doesn't get in my face. His point is easy: that you are not afraid of insulting Catholics but you are terrified of Muslims Of course that doesn't affect your basic argument, that to you, it's just a cracker; but then, too, to you, the Koran is just a book.
LOL. Thanks, Randy. dirka dirka mohammed jihad
Bob, it doesn't matter who we're at war with. just as long as we're at war.
DAMN YOU sacrilegious intellectual types and your magical time measuring devices!!
Oceania? OCEANIA?! We have always been at WAR with Oceania!
Nah, we're actually the ruling chunk of Oceania, with the former UK being Airstrip One. It's Eastasia we've always been at war with.
Gotta go, the clocks are striking thirteen...
The poster at Vive Christus Rex is undoubtedly proud of his painstaking research into your posting schedule. Although his own blog is on Blogger, which makes it extremely easy to make posts appear at specified times (by merely setting the post's time stamp), he thinks he's caught PZ working on posts during university lab hours. In a way, this reminds me of theologians: They work ever so hard to build a logical, structured argument without seriously considering the biases and weaknesses in their initial assumptions.
All fall down.
Ron, didn't you see what happened to the Koran some christer sent him? Please try to keep up with the group - the guide is the one with the tentacular umbrella.
Ron are you not paying attention?
The only bad publicity is no publicity! Soak it up, PZ. Soon there will be a piece on Fox News!
A dressing down of Dreher at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub:
Partisan says get a grip, stop religious violence; Rod Dreher disagrees (?!)
Rev BDC, what's KoT? K-nigets of Theonomas?
So much for my altar offerings to the Brain-in-the-Jar.
I had so loved the thought of a sessile deity, after a Catholic childhood of parsing the DSMish Trinity. My parents had raised in radio's heyday, which added to the muddle. Did the Holy Ghost employ a Shadow? And how did the Shadow Know?
Ron, what kind of idiot are you? Obtuse, clueless, or dishonest?
I gave pages of the Koran and The God Delusion exactly the same treatment I gave the cracker.
Wow, computers can be programmed to do things at different times. Who knew.
Ron@ #8 if you read the post about the treatment of the host you would have seen that he indeed treated the koran the same way. Along with an atheist book some hold sacred.
Post #3...
I like how he fails to mention the atheist work you also "desecrated" (although technically you can't desecrate an atheist work.....).
Posted by: valor | August 4, 2008 10:11 AM
That gave me a laugh! (As do crediots.)
King of Typos. It's necessary. I suck at the whole preview / proofread thing and I type at 1000 words minute without any accuracy.
PZ! Do not let facts get in the way of an incoherent dressing down.
Ron, this is Rod Dreher. Ron Dreher, this is Ron. I think you two might have a few things in common.
"The militant atheist photographed his sacrilege..."
If you're a "militant" atheist for merely poking a cracker, what is the term for Christians who send threats of violence and/or death in e-mails...?
I propose: "nuclear Christians"
THX Rev. Next time someone says they are king of typos, I'll be able to reply with "I've read the King of Typos. You sir, are no King of Typos".
With respect to "posting time" -- maybe someone might want to explain to Dreher the concept of "delayed posting" -- that is, write a post, then configure it to appear later, at a specified time...
As far as atheist hygiene, if everybody would stop spitting on us, we wouldn't be so flecky.
No such thing as bad publicity dept: You Tube Eucharist Challenge, mentioned in Dreher's psychotic shambling zombieRant picked up 500 hits yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq_XZuF6Vsk
What goes well with spittle-flecks? I'd like to know, in case I am someday spittle-flecked. A beard, maybe?
Other than that, let me say that this is a very, very tired issues.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Ba-duh-dum-chhhhh
Classic!
It's not magic, it's technology.
You think Ron is a...(gasp)...TROLL?
I actually wrote this comment several hours ago. It's appearing right on schedule.
Fixed that for you.
Reginald #31: This is a case where Clarke's Third Law applies. (Then again, considering people like Mr. Dreher, I begin to wonder if a *book* is "sufficiently advanced technology"...)
Another sappy and uninspired critic of a sappy and uninspired columnist. And notice that Dreher "conveniently" left out of his description of the picture Richards book page. Typical.
-But his audacious act of sacrilege crossed an important moral, social and psychological line, one that calls up metaphorical demons that, once summoned, are difficult to control. -
He means of course christian control. Absolute control of what people think and do. As far as i'm concerned a line has been crossed that should have been scuffed into oblivion long long ago.
What's a bit worrying is the willingness of believers to embrace intolerance. Historically, intolerance doesn't just stay with one set of victims, folks who get in the habit of despising one group may find adding another is easy, and so many believers have a long list of people they're sure are going to hell. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
First they came for the atheists...
Dreher is a columnist in Texas, of course. Sometimes it's humiliating to live here. We are well in the top 5 Wingnut laden states in the US.
How about "spittle-flecked, nuclear Christians?"
I'm just tossing that out there.
Harrumph! I'm almost never "spittle flecked"!
All that spittle flecking is why I have started wearing a rain coat when I come in here.
Grrr. The lesson learned from my last (@42) is that one should never underestimate the blinding speed with which comments accumulate here....
@ 23 - Rev. BigDumbChimp,
I can't let this one go. It's K-night! Not K-nigets. :-)
"The hateful Dr. Myers and his spittle-flecked supporters insist that their right to profane symbols that Catholics and Muslims hold most sacred is absolute and sacrosanct."
Shows you what these flag pin-wearin', god soaked 'Murricans REALLY think of the Constitution...
Hey, at least they're recognizing your desecration of the Qu'ran now. That's at least a little progress...
Seeing how often christians comment here that it is only because of Christianity that they aren't out raping and murdering, do you really think it would be a good idea to free them from religion? Those "demons" may not be so metaphorical after all.
You want atheism? They can't handle atheism.
How do you control metaphorical demons?
With your cyberpistol, naturally.
Every time I see someone use the 'Muricans thing I can't help but think of merkins. And then start laughing all over again.
@True Bob #6
No! We have always been at war with Eastasia. Room 101 for you.
Gotta go - got spittle on me.
Surrounded by patriotic Merkins, Bush is invisible.
Anyone know how to get spittle out of cashmere?
I am obtuse, clueless, and dishonest; and perhaps at times even spittle-flecked. I did not realize you gave the same treatment to the Koran as to the holy cracker. Apologies. Just as long as you respect the Holy Name of SpaghettiOs®, I am happy.
Ron hte utter moron @ #8:
Epic fail on your Koran envy, asshat. He DID subject the Koran to the exact same treatment as the cracker. It's in the fucking picture! So are you blind, stupid, or a liar? Or maybe all three?
I'm a bit confused here. I had got the impression from somewhere that "spittle-flecked" referred to the hapless audience being spit ON. No?
Oh great. Thanks Bob. Now the ladies across the hall came to check what that loud snorting and coughing noise was.
Isn't it revealing that this hysterical asshat neglected to mention the pages of "The God Delusion" you included in your "desecration", PZ?
Aside from that, I love the way his rage makes him stupid and inattentive enough to not notice blatant hypocrisy such as the following:
"What we are bound to do, especially in a pluralist democracy, is show basic respect for the human beings who hold beliefs we don't respect..."
Followed, a short sentence later by:
"There's something about these new atheists, for whom P.Z. Myers is a folk hero, that's profoundly inhuman."
And they wonder why we often impugn their intelligence?
I can't let this one go. It's K-night! Not K-nigets. :-)
S.Scott, I am being especially dense this morning and not cathing the joke. "K-niggets" was the way the silly french knights pronounced it before debating the lifting capacity of african and european swallows.
And I thought it was M. Night not K. Night, or is it K-Pax, or Pax Romana, ahh Ramana .... where was I? where am I? oh, never mind...
Wait... there's significance to the kerning in your articles? Dammit, I knew I was squinting at the wrong things!
And one thing needs to be made very clear: I am not now and never have been Rod Dreher, at least as far as I know.
I propose "jihadists". It seems more accurate and more likely to annoy them. It also goes well with the fatwa envy the others demonstrate.
# 53
Yeah, put nuclear weapons on both sides of it, then simmer
Ramana...Ramona...Lalla Ward...Richard Dawkins...The God Delusion...Koran and cracker. It all comes around.
...And God bless you.
Dammit. How do I get ladies across the hall?
I'm in a tomb. They don't let us see the light of day. We're like salt miners without the joy.
@ 59 Steve,
I k-now. LoL :-) You silly English K-night! Now go away before I taunt you a second time! (jk);-)
(some people just don't get the joke)
No! We have always been at war with Eastasia. Room 101 for you.
but War is Peace, therefore we've always been at Peace with Eastasia. Right?
Ron, I never said you were Rod Dreher. Just that you you should meet. But you apologized so I take back that suggestion.
By the way, check out this nifty quote of Abraham Lincoln's on the scientific method, taken from a lecture he gave on same:
OK. So this guy left out important details. His article lacks any depth of investigation into the issue. Instead, it is an op-ed article that is looking for something to get offended about in order to advance a culture war agenda.
He can make blog posts appear when he's not behind a computer! He's a witch!
#62
with a slight southern twist:
Yeee-hadists
RAmen, Janine ID.
>> Oh, no -- I'm not spittle-flecked. It's you people.
Of course you are, PZ. The vitriol in your Inbox is proof enough of that.
@ 73 - LMFAO!!
I'm not sure why I would want to meet a spittle-flecked lunatic like Dreher. It's because of people like him that I thank God I'm an atheist.
I'm doomed today.
So what I take from this is that, contra PZ, there are indeed some things to be taken as sacred--in particular, the right to free speech, seen here as the right of tenured professors to act with all of the emotional maturity of a 12-year old without having to face any consequences, despite his bosses being put into the embarrassing situation of having to find a way to defend this childish behavior. Now that is something to hold sacred!
So is what we can expect for intellectual discourse from the professoriate in the great state of Wisconsin?
or in Minnesota, as the case may be...
LOL! Fail troll is fail!
#25 @ I propose: "nuclear Christians"
Talibornagain is also used to describes them
Sam #79 - you know, I'm sure I've seen "consequences" used in the sense of "theocratic punishment I would like to inflict" somewhere before.
For those not as old as I, even in the Dark Ages known as the 1970s one could defer transmission of data to off-peak times. Wonder what the standards are for this KKkristians edumacation? Were they home skooled?
As a student at many universities, ranging from small private colleges to huge land-grant sports schools, I have yet to see any professor avoid their lab duties. Don't whine to me about furrin' TAs. You should RTFM.
I'd love to hear what your understanding of the whole incident is.
Care to give us a short rehash of what happened?
But didn't you see his point, PZ? He made it perfectly clear that it is impossible to post in MovableType at 10:43AM. What a gaffe! How were you not aware of this?
Miss Prism #83--I'm not sure that I follow you (clearly not being as bright as most of the folks posting here)--care to elaborate?
Ah, so blinded is Rev. Myers and his faithful army of acolytes that they remain unable to grasp the enormity of his actions. This despite the fact that even his own kind has started to turn him after these events -
( scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory ).
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
The numbers of heretics are growing each day as was forecast but I would urge all of you not to take refuge in the false comfort of consensus that is so apparent on this site.
Here are the analogies I developed over the course of the previous threads which will perhaps illuminate those who are not being intentionally obstinate:
1) Suppose you were a milkman with rotting teeth and cankerous lips. Before delivering each milk bottle you would take a swig and place it on the doorstep. You continued to abuse you privileged access to other people's milk for years. Then one day you decide to retire. Before you leave however, you let all of your customers know what you've been engaged in by letter while also leaving a picture of your cankerous mouth under each bottle. You have gleefully proclaimed your actions to all who will listen. No one was physically harmed and yet every customer (read: Catholic) affected feels deeply violated and abused. PZ Myers is effectively that milkman.
2) Suppose your are an embalmer. You are busy embalming a person for an open coffin ceremony and you decide to pilfer there lush locks of blonde hair for the construction of high class wigs (a business you have going on the side).
This person happens to be a Sikh. In order to hide the fact you have stolen their hair you then purchase a cheap synthetic wig and replace it. In the small print of the contract (which the distraught family don't read carefully enough) you make mention of this.
After the event you then decide to publicize this gleefully on a blog. No physical harm has been done to either person and yet I would argue that this is equivalent to PZ Myer's theft and subsequent desecration of the Eucharist publicized on his blog (of which extra web traffic generates money).
3) Young ladies like to wear an item of clothing called a mini-skirt these days. The material is often sheer and by its definition does not even come close to covering the knee roll.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniskirt)
Now if someone chooses to wear such an item it does not in the least bit make rape and sexual abuse permissible despite the fact that the odds increase exponentially. In both the eyes of the secular law and of my religion the assailants are still just as culpable.
So merely because Catholicism may seem like a remarkably soft target for PZ Myers (he has since been roped into desecrating the Koran) he is still as culpable as someone who chooses to attack say the more benign and watered down religions of Quakerism/Unitarian-Universalism.
4) Suppose you had a very sacred book outlining your philosophy on life. This book also happened to be stitched together and bound in the skin and flesh of a loved one who had recently passed away.
Now desecrating the Eucharist would have the same effect as desecrating that book and posting the evidence in glee.
A new and more watertight 5th analogy as requested:
5) I am a KKK leader. I burn gigantic crosses into the wilderness surrounding various suburbs. These crosses happen to appear behind a larger predominately black community. A history of the town is compiled and various aerial shots are taken at great expense. These are then placed in a time capsule. After burial I gleefully proclaim what I have done. No physical harm or damage has been caused and the documents in the time capsule are correctly historical. Nevertheless, the people of the community have been violated and abused. It is a hate crime. This is perfectly comparable to what PZ Myers has engaged in.
Who was it who said, "Lord let my enemies be ridiculous"?
One prayer that actually comes true...
"I propose: "nuclear Christians""
CMD? Christians of Mass Destruction? Well, okay maybe that might be misinterpreted.
Is it too much to hope that by reading all of your old posts someone, at least one, might take a step back and say, "Shit, I was wrong"...
Some of us atheists pray too. ;)
PZ wrote,
He said he was a theist, thus it's a given that all those descriptions of him apply.
This spittle flecking is inappropriate- the fleckers and the flecker-inspirers. PZ you are also guilty of causing spittle fleckification.
I call Poe on Pete Rooke.
He also proves my previous post (#89)
Pete
Analogies, you're doing them wrong.
Pete Rooke, in this country we are to respect your right to believe in stupid things. We are fully free to point out that they are stupid things.
JD, Ron already posted his mea culpa, and he wrote "a atheist (sic)".
Besides, who left the damn door open? That loony Rooke fantasist is back.
I wouldn't call the US constitution exactly sacred. It is however, far more important than your right to be a christofascist, hunting down witches and heretics, and then burning them at the stake.
These days are not kind to the wannabe Inquisition. There are still places in the world where people are stoned to death or murdered by religious fanatics. Third world hells like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Sudan. Rather than recreate them here, why don't you just move there?
OMG, #88, Pete Rooke, the cut-n-paste troll is back! Is there a special subset in the taxonomy of trolls for those who cut and paste. . . their own posts from other threads? At least three times?
Just what is it with you and rape and corpses?
>S.Scott, I am being especially dense this morning and not cathing the joke. "K-niggets" was the way the silly french knights pronounced it before debating the lifting capacity of african and european swallows.<
Tut tut sir. The French Taunters did NOT discuss the swallows (african/european), that was the two castle guards at the start of the film. The Taunters were later, at the castle of Guy De Liombard and at the end of the film at Castle Aaaargh! And it was the silly English K-niggets.
How dare you so profane the most holy words of one of the sacred movies of the Church of Python!
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
Your
Hahaha! Those young ladies these days and their mini-skirts! Exposing their tantalising knees!
And Sam - no. You'll have to think.
No, nothing is sacred. Free speech is just a really, really good idea.
If you have any more difficult questions you want answering just let us know.
Pete Rooke == Larry Fafarman?
The writing style and general obtuseness is reminiscent.
JD (Comment #92):
Er, no. Ron said he was "a [sic] atheist and generally don't care much about religion one way or the other, as long as it doesn't get in my face". (Comment #8)
He also acknowledged his mistake re PZ and the Koran in #54.
I once attracted the ire of a usenet group resident troll, who apart from coming very close to stalking me wrote a letter to the head of the institute computing dept complaining that some of my usenet posts were in 'work time' and using the university server (the idea that by carrying the group the university thought it ok seemingly didn't occur). However it happened that the computer guy and I were on good terms (I had run Mac support for our group, on an unpaid voluntary basis freeing them to handle everything else) and we consulted and he wrote back essentially making the same points PZ does. I was formally contracted for 37.5 hours per week and officially subject to the European Working Times directive to boot. Yeah right. So it was okay that I should post to a usenet group in the odd spare couple of minutes while waiting for something to cook in the lab or some such.
I was so close to going to law for an injunction...
Um, Mr. Rooke, what is a 'knee roll'? Because I don't think I have one. So is it okay if I wear miniskirts then?
Oh fuck. The nutbag Rooke is back.
Killfile engage!
Glory be, Pete Rooke is back.
Now we get more S&M porn comments!
zombie flesh crackers, whose follower's drone mindlessly never to allow a subject to die.
Big Dumb Chimp #85--in a nutshell, going out of his way to offend a very specific group who, so far as I can tell, actually did him no harm. This is something that 8th graders do, not tenured professors. It was a peevish, childish act, for which he hid behind the "sacred" tenet of constitutionally guaranteed free speech in this country. This apparently is one thing, at least, that the good Prof. Myers holds sacred.
Again, I ask--is this what we can expect for intellectual discourse among professors in this country, and in the State of Minnesota?
Dr. Myers, I'd still like to have you post those two letters you received from Catholics who decried the Eucharist fixation of the religion. Would you consider it for a future post, please?
Pete, the main difference between your analogies and what PZ did is fairly obvious:
Hurting people is different from hurting symbols.
If you don't understand this... Well, who would you save from a burning church: the people in attendance or the stack of just-consecrated wafers?
Sam, is there a way to mock something and point out what you believe is worthy of mocking without being called an 8th grader?
Rooke and his obsession with rape and corpses is clearly lacking major parts of a normal personality. I would not want to be riding on a bus with him across the prairies of the midwest.
We have found the inspiration for Hannibal Lector.
How dare you so profane the most holy words of one of the sacred movies of the Church of Python!
Geeze, it was an innoscent mistake, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition! ...
:-)
grrrr
botched blockquote tag. Should have ended at Minnesota?
KoT
Yeah, poor Pete Rooke repeats the same creepy quasi-analogies over and over again. It's as if there is a Department of Religious Ghouls Department of Redundancy Department and he's the press secretary.
Pete has issues and I'm not confident meds would help much. Perhaps Risperdal and Depakote would take the edge off.
Is it strange that the thing I find most troubling about Dreher's rant is that he's apparently a fellow frackin' Battlestar fan?
Fixed that for you, Sam.
Sam,
All this got started out of the acts of Phil Donahue and the Catholic league, who in the name of Catholics everywhere initiated the persecution of two students. This was offensive to many people, and PZ decided to "protest" against that act. No Catholics defended the students, to the best of my knowledge.
There's nothing "sacred" about it. It's a right. It should be respected. It's a purely human construct. The fact that the Constitution protects speech means PZ can face no legal consequences for what he's done. It has nothing to do with sacredness or sanctity. It's a right.
Let's put an end to this "K-night" debate!
BigDumbChimp--Yes, I read that, fascinating stuff that it was. It seems that Prof. Myers was offended by the actions of some Catholics in Florida. I still fail to see in what way Prof. Myers was harmed by this action to the point that he needed to go out of his way to retaliate. It comes across as the act of an extraordinarily immature man; as I say, something that an 8th grader would do, not a tenured professor.
And I reiterate--whether or not one agrees with the tenets of the Catholic Church, or of the responses by Catholics around the country, is this the kind of intellectual discourse that we can expect from tenured professors?
Maria:
Well, who would you save from a burning church: the people in attendance or the stack of just-consecrated wafers?
The people of course, I am not some type of psychopath that the less charitable here would have you believe I am.
@ LynstHolin
I am not your husband or father and it is not therefore for me to decide what you should wear. As to a "knee-roll" it is simply a term used on the ranch which describes a saddle device that cushions the knee.
However, I would want to remind you you of what is said in the bible:
Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
Google fails to find any part of the female anatomy called a "knee roll." It seems to be part of a saddle though, so presumably Pete is thinking of a favourite picture from HORSES IN SKIRTS magazine.
"Jews cannot tell Catholics that they can't eat ham, Catholics can't tell Muslims to worship their cracker, Muslims can't tell me to pray 5 times a day."
You drooling maroon, Jews, Catholics and Muslims actually do NOT insist on these things. What planet are you from, anyway?
Jeebus Crow, are you retarded.
Maria, that was priceless. It was BILL donohue, not Phil Donahue
Pete Rooke #88,
I'm a bit slow and have to confess I did not understand your point. Please provide another analogy, in graphic detail, for all of us to ponder. Please?
[Please feel free to use any of the following words: anal pear, chlorophilia (sexual attraction to plants), incest, foot of a corpse, Iron Maiden, interracial cannibalism, and Aztec human sacrifice rituals]
Whoa whoa whoa... wearing a miniskirt makes me the target for rape? Wow, I totally thought it only made my likelihood to be cat-called go up (along with my boyfriends libido).
On another note, it amuses me that the posting on the ViveChristusRex blog has to be monitored first before being actually posted. We'll see if my post outlining some of his many straws will make it!
Yes, when someone sees a wrong being done as long as it doesn't affect you you should ignore it.
Oh I think he made his point very well. He wanted to show the utterly idiotic and completely irrational response of the Catholics involved and the ones that found out about it.
I think he did that quite well.
@ Miss Prism
Please see my previous post for an explanation.
So if you were Lynst's father or husband, it would be your decision what she wore, rather than hers? Wow.
Can men wear miniskirts if their fathers agree? Do men have knee rolls?
There's so much to learn.
Different kind of witch hunt going on:
Merkin Terrrrsts
# 123
I hope so, but I'm an optimist.
You are making a few simple errors. Professors are not clones and, in fact, they are all individuals with individual styles and viewpoints. As far as I know, PZ is in a class by himself.
Similarly Rooke is not your typical catholic*. There probably aren't many Zombie catholics lurching around babbling about "brains", dead bodies, and rape.
*Well I hope so anyway.
@Bob: Heheh. I think I'll just change out of my miniskirt now.
Jew can eat ham? Muslims don't pray 5 times a day?
Fallacy #12: There is no good reason to ridicule another's beliefs.
Really, haven't you people come up with anything new yet?
When religion neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, I'm content to leave it alone. When it comes out of the churches raging for targets for persecution, when it demands that students who do not respect its doctrines must be expelled, when it inspires violence and death threats, then I'm afraid it is no longer an innocuous force and someone must mock and fight back...and that's precisely what academic freedom is for, to protect people who challenge the received wisdom.
The people who whimper that such action is inappropriate for a college professor are really saying that NO ONE must question their faith.
Face the consequences..? Are you suggesting that PZ should be made President?
Dav Laurel at #126:
Good luck trying to get a bacon sandwich next time you visit Mecca.
# 123
I hope so, but I'm an optimist.
Miss Prism:
So if you were Lynst's father or husband, it would be your decision what she wore, rather than hers?
I'm not a control freak and she would be free to wear anything feminine she liked within reason.
Can men wear miniskirts if their fathers agree?
I assume this is some type of perverted joke.
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."
I wouldn't worry too much about Rod as he doesn't seem to be able to settle on a religion in any case...
sorry lifted direct from wikipaedia
Raised a Methodist, he later converted to Catholicism. On October 12, 2006, he publicly announced his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy.
plus can someone explain this for me "Birkenstocked Burkeans"
Closely related to fallacy #7: respect is a human right.
Prof. Myers #139--Most adults of a certain level of intellectual maturity find age-appropriate ways to protest perceived wrongs, and to challenge the beliefs of others. Is this the intellectual legacy that you wish to leave, going out of your way to mock, rather than to engage others at the level of reason?
By the way, I did a radio interview a while back (I don't know if it aired or not), in which the radio guy tried to tell me that the host was so precious that firefighters were known to risk their lives entering burning churches to rescue it.
To which I replied with some incredulity, "You have got to be kidding me." Firefighters are important people who work to protect important things...and the church is brainwashing them so badly that they are risking death to save crackers? Burn a billion crackers before one human being is so much as singed, I say.
OHHHHHHHHH I understand now.
So you're an asshole?
Hear that ladies? Skirts only, and men, no kilts. So it is written, so it is hooey.
Sam,
In answer to the question at the end of #123, YES, it is. Now STFU, you unmitigated bore.
I assume this is some type of perverted joke.
You're the perverted joke, Rooke.
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."
You have seen the Pope, right?
I prefer "speckle flitted" instead.
Right - so you think people shouldn't even be allowed to dress themselves as they please, yet you come here banging on about showing respect for other people's beliefs?
Concern troll.
Raven:
Similarly Rooke is not your typical catholic*. There probably aren't many Zombie catholics lurching around babbling about "brains", dead bodies, and rape.
*Well I hope so anyway.
You continually mock and insult me. I understand that part of what you say may be in jest and part may be in anger but please treat me with the same respect and common courtesy I have shown you.
If you buy the party line, then Jesus had to die. His terrible, horrible, no good very bad weekend was part of God's plan. Why isn't nailing a wafer to a wooden plank part of every Easter celebration?
You've shown me no respect at all, Pete Rooke. You've said my father should have right of veto over my wardrobe.
Good job PZ. I have your back just in case some Dawkinites decide to enact some type of revenge on you for desecrating their Holy book the god delusion. Hmmmmmm, I guess I'll be waiting a long time as atheists don't seem to be as deluded as christians or muslims. Once again Canadian Atheists are proud to have you in our corner. Keep up the good work.
I wonder if Peter Rooke has ever had shellfish.
The Bible is pretty clear on shellfish: It says it should not be eaten.
Do you think he pickets restaurants selling lobster or crab ?
Hey moron, what do you call:
1. At least a hundred death threats from deranged homicidal wannabe catholics? Do you think an anonymous nut threatening to beat his brains in is benign?
2. Donohue's Catholic Inquisitors and Torture league spend a lot of time harrassing PZ and trying to get him fired.
3. Not succeeding at that, they are now publishing incomprehensible rants about something or other involving Myers.
Myers didn't get really ticked off and crackericidal until the wingnuts went all terroristic.
PZ said
By the way, I did a radio interview a while back (I don't know if it aired or not), in which the radio guy tried to tell me that the host was so precious that firefighters were known to risk their lives entering burning churches to rescue it.
To which I replied with some incredulity, "You have got to be kidding me."
I'm having the exact same reaction right now. This guy was serious?
Sam, if you read THE GREAT DESECRATION, you'll see it's exactly the kind of discourse you would expect from a rational intellectual supporter of outspoken atheism.
Where is it written that college professors have to be neutered and mild mannered on their own time?
Prof. Myers #139--Most adults of a certain level of intellectual maturity find age-appropriate ways to protest perceived wrongs...
You mean like the rabid Catholics screaming for him to be fired? You mean those adults?
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw, a thoroughly unreasonable man himself
In other news, it always amuses me when people use the bible as a way to convince non-believers of something.
Don't you understand? They don't believe in it. Repeating the things that the unicorn told you over and over isn't going to make me believe that you have a unicorn.
Prof. Myers #147 - just give them an extinguisher and let their faith in God save them from the flames.
I think I'm suffering from an irony overdose. First we have Dreher saying this:
"What we are bound to do, especially in a pluralist democracy, is show basic respect for the human beings who hold beliefs we don't respect. People don't lose their dignity because they believe implausible, even offensive, things."
Okay. Great. With you there, Rod. I do believe that, no matter how vehemently I disagree with someone's ideas, I should afford them the basic respect of acknowledging that they're still a human being.
Of course, then Dreher immediately...in the very next sentence...follows up with:
"There's something about these new atheists, for whom P.Z. Myers is a folk hero, that's profoundly inhuman."
So we need to show basic respect for human beings with whom we disagree...but, since atheists aren't really human, I guess that doesn't apply to them.
Pete, an analogy:
Once upon a time, some impoverished, primitive, illiterate subsistence farmers and other ne'er-do-wells knew this guy, and they followed himj around, like Chuck Manson. He was executed for crimes against the state.
This guy, now dead, was zombified by a witch-doctor. His followers became cannibals, inspired by the zombielicious lifestyle.
How could we neutral observers tell the difference between that insane cult, and modern devout catholics?
I'd save them with my spittle flecks.
Course, that might not be as appreciated as I might wish.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Peter Rooke,
Respect is earned. One way of not earning it, in fact of bringing about disrespect, is making bad arguments invoking even worse analogies. You did not seem to bother making decent arguments, and treating people here as intelligent. Why should they offer you respect in return ?
Miss Prism:
Right - so you think people shouldn't even be allowed to dress themselves as they please, yet you come here banging on about showing respect for other people's beliefs?
I am not asking for you to respect my faith but rather making the case that it was both criminally and morally wrong for PZ Myers to encourage the theft of the Eucharist and then to desecrate it. His actions should be treated as a hate crime.
And please note that PZ Myers did not treat Islam and Catholicism equally in that the Koran was presumably a gift whereas the Eucharist was stolen.
Rete Pooke:
What about all those old men in skirts and dresses at the Cracker Store?
Like identical twins, we feel very upset when you can't tell us apart.
Blake #156: "If you buy the party line, then Jesus had to die. His terrible, horrible, no good very bad weekend was part of God's plan. Why isn't nailing a wafer to a wooden plank part of every Easter celebration?"
If the Pope (y'know, that guy in a dress) initiated such a ceremony, Catholics would follow his orders unquestionably. Religion: it's not about reason, it's about authority.
That's why religious people tend to score highly on the right-wing authoritarian scale.
His lumping in Islam as one of the "desecrated" religions reminds me of the way Christians and especially politicians pandering to Christians talk about "our Judeo-Christian heritage." They can't come out and say what they really mean, "our Christian heritage," so they add in the "Judeo" to sound inclusive. "I'm not advocating that the government subscribe to just one religion--we'll include Jews too!"
He didn't just desecrate a Catholic symbol--he also desecrated a Muslim one! (Yes, we specifically dared him to do that to prove he wasn't an anti-Catholic bigot, but see that's... look over there!)
... whereas the Eucharist was stolen.
No, it was re-gifted. The Church hands them out as gifts everyday, so someone took that gift and re-gifted it to Myers.
@ Mr Matt Penfold
I wonder if Peter Rooke has ever had shellfish.
The Bible is pretty clear on shellfish: It says it should not be eaten.
Do you think he pickets restaurants selling lobster or crab ?
I believe that not only have I explained my ethical vegetarianism on this blog before but that I have actually had the conversation with you.
I'm not interested in reading the entire issue; I've never felt called to explain or defend faith.
I am curious about one paragraph: When a religion oversteps its bounds and starts ordering people to respect their foolish rituals, it's time for people to step up and demonstrate that no, they can't do that. You can believe your god is a cracker in your church, Mr Dreher, but you can't tell me that I must honor your crackers in my home.
If you -- or a college student -- had a consecrated host in your possession, you must have received it from its home, the Church. Taking the host from its home to yours is either theft for the purposes of sensationalizing your point or... what?
I would never suggest that I'm smarter than a certain college professor because of the way I choose to spend my time, nor am I a person who engages in hysteria or hate-mongering. I am a person who believes in the power of prayer, and you're in mine.
Must-see art, right in PZ's back yard:Vatican Splendors St. Paul, Minnesota, to Feature Rare Art, Pope Relics, and Underground Catacombs
So have PZ pressed on charges for receiving stolen goods.
How much is a cracker worth anyway? .5¢?
Matt Penfold #159,
"I wonder if Peter Rooke has ever had shellfish.
The Bible is pretty clear on shellfish: It says it should not be eaten."
My guess is he sodomizes them while whistling old show tunes and then uses that as an analogy on blogs.
Honestly, Pete Rooke is either the funniest Poe or the creepiest troll.
No you have not.
Is this your example of showing me respect ? By lying ?
Why is "militant" one of the favorite words of the reactionary right? It's kind of funny since they don't seem to really know what that means. They think that it's just someone who disagrees with what they believe in, like militant gays thinking that they should have the same rights as everyone else. Last I saw, it wasn't the "militants" threatening violence or introducing legislation to deprive people of their rights.
Pete, nothing can be desecrated. Nothing is sacred, see? So nothing can be desecrated.
Show us the crimes, man. Any evidence? And for bonus points, scale these crimes:
Theft of item w/negligible cash value, freely given away
Physical assault
Death Threat
Threat of physical violence
Creating jihad to scuttle someone's career
And really, post some evidence. Really.
Is it strange that the thing I find most troubling about Dreher's rant is that he's apparently a fellow frackin' Battlestar fan?
He didn't realise that the Cylons represent America .... :-P
Ummmm, how is the Koran presumably a gift? And yet again, PZ didn't steal the cracker. People sent him crackers. If you read his earlier posts, some Catholics even sent him crackers they claimed to have poisoned.
Pete, I've met your like before. The Old Testament is important when it gives you power over those around you, but do you follow all of it?
Do you wear clothes of two different fibers? Do you have tassels at the four corners of your garment? Do you consume pork? Shellfish? DO you shave your beard? If you don't follow these aspects of the law, please explain to me which verses are True™ and how you come to that conclusion.
"Prof. Myers #139--Most adults of a certain level of intellectual maturity find age-appropriate ways to protest perceived wrongs, and to challenge the beliefs of others. Is this the intellectual legacy that you wish to leave, going out of your way to mock"
That you choose to repeat the Immaturity argument while failing (with appropriately increased concern) to admonish those Catholics who sent death threats to the student involved reveals you own lack of maturity, Sam.
I understand that you're not going to agree with this. However, your willingness to sacrifice your intellectual honesty for the sake of maintaining the divinity of a cracker makes this lack remarkably obvious.
It's a sensational point! No cracker is sacred.
What about all those old men in skirts and dresses at the Cracker Store?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W08pTLDPEFI
"Queen, please."
"I propose: "nuclear Christians""
It's simpler to just call them crackerpots.
Quoted for the sake of my own amusement.
Don't you love it when people are inconsistent hypocrites?
I wonder if Peter Rooke has ever had shellfish.
The Bible is pretty clear on shellfish: It says it should not be eaten.
Do you think he pickets restaurants selling lobster or crab?
There's actually been much discussion on this in Christian theological circles over the centuries.
On the one hand, Jesus said straight up that he wasn't here to overturn Mosaic law or the old commandments, but to uphold them (Matthew 5:17-20), so that would indicate that the ban on eating shellfish AND PORK was still in effect.
But then Matthew later quotes Jesus as saying not to worry about whether what goes in the mouth is unclean, as it's what comes out that's unclean (Matthew 15:11). Later on, Saul/Paul would expand upon this in Romans 14:2-4.
"I would never suggest that I'm smarter than a certain college professor because of the way I choose to spend my time, nor am I a person who engages in hysteria or hate-mongering. I am a person who believes in the power of prayer, and you're in mine."
You would, however, engage in fairly heavy-handed paralipsis, apparently.
MarkW:
Would you expect to find bacon sandwiches for sale at Mecca? Does the fact they aren't cause you pain? Does that infringe upon your rights in any sense?
No sane person cares if Jews and Muslims won't eat pork, Hindus won't eat meat, Catholics and Lutherans take Communion, and Mormons abstain from alcohol. All they ask is that we respect the choices they make, a respect that I, as an agnostic, am perfectly willing to grant.
Only a drooling maroon, offended by the actions of some Catholics, goes out of his way to offend all of them.
Kari #178, I think I speak for everyone here when I say that you are in our prayers too.
Oooh, good word. It's mine now.
Shorter Kari K.:
"I'm not interested in knowing that PZ is protesting the imminent expulsion of Webster Cook from a secular, tax-funded college for the 'crime' of using a cracker to point out that a religious institution is illegally using school grounds to hold religious ceremonies. I want to save my limited capacity for empathy for wheat gluten, not actual living breathing humans."
Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT @ # 23: King of Typos.
Tremble before the might of Tyrannosaurus Rev!
From Wikipedia on the flag desecration amendment:
The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
(It is amazing that they use the word "desecration" in this amendment. Desecrate - from Webster's - "to violate the sacredness of." It is almost as if supporters of this amendment treat the concept of freedom as a religion.)
If Bill Donohue and his "ilk" think this is so all-fired wrong of PZ to nail a cracter; then, perhaps they should get their friends in Congress to propose "the cracker desecration amendment."
I can almost see it: The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of consecrated crackers.
It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the same people who find PZ's behavior so offensive would also find flag burning offensive. After all, it is just a piece of cloth.
How little did Webster Cook know the thousands of emails, web posts, and letters his little act of defiance would generate.
Part of what PZ was responding to was a physical assault on Webster Cook. That assault was carried out by a Eucharist Minister. In otherwords, an official in the Catholic Church. It was an action of the Catholic Church to assault Cook. If Catholics were not demanding she be dismissed from her post, and her actions reported to the police, they were condoning the assault.
"Again, I ask--is this what we can expect for intellectual discourse among professors in this country, and in the State of Minnesota?"
I certainly hope so, this is one of the many reasons why I live in this great state.
Dav, it's so nice to hear the voice of reason once in a while. I presume you are among those who believe whatever the local church custom is, is OK. Like stoning unbelievers? Stoning sass-mouthed young-uns? Physically assaulting someone not properly working a ritual?
Your concern has been noted and filed. In the shitcan.
Why would they be offended that a non-Catholic doesn't think their sacred crackers are sacred unless they think everyone should?
...and, as a side note, the use of "maroon" in place of "moron" is only amusing when done by Bugs Bunny. I know Bugs Bunny. Bugs Bunny is a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Bugs Bunny.
The Rooke said:
I am not your husband or father and it is not therefore for me to decide what you should wear.
That cracked me up. I wonder who would tell a widowed orphan what to wear.
You'll have to excuse me--I'm off to dress myself in a pair of pants I got from the mens' section of Target--without consulting my husband.
"Only a drooling maroon,"
yea, that's an inspiring argument. Very Christian like.
I think it's a stretch to say Cook was "physically assaulted", Matt.
I'd expect to be physically detained myself if I tried to remove something as highly valued as a communion wafer. Just what did Cook think the reaction would be to his actions, anyway?
Lynst, if I remember the babble correctly, the widower's brother-in-law (husband's brother) gets/has to marry her and tell her what to do.
I can only pray that those pants are of a single fabric.
Fallacy #27: The response was expected and, therefore, right.
"Why would they be offended that a non-Catholic doesn't think their sacred crackers are sacred unless they think everyone should?"
Well, it's obvious that the vocal Catholics involved do think everyone should.
However, I intially agreed with Dav's point of view (though not his tone) - I felt it was like kicking the pathologically insensed right in the sacred spot; easy target.
I'll admit, however - the continued idiocy coming from said vocal minority has changed my opinion. The kick was well deserved. I also know some Catholics following this story, none of whom feel mortally insulted...
Cracker was given to him. He took it to his seat to show his friend where he was physically assaulted in the legal definition. After the assault he left.
#194 All they ask is that we respect the choices they make, a respect that I, as an agnostic, am perfectly willing to grant."
Yeah, tell that to a person who happens to be gay (not by choice even) and see the respect they get from the majority of the religious community. Respect goes both ways and it is earned, not just granted because they say so. The religious community is far from respectful of others and until they change their ways the old saying "what goes around comes around" is fitting.
No, he was assaulted. He had taken the wafer back to his seat. Something that is not unknown in Catholic Masses. As he did so someone tried to pry the wafer from his hand. It was only following this assault that he left the hall, with the wafer.
Clearly you think assault is acceptable behaviour. I guess honesty is also something you think optional, since you chose to lie about the events.
Rod Dreher wrote:
Human beings? Nobody ever talks about chimpanzee beings.
I am bound to respect insane religious assholes? I don't think so.
Wrong. This got started when Michelle Ducker assaulted a fellow Catholic over how he was following their ritual. Then when he pressed charges, other members of her cult joined her in a campaign of harassment. After that, Donohue et al joined in.
People keep claiming the cracker was stolen. I asked a lawyer. He told me that once it was in Cook's possession, Ducker no longer had a claim on it.
Furthermore, once Ducker assaulted Cook, his right to defend himself overrides any property issues anyway.
What a bunch of whining, lunatic, tantrum-throwing babies.
Not to mention that demanding respect is something that I won't follow through with, I'll simply tolerate your ridiculous belief that your lord and savior is in a cracker, and I'll respect your right to hold that belief. But I don't need to respect your completely absurd belief.
Dav, did you come in late? Aw who fuggin cares, you big old concern troll.
"Physically detained"? Really, you'd expect that? Because the Catholic involved (Cook, remember?) did NOT expect that*. "Highly valued". That appears to be based only on certain venues/parishes. Many catholics have expressed surprise at the assault. And yes, physically grabbing someone or trying to pry something from their fingers IS assault.
Now...PRAY OFF!
*nor did he expect...
To all the Catholics.
This should answer all your questions about god and how atheists think about religion.
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
It's occasionally amusing when it's done appropriately and accurately in a manner that conjures up in the mind the voice given to Bugs by the great vocal talent of Mel Blanc, as in a well-placed "Wadda maroon!"
Bob said: "I presume you are among those who believe whatever the local church custom is, is OK. Like stoning unbelievers? Stoning sass-mouthed young-uns? Physically assaulting someone not properly working a ritual?"
Israelite rules apply to Israelites alone (I don't believe they stoned unbelievers, but if they did, they certainly shouldn't have).
What current relgion engages in these practices?
Only a drooling maroon, offended by the actions of some Catholics, goes out of his way to offend all of them.
Dav, you wouldn't happen to be related to this idiot.
Man, I have to return all of these miniskirts?
I was even going to shave my legs.
Dreher and Peter Rooke are of a paradigm where they can't conceive that not only do atheists reject the whole transubstantiation thing, but most protestants do too. They also do not understand that many, if not most of us, came from religious backgrounds.
Their indoctrination into Catholic rhetoric and liturgy blinds them to the fact that, outside of ceremony and ritual in the church during communion, a mass produced wafer is only that, no matter what incantations are intoned over it. If a communion wafer falls on the floor during a Baptist ceremony, it's simply swept up later and thrown away - no harm, no foul. They understand it is symbolic.
Dreher and Rooke assume that we have never been a part of that paradigm and cannot conceive that a more rational new paradigm rejects it out of hand as an atavistic cautionary tale.
I am guilty of redundancy myself on this issue,(mea culpa) I keep reiterating my grasp of the obvious and I've been cudgeling that old ex-mare as much as anyone, but Dreher and his ilk won't let it die. I don't hate religious people; I hate stupid religious people.(sigh)
tsg said: "Why would they be offended that a non-Catholic doesn't think their sacred crackers are sacred unless they think everyone should?"
They don't ask you to worship the crackers, just to repsect the fact that they do. And as granting such respect imposes absolutely nothing on anybody, why should any sane person object?
Dav Laurel do you eat beef?
I will never respect anyone's religious beliefs. I will only tolerate them. Object? Because there's no evidence of any gods. Is that hard to understand?
"They don't ask you to worship the crackers, just to repsect the fact that they do. And as granting such respect imposes absolutely nothing on anybody, why should any sane person object?"
Because sane people object more strongly to those that with one hand propagate the idea that killing is immoral, and with the other send death threats to those that do not adhere to strict eucharist dogma.
Dav, apparently Catholics practice that last one.
A recent post from PZ highlighted a (civil?) case where the standards of conduct were established by the church involved (in said case). The extreme interpretation would then permit believers in stoning to go ahead and stone "their" sinners.
Besides, for the sake of argument, it doesn't matter. If the True Followers agree, who are we to opine on their sacred beliefs, no matter how secularly horrific they might be?
"All they ask is that we respect the choices they make, a respect that I, as an agnostic, am perfectly willing to grant."
Rev, I think it's been established that the Hindu's don't deserve the same respect at Catholics. Try to stay current ;)
BD@89: This may be the quote you were looking for:
Voltaire: "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
I was more surprised to read this op-ed in the Minnesota daily, PZ's own university paper, which was very negative of PZ's actions :
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/07/30/72167583
"PZ Myers' Catholic insults do harm to everyone"
What I find strange is that they write this, but it is so obviously one sided : he wants skeptics and believers to reach a consensus on the role of religion, but that's quite impossible when the religious have such an inflated role for religion, and when most skeptics see very little or no role for it. Also, what about the role of non religious people in society ? When so many religious Americans have so little respect for non believers, that so many would gladly not consider their right to be citizen or be candidate for public office, or consider the USA a "Christian Nation", it's quite clear that the author is only considering one side of this debate, side that has NEVER before demonstrated any tolerance for non christians.
So why should skeptic now bow to their demands, just hoping that they will become more tolerant ? That will achieve nothing.
What terrible article. I think it demands a response by PZ himself.
Ah, finally, I've found my calling. I've never written well enough to claim the Order of the Molly (OM); and I don't actively contribute to the field of biology enough to feel justified claiming even the "Friend of Charles Darwin" (FCD) honorary. But THIS is one I will not hesitate to claim as my own. A spittle-flecked supporter of PZ Myers. If that ain't poetry...
- Steve in MI, SfS/PZM
Matt Penfold @ # 182 - You're missing the point!
Pete Rooke @ # 177 said:
The first two words are the ones that matter.
So long as Pete Rooke believes it, you (and I and professors and everybody) are not allowed to question or debate it.
And a self-selecting one. This is my position, very simply: those who are offended by the desecration of a cracker deserve to be. Their offense is entirely of their own doing and entirely due to their intolerance of others not holding sacred the same things they do. Period.
In the one of the umpteen crackergate threads, someone made the analogy "how would you feel if I wiped my ass with a picture of your mother?" My response: "Go ahead. I'll send you one. It's only a piece of paper. There is nothing you can do to it that will harm my actual mother. And it can only harm me if I value your opinion of my mother. I don't because you don't know her and, more importantly, I know you're only doing it to piss me off. I can disarm you completely by doing one simple thing: not letting you."
I'll give the people who are offending by PZ's treatment of the communion wafer the same advice: don't let it bother you. Stop caring that others don't hold sacred the same things you do and it will not matter in the slightest. You can prevent him from offending you by one simple act: not letting him. That's what this is about. You can't stand that others don't think this cracker is sacred. They don't have to. That is your intolerance. That's the point.
Ahh damn I missed that. Oh well.
I guess I probably could have figured that out...
#144 MaryM.MOJ | August 4, 2008 12:11 PM
can someone explain this for me "Birkenstocked Burkeans"
Burkean as in Edmund Burke. Ron Dreher is a conservative columnist, and Burke was an English conservative who marched out of step with his fellow Tories by championing the American Colonies in the punch-up that led to the Revolutionary War. Dreher's conservatism is, well rather less flamboyantly nutty than that of most American conservatives.
Birkenstocks are posh sandals, and Dreher is a bit of a green. He owns chickens, grows his own vegetables, and so on.
TrueBob @#133 Oh dear, if that particular disease is now going to bombs on your side of the pond you have my deepest sympathies. Things have been quiet here in the UK since the govt passed some new specific laws and put a pile of the usual suspects in jail.
It may seem the authorities are overreacting but believe me they are not. It is a little known fact that the animal rights movement has been responsible for more individual acts of terrorism on the British mainland than the IRA, they just kill and hurt fewer people, though not through lack of trying.
@ Brian G
Man, I have to return all of these miniskirts?
I was even going to shave my legs.
Even though this is a joke you've summed up why I feel a duty to continue my quest to inform and educate those of you who simply don't know any better. Now of course there are the heretics among us here who do know better and still choose to act out their various perversions. For instance, I am sorry to have seemingly insulted both Lynst Holin and Miss Prism but at least they can no longer feign ignorance.
@ E.V.
I am quite aware that most of the world doesn't believe in transubstantiation. Indeed, it's hard to believe but there are some "Catholics" who do not believe in transubstantiation. However, I refer you to one of my previous analogies (comment 88, no. 2):
2) Suppose your are an embalmer. You are busy embalming a person for an open coffin ceremony and you decide to pilfer there lush locks of blonde hair for the construction of high class wigs (a business you have going on the side).
This person happens to be a Sikh. In order to hide the fact you have stolen their hair you then purchase a cheap synthetic wig and replace it. In the small print of the contract (which the distraught family don't read carefully enough) you make mention of this.
After the event you then decide to publicize this gleefully on a blog. No physical harm has been done to either person and yet I would argue that this is equivalent to PZ Myer's theft and subsequent desecration of the Eucharist publicized on his blog (of which extra web traffic generates money).
Now it's fair to assume that to most of the world the beliefs that Sikhs hold are utterly insane. And yet, it is clear to every person of right mind that the theft of the hair and the violation of trust is wrong despite this. PZ's actions with the stolen Eucharist is every bit as damnable and despicable.
AHHH his blog name "crunchycon" makes sense now.
#62.
I propose
jihadachrists.
No, they are pissed off because someone who doesn't follow their belief system didn't worship the cracker and, instead, threw it away.
Stop eating pork and beef. Don't operate light switches on the Sabbath. Pray to Mecca five times a day. Sweep the ground in front of you so you don't kill any insects. Because these are all beliefs held by other religions and by not observing them you aren't respecting them. And, by your logic, it won't impose anything on you.
Freedom of Religion.
Hi Peter,
They've been over here for a long time, just haven't been bombing, that I know of. Mostly they've vandalised buildings, "freed" research animals, etc. I'm all for them exposing the BS that factory farming has become, a la The Jungle, but IMHO this is terribly dangerous, and as many of their efforts, ineffective.
crackergate continues as catholics spin out of control for want of a tasty treat. Can't get enough meat so they have to eat their favorite guy? This is about eating a person?
If that isn't enough, it is a cracker to which they equate the person.
Please, do not make vegetables and grains into dead animals. The thought is disgusting to those of us that don't kill beings to eat. catholics will apparently eat garbage.
"Stop caring that others don't hold sacred the same things you do and it will not matter in the slightest."
This is true about life in general: you give your enemies power when you let their opinions of you have an impact. Believe it or not, the last time I'd heard this idea was from a 1993 audio book series by Dennis Miller called "The Rants".
So yeah, I agree with you. Life's rough - wear a cup.
tsg, please detail the injuries sustained by Cook during the "physical assault", the medical treatment he required, and the legal action he took in response to this "crime".
The explorer Richard Burton once entered Mecca in dusguise, knowing he'd have been killed on the spot if he had been detected. Doesn't make such killing "right", but he understood the risks and accepted the possible consequences.
Chimp: "After the assult he left". Yes, but with what? I eat beef, pork and shellfish, what's your point?
Minneapolitian: I understand your feelings, but the state cannot dictate church policy towards gays (or African-Americans, for that matter).
Bob: There are obviously limits on what a secular state will tolerate. Iran hangs gays, we don't. It seems disingenuous to equate Communion with stoning.
I learned this early on. My secret to happiness is: "Who are you that I should care what you think of me?"
I still think there's a good chance these "Pete Rooke" posts are some kind of experimental art piece.
If my answer to this is "nothing" what do you think it proves?
Pete, since yopu came back, please help me with this conundrum (reposted from 168):
Once upon a time, some impoverished, primitive, illiterate subsistence farmers and other ne'er-do-wells knew this guy, and they followed him around, like Chuck Manson's family. He was executed for crimes against the state.
This guy, now dead, was zombified by a witch-doctor. His followers became cannibals, inspired by the zombielicious lifestyle.
How could we neutral observers tell the difference between that insane cult, and modern devout catholics?
All these Christians contacting you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Islam. The fact is that there is no physical equivalent of the Eucharist. Indeed, Islam specifically prevents the creation of idols, which are worshipped in place of Allah. So, when a Christian compares the cracker to a Koran, they are completely misunderstanding the relationship between Islam and their holy book. I suppose if a knowledgeable Christian wanted to dare PZ to attract rage from a certain type of Muslim, then they would ask him to depict Muhammed or Allah.
The point is you think people should be bound to treat a cracker as sacred but not have to respect the beliefs of other religions. It means you are a hypocrite.
Even though this is a joke you've summed up why I feel a duty to continue my quest to inform and educate those of you who simply don't know any better.
Self-righteous much? Again, do you wear clothing made of two different fibers? Are there tassels at the four corners of your clothing?
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
I've read the whole Bible. I don't need you to "inform and educate" me because I have critical thinking skills and know that an ancient book might not be the best guide on how to live my life.
I'm off to wear *sheer* miniskirts while eating bacon cheeseburgers. I might even covet my neighbor's stuff (he has a really nice flat screen TV).
"please detail the injuries sustained by Cook during the 'physical assault'".
Injuries are not required for a charge of "assault" to be legally valid. I can throw a knife at your head and miss, and still go to jail.
In this case, Cook was "manhandled" for lack of a better term. From memory only, I believe he was grabbed and restrained to some extent. Charges probably could be filed, but I doubt it will happen. Of much more significance are the death threats...
# 220 Dav on stoners
All of them. They use small leaden stones at high velocity.
I see another thousand-comment thread in the making.
Why do you desecrate the sacred cow of Hinduism? Do you not respect them?
@ True Bob
I read your "analogy" the first time you posted it and I don't see the relationship. Catholicism is not a cult.
Kinda sad that he has to describe the demons as metaphorical, lest his audience be confused and think he is discussing "real" demons.
/sarcasm
Hey! I barely started reading and I'm already flecked- flecked with spittle!
Who flecked me with spittle?
Harumph. This could be the beginning of a testy relationship.
I propose: "nuclear Christians"
Firing bullistic massiles?
If we're spittle-flecked, it's only because the rabid xtians have been screaming at us.
Pete @257:
Please demonstrate objectively the difference between Catholicism and a cult.
John Robie:
I'm guessing he likes the fact that the monotheists destroyed a competing civilization with nuclear weapons.
As far as I know he suffered no injuries, but then one does not have to suffer injury to be the victim of assault. Physical injuries will simply increase the severity of the assault, the lack of them does not mean no assault occurred.
As for legal actions, he made a formal complain to the university.
I think you are suffering from the fact you are talking out of your backside. Clearly you have no idea what constitutes an assault in law.
In addition you have already condone the assault on Cook, so we know what sort of person you. Ethical and moral behaviour would seem to be an alien concept to you.
Why?
"Catholicism is not a cult. "
Oh great, here we go ......
Catholicism is not a cult.
Yes it is.
Some definitions of "cult" from Dictionary.com
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
There ya go. Catholicism is clearly a cult by definitions 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Pete Rooke,
you are quite something of a particularly obtuse insipid idiot to repost this pathetically wrong analogy of the dead sikh's hair.
There are more than a billion catholics worldwide, so I think there are at least several billions absolutely identical and replacable consecrated Eucharists handed out at mass each month, litteraly without any control. That a few catholics actually think this whole cracker worshipping business is ridiculous and kept it and sent at least one to PZ doesn't seem surprising, and he didn't steal anybody's Eucharist. It was sent to him generously.
In the case of the Sikh's hair, you are talking of someone who deliberately steals someone's property, without his consent, and moreover something that is not easily replacable by the billions, like the Eucharist.
So absolutely nothing in your pathetic analogy works, but as an idiot who can't seem to grasp the difference, you have stuck with it for more than a week, and you seem to think anybody is impressed ? Only by your stupidity.
Of much more significance are the death threats...
What sort of death threats would Jeebus make?
Assault has its origins in Common Law.
A definition of Common Law assault is "A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault."
It would seem Dav Laurel needs to go away and learn what assault is.
Dav #245 wrote "Chimp: "After the assult [sic] he left". Yes, but with what?"
With the cracker. Like everyone who participated in that ritual, he left the ceremony with a cracker. The difference is that he left with it in his pocket, and everyone else left with it in their stomachs. For such a 'crime', he faced death-threats and calls to expel him from the university.
Does that seem right to you?
From Dictionary.com, Pete. Check elsewhere, some use the first definition here, as second, third, etc definition. All religions are cults*.
cult /kʌlt/ -noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
-adjective
9. of or pertaining to a cult.
10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.
*"Mythology is the sacred religion of the vanquished. Religion is the superstitious tripe of the victors."
- Me, occasionally
I think it's a fair question. The word "cult" has a variety of definitions in common usage; most of those unquestionably apply to Catholicism, and the remainder arguably do.
I'm curious as to whether any rational argument can be advanced to defend the proposition that Catholicism is not, in fact, a cult.
@ Lynst Holin:
That cracked me up. I wonder who would tell a widowed orphan what to wear.
You'll have to excuse me--I'm off to dress myself in a pair of pants I got from the mens' section of Target--without consulting my husband.
It is disturbing to note the increasingly homogeneous nature of clothing to the extent that what passes for menswear could equally pass for womenswear. Nowadays it is quite common to see so called "businesswoman" in suites with close cropped hair. Stick a pen in their pants pocket and they might as well be men. These feminists want to deny the intrinsic differences between the sexes and the roles they have played and should continue to play in society.
Pygmy @267:
Given the number of fundamentalists who decry Catholicism as pagans and "not real Christians," I think we can safely apply definitions 6 and 7, as well.
Now suppose I'm an exotic dancer. I've just purchased a new headdress, with lots of really nice feathers from a bird that's on the endangered species list. The...
No, wait.
Support I'm a dental hygienist. To save my employer money, I've decided to covertly reuse strands of dental floss. Everyone knows that dental floss is a renewable resouce, so...
No, no, that's not right.
Some guy sticks his tongue out at me and mocks the small golden Orthodox cross I have hanging by a fine chain around my neck - the one my grandmother left me. I threaten to beat his brains in with a hammer if he doesn't quit his job and go into hiding. Yeah, that's it. A hammer! Clearly I am in the right.
See, Peter? Analogies aren't so tough!
"Nowadays it is quite common to see so called "businesswoman" in suites with close cropped hair."
Suites can have close-cropped hair? I've seen suites with shag rugs before, but...
A religion is just a cult with an army.
Phentari,
You're right! I wasn't thinking religulously enough. :)
# 123
is this the kind of intellectual discourse that we can expect from tenured professors?
-------
I hope so, but I'm an optimist.
-----------------
Scooter #134--Wow. I guess that we should give up hoping that our professors use reason and sensibility. I don't know, I guess that I just have higher standards than to think that 8th grade stunts are the best that we can expect a professor to muster.
And CJOO is just CJO with too much coffee.
Wow you really are a 16th century jackass aren't you?
I am glad you are disturbed. I hope it keeps you up at night.
Meanwhile the rest of us are quite happy that women feel free to wear whatever clothes they feel comfortable in, and wear their hair in any style they choose. If that upsets misogynists bastards like you, even better. I hope you for the rest of life you are surrounded by woman wearing mini-skirts, skimpy tops with short-cropped hair.
"Why is it not a cult?"
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/isitcult.htm
Concern noted. Now go away.
Hoo-boy. You're one of those, eh, Pete? Join the 20th century, please; it's a short hop from there to here.
The hammer isn't these. The hammer is my penis.
Sam, I presume you're leveling the same criticism at the remarkably mature Catholics who are filling PZ's inbox with notable examples of Christian love and forgiveness?
Matt #283 "I hope you for the rest of life you are surrounded by woman wearing mini-skirts, skimpy tops with short-cropped hair."
My idea of heaven!
Oy, I wear a kilt (skirt) so are you going to spout something about it, Rooke?
Sam @ #280 wrote "I don't know, I guess that I just have higher standards than to think that 8th grade stunts are the best that we can expect a professor to muster."
I was willing to entertain the notion that you might have interesting ideas worth reading. However, you appear to be sticking to one argument out of some notion that you've hit a nerve of some kind; you haven't.
By repeating the immaturity charge while ignoring the death threats sent by faithful members of your own religion, you betray your own immaturity - and intellectual cowardice.
Cheers
tsg (and Chimp): The various religious strictures you list in #241 are binding on the believer, not the unbeliever. That's Religion 101. Respecting the beliefs of others in no sense obliges me to do as they do.
I respect their belief if they respect my non-belief.
If Cook sustained no injuries, then you are exaggerating in calling it a "physical assault". I think shoplifters are forcibly detained, too.
Frankly, I suspect the outrage over Cook is completely insincere, exploited by Myers as a means of garnering publicity.
Myers didn't get really ticked off and crackericidal until the wingnuts went all terroristic.
Raven #160
Actually, Prof. Myers went irrational well before anyone went after him.
You're into the position of saying "it wasn't my fault--he started it!" How far did that get you when you were 12 years old?
Shouldn't we expect professors who claim to live a life of reason, to use reason in confronting claims with which they disagree? Is our model of opposition to claims which we feel to be unjust to be to go straight for the emotional, rather than to make a sustained, rational argument?
I guess that we should give up hoping that our professors use reason and sensibility.
PZ evidently throws his garbage in the garbage. What are you on about? Where do you throw your garbage? And just how is it a "stunt"? The degree of difficulty is pretty low. Some people sure are easily impressed.
Continuing on - to call it a cult in general usage is misleading because of the negative value judgement that accompanies it. You might as well declare the monthly town hall meeting that begins with the pledge of allegiance and has a shared and stated code of behaviour/judgement a cult.
To support your insistence that Catholicism isn't a cult you reference a cult member?
Is this your standard of evidence?
Hi Pete, I simply don't know any better. Can you please continue to inform and educate me on the subtleties of what I'm supposed to wear and how?
- I'm a swimmer. Is it ok for me to shave my legs so that I swim faster?
- I'm a cross-dresser. Is it ok for me to shave my legs so I look good in my mini-skirt?
- I'm a cross-dressing swimmer. Is it ok for me to wear my mini-skirt since I just happen to have a smooth pair of legs to go with them?
- I'm an actor. Is it ok for me to wear a mini-skirt while playing the part of a cross-dresser?
- I'm an actor. Is it ok for me to enjoy wearing that mini-skirt?
- I'm an actor. Is it ok for me to enjoy wearing a mini-skirt whilst playing the part of a cross-dresser in a church-funded movie explaining the problems with mini-skirts in today's increasingly dysfunctional society?
- I'm a swimmingly good cross-dresser acting the part of a player. Is it ok for me to be confused about my role in society?
Please inform and educate me.
Pete, I'll entertain your notion that the catholic church is not a cult. Now how do I tell the difference between the Legitimate Religion and the crazy cult o'cannibals?
And a non-Catholic not eating a communion wafer is different how?
Satan is my motor. Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell.
[Err... what?]
Actually, Prof. Myers went irrational well before anyone went after him.
I would be interested to see your time line here.
He wanted to show by example how irrational the response from the catholics was and could get.
And that he did, in spades.
Perfectly reasonable.
Concern noted. Now go away.
I don't see any evidence that PZ wasn't rational. Throwing out a cracker that means nothing to him is quite rational. That it means something to the Catholic cult is precisely the point.
"See, Peter? Analogies aren't so tough!"
That was meaningless dribble. Please try harder, unless that was the intent.
Yeah, of course you're not the Sleepless Brain. I'm the Sleepless Brain. And don't you forget iZzzzZZzz...
Dav @ #292 wrote: "Frankly, I suspect the outrage over Cook is completely insincere, exploited by Myers as a means of garnering publicity."
How is it insincere to express concern at death threats sent to a college student as a result of religious intolerance?
I'm serious.
Or, is it more difficult to be respectful of opinions you find distasteful, while asking others to respect yours?
**drivel (see previous)
# 253
Just to clear things up a little assault is the threat of violence, battery is physical violence.
They are usually combined as a charge. There is some variation State to State, but not significant.
A tussle or shoving, etc where there are no injuries is a misdemeanor, if there is an injury, it is a felony. What occurred in the church when Cook was grabbed would be considered a misdemeanor battery in most courts.
Most simple assaults are misdemeanors. If you threaten to kick somebody's ass, then do a decent job of it, that's your classic Felony Assault and Battery.
Dear Pete,
How long should a skirt be? Does it depend on how tall the wearer is? What fabrics should it be made of (or not be made of)? What colours and patterns are acceptable/unacceptable?
Thanks.
I see this as an opportunity for consciousness raising: calling these people jihadists makes it clear that they are terrorists, they are criminals, they are no better than Islamists who behave similarly. I think that might make some people open their eyes and understand the problem with religion, while trying to add humor detracts from that.
Good atheists do not spittle-fleck, they drool, rather they froth.
PZ, you are breaking the tenets of atheism.
Tenet 1 Froth not spittle fleck
Tenet 2 Eat Babies
Pete Rooke, the Hannibal Lector wannabe, said # 274,
"It is disturbing to note the increasingly homogeneous nature of clothing...."
Really? The guy who brings up stealing parts of corpses, girls in miniskirts getting raped and books made of the skin of loved ones is disturbed by unisex clothing?
The various religious strictures you list in #241 are binding on the believer, not the unbeliever. That's Religion 101. Respecting the beliefs of others in no sense obliges me to do as they do."
Exactly. Thus, PZ is perfectly free to throw a communion wafer in the garbage.
"If Cook sustained no injuries, then you are exaggerating in calling it a "physical assault". I think shoplifters are forcibly detained, too."
First of all, shoplifters are physically detained by police officers - most stores won't allow their employees to physically detain a suspected shoplifter because they are concerned about liability. A police officer has a particular societal role that allows them to use force to enforce the law. Even then, we have put limits on what police officers can do.
Secondly, Webster Cook is not a shoplifter. The wafer was given to him. At that point, it legally became his to do with as he saw fit. Physically assaulting someone because they are handling their property differently than you think they should is completely out of line.
Pete, I'll entertain your notion that the catholic church is not a cult. Now how do I tell the difference between the Legitimate Religion and the crazy cult o'cannibals?
It's a value judgement. As with my previous example it can be applied to virtually any group. Provide a more technical definition of a cult and it would be more meaningful.
Pete, all of this talk of attire has me curious as well.
Is it appropriate for me to wear my bearskin thong and viking helmet with my Doc Martins. And should I be brandishing a socket wrench?
MH: "For such a 'crime', he faced death-threats and calls to expel him from the university. Does that seem right to you?"
No. Does acquiring a communion wafer, which could only have come about under false pretenses, driving a nail through it, placing it among garbage and posting a picture of same on a blog seem right to you?
"No. Does acquiring a communion wafer, which could only have come about under false pretenses, driving a nail through it, placing it among garbage and posting a picture of same on a blog seem right to you?"
Seems fine to me.
Sam's one of those intellects whose only argument consists of insinuating that his opponent is still in middle school.
Joe Blow - is that you?
Sorry Kseniya. It may be off the toobz now, but check here or here.
#280-Sam
You certainly are guessing
"Cult" is what you call a small group who believes absurdities. A Religion is what you call a large group who believes absurdities. The only difference is the number of people.
And by the way, in reference to the article, I'm getting sick of people not understanding what "sacred" means, and confusing it for a synonym of "important". I suppose (to continue the Orwell references) these people really do think Ignorance is Strength.
Pete,
If I was a double X chromosome male, would it be okay for me to wear a skirt? If I was a double X chromosome male and had a sex change (ie. I'd be genetically and physiologically female), would it be okay for me to wear a skirt?
Finally, if you were president of the U.S., would you enact laws to ban women from wearing trousers/men from wearing skirts?
Thanks.
Exactly. I supposed I should have labeled it for the irony-impaired.
You, however, useless freak that you are, somehow seem to have missed the painfully obvious implications of the third one.
Hmmm. I think I'll go get my hair cut today...
LMAO
Dav #318 wrote: "Does acquiring a communion wafer, which could only have come about under false pretenses, driving a nail through it, placing it among garbage and posting a picture of same on a blog seem right to you?"
It seems neither.
Sending death threats to a college student is definitely Not Right, however.
Just one comment for Pete Rooke:
WTF is up with you and the "knee roll"?!? I had never even heard the term before.
BigDumbChimp #302--
He wanted to show by example how irrational the response from the catholics was and could get.
And that he did, in spades.
Perfectly reasonable.
----------
And yet, we're led to understand that the response to Webster Cook on the part of Catholics, before Prof. Myers involved himself, was irrational. That irrationality had already been shown and proved. What then was the point of Prof. Myers' in carrying on his rant, if his point had already been made?
tsg: "And a non-Catholic not eating a communion wafer is different how?"
No difference. Not eating one makes me neutral on the subject. Driving a nail through one, on the other hand...
MH:
"How long should a skirt be? Does it depend on how tall the wearer is? What fabrics should it be made of (or not be made of)? What colours and patterns are acceptable/unacceptable?"
Again it's a value judgement. Perhaps some people do not believe that dressing like a whore is a problem. I for one do.
Dav #318 "Does acquiring a communion wafer, which could only have come about under false pretenses, driving a nail through it, placing it among garbage and posting a picture of same on a blog seem right to you?"
Pssst... you can buy them at grocery stores.
I don't have a problem with it.
Dav; Are you twelve? You're arguing that people don't have to obey the law.
Ducker's assault is detailed in the incident report.
http://www.wftv.com/download/2008/0714/16880943.pdf
The law states that once a cracker is in your possession it belongs to you. You can't steal a gift.
What you can do, if one is an asshole such as yourself, is blame the victim.
Kseniya , it's the 21 century ;)
Does acquiring a communion wafer, which could only have come about under false pretenses, driving a nail through it, placing it among garbage and posting a picture of same on a blog seem right to you?
I'm okay with it. The nail was a little more of a flourish than I usually go with when I'm throwing out the garbage, but, hey, different strokes and all that (and he explained the rationale there, too)."False pretenses" is just laughable, too. A dude in a dress hands you a cracker in a public setting, and you take it. Who's pretending anything?
You know what's interesting? Even though I long ago killfiled both Rooke and Dav, it's still no trouble at all to follow this thread. The choicest nuggets of Stoopid get quoted, and I need not risk retina-burn by reading the original posts. I recommend it!
Does making "MOCK apple pie" from Ritz Crackers seem OK to you?
Seems like an abomination to me.
Kevin:
WTF is up with you and the "knee roll"?!? I had never even heard the term before.
Lets try not to be profane. In answer though:
http://horses.about.com/od/partsofanenglishsaddle/g/kneeroll.htm
Pete #330 "Again it's a value judgement. Perhaps some people do not believe that dressing like a whore is a problem. I for one do."
But how short does a skirt have to be in order for you to dictate that the wearer is "dressing like a whore"? Also, why is "dressing like a whore" a problem?
Rod Dreher is well known for being a raving right-wing sociopath, seeing evil behind every non-Christian non-Republican thing.
If there was a way to program my RSS reader to ignore anything he posts, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Honestly, PZ, he's not worth your oxygen.
# 317
If you are choosing the Viking Helmet, you must brandish old school SAE sockets in your wrench, or risk committing a hideous fashion faux paux. Metric goes with spear-top helmets, ala german WWI and goofy bikers, with an elegant polished black leather thong and garish eye-patch
So, no one should be allowed to drive a nail through a cracker?
whateverman: "How is it insincere to express concern at death threats sent to a college student as a result of religious intolerance?"
I don't believe myers WAS sincere, but if he was, and if he had done nothing more than express such concern in a rational way, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
By the way, I've visited Pharyngula for years, more for my amusement (since Myers and I are on the same page with regard to evolution), but never read enough to have a sense of what he was really like. In the wake of "crackergate", I've come to see him as, essentally, a wise-ass. The cartoon posted this morning is typical.
He'll never attain the status of Dawkins or Hitchens, but I guess he's content with that.
If that's true as far as you're concerned, then please deliver my condolences to Mrs. Rooke.
Actually, it is a site by a fundy christian who redefines "cult" to mean "religion I don't agree with" specifically so he can conclude that catholicism IS a cult. I just skimmed it and read the conclusion; Pete managed an impressive fail.
Dav can't tell the difference between an act that is offensive to some people, and a death threat.
Folk. Don't cross Dav, whatever you do.
"Minneapolitian: I understand your feelings, but the state cannot dictate church policy towards gays (or African-Americans, for that matter)".
#245 Dav, this has nothing to do with the state dictating anything, my post was about respect, and respect is something that it is earned, its not a given. I will respect anyone beliefs who is clearly respectful of mine and my family. The majority of the radical religious community shows little respect for others who are very different from themselves. If they want my respect and respect of people like PZ they in turn need to show us the same respect. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
Whatever motivated you do the stupid thing you did is completely irrelevant. The fact is that you responded to the initial overreaction with an overreaction of your own. Instead of demonstrating the superiority of your position by responding with maturity and civility, you chose to act like a child and go out of your way to offend Catholics everywhere and alienate yourself from them. Catholics (and other religious believers) and secularists alike can for the most part come together in condemning whatever bad behavior got this whole thing started, but by your own bad behavior you've basically spit in our faces and told us that you don't give a damn about us or what we might have to say on the matter. There's no doubt that the existence of intellectual frauds like you is a threat to mature, civil public moral discussion.
And as a PhD student planning to reside permanently in academia, I have to add: Shame on you, Professor (if you even deserve that title) Myers! Averagle folk already look upon academics with enough suspicion that we certainly don't need to obnoxious behavior of people like you making things harder for us. I would be ashamed to be your colleague.
Lets try not to be profane.
Lets just be really, really creepy instead.
Ahh, another happy Monday on Crackerville. I did two chicken abortions this morning, ate the results for breakfast, and now I'm going to commit sloth. For fun I'll be a militant, wanton abomination while I'm at it.
Concern noted. Now go away.
Pete @284:
"Because a Christian website says so" isn't exactly convincing evidence...particularly when that website admits that, by most definitions, Catholicism (like any other religion) is a cult.
I think you'd better read my comment again.
Thanks, Pete, for confirming what I wrote about nyths and religions. Value judgment.
Since you cannot articulate a means of telling the difference between catholics and kooks, I assume you can't tell them apart either.
""False pretenses" is just laughable, too. A dude in a dress hands you a cracker in a public setting, and you take it. Who's pretending anything?"
Even though the "false pretenses" and "theft" allegations are bullshit, I'm perfectly willing to stipulate those points... because even then their argument is STILL stupid.
If you DID take a cracker under false pretenses and then disrespect it publicly, at most the due "punishment" should be to banned from future cracker giveaways.
I mean, seriously - suppose a someone came into your house at your invitation, and while you were in the bathroom they LITERALLY stole a triscuit from you. Not accepted under false pretenses, but brazenly went into your cupboard, opened the box, and stole one cracker and posted a picture of it being thrown away with extreme prejudice... you might think "um, that guy's a little weird." Which could mean you might not invite him in in the future, or it could mean you'd give him a call and invite him to your next party to see what he does next.
But would you call the cops over the stolen cracker? Would you lose a moment's sleep? Would you reply on his blog with outrage?
Not if you were sane you wouldn't.
OK, maybe that's not a perfect analogy... let's make it better. Suppose the guy who stole your triscuit was wearing a leather thong and you were dressed as a Catholic schoolgirl.
Okay, Pete what about kilts? ( I won't even bring up genetic gender ambiguity, Kleinfelter's Syndrome, etc) What about roman peplums? Depending on the century, what was gender appropriate is no longer so. So do we go back to the garb of 2000 years ago"
Are women sinning because they're in pants? But what about the pantaloon-like wear for women in Persia worn back a couple of millenia?
Earrings and makeup were acceptable for men in different societies, in fact that defined the male ideal until it fell from fashion.
Your little bible is so subjective and relative to the peoples who wrote it.
One more question (and I know I'll regret asking): How does one ranch and and be a conscientious vegetarian?
......................................................................................................................................
Q:
Oh get a life. You can start by understanding the value of levity.
Pete @284 again:
It's particularly unconvincing when the website you link wraps up its discussion in the following manner:
"Conclusion
There are other evidences of cultism in Roman Catholicism, too numerous to mention here. One significant consideration: any religious group that threatens damnation and/or excommunication to any segment of its membership for eating, drinking, marrying, or failure to attend religious rites is a cult."
Matt: "First you claimed Cook was only stopped from leaving the hall (it was not a Church), but you got caught in that lie."
I did? Cite the post number, please.
I don't deny Cook was technically assaulted. And I suppose, technically, Clinton did sexually harrass Paula Jones. But I think in both cases, the respective charges were/are exaggerated to serve propagandistic ends.
Rooke.
Your analogy might have worked, if the Sikh's family was handing out locks of the deceased person's hair to everyone at a funeral open to the public. Then, yes, you could take some home, and do whatever you wanted with it. And if they were offended with what you did with it, that would be tough luck.
And yes, this is analogous to what happened with the Eucharist. It is a small bit of food, handed out for free to members of the public who can come into a Church if they like. No crime is committed by not eating a bit of food that has been given to you.
But I'm pretty sure that this is just another gruesome fantasy of yours involving corpse hair, so don't worry about it too much.
So, Nate, where are these Catholics who condemned what initially happened to Cook, AND the subsequent targeting and demonization of Cook by their batshit insane co-religionists?
Because unless you can point to any substantial response of that kind with which secularists could possibly "work together", you're full of crap.
I don't think it's wrong.
Since you obviously do, a more relevant question is: Do you believe that they are EQUALLY wrong? Because things christians on these threads have said implies that.
Also, do you believe two wrongs make a right?
Pete @305:
"That was meaningless dribble."
"Drivel." The word is "drivel." If you're going to try to talk down to people, please take the time to do so properly.
So, enlighten me, what bad behavior would you be referring too? If you mean the absconding with the wafer, then believe me, most secularists, and non-catholic believers for that matter, don't give two shits. If you mean the death threats sent to Cook, then I suggest you ask Donahue, a Catholic, if he condemns that.
I'm not going to read or get involved with this thread, but I did want to weigh in and say that as a faculty member at a university I can attest to the insanely long hours we put in during the school year. Long days, evenings, weekends. It never ends from early Sept. until early May. I hardly get to do anything with my children for those 8 months. It's a long, hard grind. No university admin in it's right mind would try to log our hours. They would be embarrassed, given what is expected of us.
And for those who think we "have the summers off", I can tell you that it's not at all the case. Summer means we don't work evenings and weekends. This summer is the first time in 7 years that I will get to use all of the vacation we are allowed. So the moron that suggests PZ is shirking his work to post to the blog. Go fuck yourself.
Nate W:
...and the horse you rode in on -sidewaysyou silly troll.
Dav #343 wrote:
First, it seems to me you're blaming Meyers for being not being "rational", while overlooking the irrational response of the vocal/activist Catholic community involved.
Second, I really wish you'd check your understanding of the timeline here. Cook received death threats, and then PZ expressed anger at the reaction. At that point, no desecration had taken place (beyond what you might consider Cook's actions to have been).
When the same people began to threaten PZ and had begun a campaign to get him fired, this is when he requested a eucharist from this community.
In other words, the timeline shows without a doubt that "irrationality" had been displayed by the vocal/active Catholics long before PZ could possibly have been seen as doing the same.
... and it still continues to amaze me that PZ's critics overlook the desecration of the koran *and* Dawkins' book. The presence of these two next to the eucharist is proof that the exercise was done not to inflame Catholics specifically, but to show that he considers nothing in paper or cracker form to be sacred - including books very much supported by *this* community.
"He'll never attain the status of Dawkins or Hitchens, but I guess he's content with that."
Well apparently you think Hitchens is a scientist, which he is not, so I don't think PZ is really chewing on those particular heels. PZ also is not a supporter or wars ofa ggression, so there's another spot where Hitchens and noyers differ greatly.
But I like the ease of shifting from "Myers had credibility in his position until I subjectively formed an opinion on this one scenario, and now he's not worth listening to much at all". Being a "wise ass" is grounds for dismissal? Do you think that Dutch cartoonist that mocked Allah was also a "wise ass"? Because PZ did exactly what he did: take a religious symobol, mock it, point out the absurdity of the uproar from the apologists, and basically goadf them into showing themselves to be what they are: a sectarian group demanding deference for their specific beliefs by the wider public. And PZ performed his act AFTER the sectarian group in question started issuing threats against an individual, not before, and not at random.
Maybe you still think PZ's a wise ass, but you don't sound like you've examined the situation very thoroughly.
BTW
Mortal sin for cracker ruination? How many confessions to get that off the permanent record? Too bad they don't do indulgences like they used to. Ka-ching! ABSOLVED!
# 349
No kiddin
That's a hell of a request coming from a guy who saddles up women YIKES!!!
now I'm going to commit sloth
We want to know, Patricia: is the sloth wearing a miniskirt?
"That was meaningless dribble."
Yay! New eggcorn!
Pete @330:
"Perhaps some people do not believe that dressing like a whore is a problem. I for one do."
There we agree. I would have a significant problem with you dressing like a whore.
(I also notice that you corrected your mistake. Good for you! It works better, though, if you use the correct word the first time around.)
Hmmm, that may be a problem. Academia is far, far away from where you currently reside, which I take to be either the Vatican or the Zone of Medieval Delusion, and you'll need to get a green card.
And by the way, when you're studying up for your citizenship test here in Academia, you'll learn that anybody who is employed as an Associate Professor of Biology does, indeed, "deserve the title" of Professor.
Someday, when you move here permanently to reside, perhaps you too will deserve that title. Until then, though, you're still just a student (of what? wait, lemme guess: Theology? Philosophy? Dipshit Studies?), and you probably have, like, studying, or "research" you should be doing, no?
PZ Myers has committed the perfect crime. After all, PZ Myers Has Killed Jesus Christ, and seems to have gotten away with it.
"It is one thing to say that belief in God is foolish and wicked and that Catholicism and Islam deserve scorn. It is quite another to physically desecrate the ARTIFACTS believers hold sacred."
ar·ti·fact
-noun
1.any object made by human beings...
So we all agree, it just a frick'n (man-made) cracker!
"And yes, physically grabbing someone or trying to pry something from their fingers IS assault."
I can only imagine that if I was in Cook's situation, I would have reacted the same way. Some time in college, it dawned on me that I was an adult, and I wasn't going to let other adults cow me with displays of authority, unless perhaps they had a police badge or a military uniform on. In other words, I wasn't going to be treated like a kid anymore. Grabbing, prying, that is disrespect. So to all the people on these threads who apparently live or die over whether "respect" is given to them, or their beliefs, look to the pious church people who see you as a "flock" and want to rap you on the knuckles for any perceived transgression.
"Wow. I guess that we should give up hoping that our professors use reason and sensibility."
This ain't no Algonquin Round Table, but look at who and what we have to work with.
Oh, and regarding trousers and the bible, that particular item of clothing wasn't invented until about five hundred years ago. At the time of Jebus, everyone wore skirts.
True enough, but to be fair, Peter did correct that error himself a few minutes later.
OK, maybe that's not a perfect analogy... let's make it better. Suppose the guy who stole your triscuit was wearing a leather thong and you were dressed as a Catholic schoolgirl.
... For The Win.
Sam,
That irrationality had already been shown and proved. What then was the point of Prof. Myers' in carrying on his rant, if his point had already been made?
Tell me, how many people had heard of the plight of Webster Cook before PZ got involved? How many people would have sent a letter to his school in his defense?
Anyway, PZ's "point" was made in the original post about Cook (or do you think he should have kept his mouth shut about that?). Everything since that time has just served as proof that the point he initially made was correct.
Personally, I strongly suspect that were it not for the insane overreactions among Catholics for the mere threat of desecrating a wafer, this whole thing would have quickly faded into the background. Had nobody gotten all riled up, there would be little reason to ever bother to go through with it. It's not like it was a terribly exciting activity.
However, once people started going apeshit it became necessary to go through with the desecration in order to show the lunatics that they can't control other people just because those people don't subscribe to their superstitions.
Had PZ not gone through with the cracker desecration, it would have just proved that the threats of Donahue and his goons worked. It would have encouraged them to keep up that kind of reprehensible behavior.
The desecration could have just been a bit of rhetoric, but once the Catholic League and the armies of inquisitions got involved PZ had little choice but to go through with it. Not doing it would have been a blow against not just rationality, but public discourse.
Fine. Let's all come together and condemn DUCKER'S ASSAULT ON COOK.
Averagle folk already look upon academics with enough suspicion that we certainly don't need to obnoxious behavior of people like you making things harder for us.
And you inspire just as much ire by labeling non-academics as "average folk." Talk about making life more difficult for us. Thanks. Were you serious when you wrote that? Good job on trying to call someone on being a jackass while simultaneously planting the mantle square on your own shoulders. Let me guess, you're a first year, right?
Acutally, I think PZ is a wiseass. And I mean that in the most complimentary way possible. The wiseass is an absolutely essential social role in a healthy society; he or she mocks and punctures pretensions that need to receive that treatment for sanity's sake. As shown very clearly by the volume of literally insane responses to the cracker business. Craziness like that needs to be smoked out of its hiding places, and the wiseass is just the person for the job because such crazies always take themselves and their delusions very, very seriously.
Kseniya @378:
Very true, and I gave him due credit for that in a later post. I was playing catch-up and responding to posts as I saw them.
I eagerly await his explanation of why, in defense of the proposition that Catholicism is not a cult, he cited a website that says "Catholicism is a cult."
[three days later:]
In Stunning Reversal, DA Drops All Charges
William Donohue has now included UMN Chancellor Johnson on his fatwa list.
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1469
@ Phentari
The Phentari race is the most mistrusted, disliked, and feared of all the known races. They are bipedal squid-like beings with generally nasty dispositions toward life and are sometimes called names like Grim Reaper, Cold Death, Demon Spawn, and Soul Sucker. Phentari are indigenous to the methane planet Phena in the Tau Ceti star system. They are typically evil, but a few have been known to be good.
Members of the Phentari race are not liked by most other races who view them as evil and treacherous. This suits the Phentari just fine for he holds all weaker beings in utter contempt anyway. Many Phentari follow the philosophy that, "All fear me. Those who don't, I have already disposed of!" The squids understand their own version of persuasion which is coercion. Why would there be any other method of getting someone to do something for you? The only races that the Phentari actually like are Orions and Tza Zen Rigeln. Phentari do respect those who are powerful, but they deplore cowardice.
Sounds about right.
As to the others here rambling on about various chromosome abnormalities - there is no correct answer or one size solution.
Self-reflection and a personal relationship with God should help you a great deal with any trouble. I would also see a priest or another senior member of the church who will know far more about these issues than me. You have to live and make do with the hand your dealt with.
Gah! More on the cracker! This is getting ridiculous.
To all those who quote a bible or say they'll pray for us or PZ:
This is a blog by an atheist. Many of the people who comment in the treads are atheists.
You are the cyber equivilent of door-to-door religion sellers/missionaries. We have seen your beliefs and found them lacking. Go away. You do not contribute anything meaningful.
To Pete:
I don't need analogies to understand events, I understand things as they happen. Go away. You do not contribute anything meaningful.
By the way, re post 373, I meant no disrespect to my esteemed colleagues over in Dipshit Studies. I just realized I may have inadvertently tarred them with the same broad brush meant for Theology and Philosophy.
Speaking as a Godly man, desecration of a host is a blessed act. All Godly persons must resist such symbols of Popery and turn from malignancy to the True Protestant Religion. The actions of the multitude of Papists, these Satanic adherents of Rome, in condemning the desecration is plain. They wish to impose their heresy upon the Godly. We must preserve ourselves and our religion from utter ruin and destruction. We must endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of Godliness; lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues.
To these Papists I say: in the bowels of Christ I beseech thee, GO!
Steve, I'm a Christian. I'm at a Catholic university. I'm surrounded by Catholics and other Christians--some of them quite prominent in the Catholic/Christian community--all the time. Never have I met one who defend a person making threats of violence against someone for sacrilege. No doubt there are some out there, but it's nowhere near the Catholic mainstream. It's not part of Catholic doctrine. There's no reason that Catholics in general need to be targeted because of the actions of a few Catholic individuals.
If Myers actually wanted to do nothing more than condemn the initial actions of a few individual Catholics, then he would have done something to draw attention to those actions, and the majority of Catholics in this country would have agreed with him that the actions were out of line, and they would have reemphasized that Catholicism is not about violence, and the world would have moved on. Instead, Myers has acted stupidly and drawn all the attention to his own actions, which are nothing short of a slap in the fact to ALL Catholics, not just the ones who are guilty of any misbehavior. So what, now all Catholics deserve to be punished for the actions of a few? Now all Catholics have to watch their most sacred artefact be desecrated just because a few idiots out there can't control themselves?
Get real. Myers isn't changing any hearts or minds by his profoundly idiotic behavior. How the hell does this supposedly intelligent man think that descrating the Host is going to leave any positive mark on anyone other than those who are already virulently anti-Catholic?
Phentari:
I eagerly await his explanation of why, in defense of the proposition that Catholicism is not a cult, he cited a website that says "Catholicism is a cult.
Again I am quite happy to accept that Catholicism is a cult. What I will not accept is the negative value judgement that accompanies that. I mentioned previously how a town hall committee meeting might equally be seen as a cult. I would not however what to imbue the sinister connotations that "cult" reflects onto that meeting whether technically appropriate or not.
That's not what I asked, Nate. Which of them have spoken out PUBLICLY in condemnation of the crazies? Because only people willing to do that can possibly be "worked with". The others are part of the problem.
Pete,
Full points for actually figuring out the etymology of my username! It's obscure enough that it's a pleasant surprise when someone does. (I'll also point out that Phentari are more-or-less humanoid squids; I thought it was an appropriate nickname for this blog on that basis.)
Now, that being said, the ad hominem attack--and I'll grant you that it was a fairly clever one--in no way answers the questions posed to you.
How does a website that concludes that Catholicism is a cult in any way support your premise that Catholicism is not a cult?
Pete #387 "As to the others here rambling on about various chromosome abnormalities - there is no correct answer or one size solution.
Self-reflection and a personal relationship with God should help you a great deal with any trouble. I would also see a priest or another senior member of the church who will know far more about these issues than me. You have to live and make do with the hand your dealt with."
Translation: Oh no, you're making me think. My brain is overheating! Where's my security blanket? Somebody in authority tell me what to do!
Epic Fail.
Nate wrote:
Considering the way the vocal/active catholic community continues to respond to this situation, I'd say you're doing more for the Anti-Catholic viewpoint than they could have dreamt possible.
@Sam
Is this the intellectual legacy that you wish to leave, going out of your way to mock, rather than to engage others at the level of reason?
Point of order here, Sam: Reason is something that only works when BOTH sides engage in it. The Crackurbation Jihadists have gone to great lengths to AVOID using anything even remotely resembling reason, and so the mockery in PZ's posts is not only appropriate, it's the absolute best course of action. As Thomas Jefferson famously said "Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligble propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
So, feel free to contribute something reasonable to these threads. Otherwise, continue as you have and be responded to appropriately. Your choice.
Pete @392:
Okay, fair enough; I didn't see that response until after I'd completed my post at 394.
We agree, then, that by most definitions, Catholicism is a cult. You dislike the connotations of cult; I can understand that.
The problem, of course, is that those connotations are very subjective. Hence, claiming that it's not a cult based on subjective connotations puts you about on the level of the individual whose website you linked--the one who is arguing, essentially, that Catholicism is a cult, but his particular brand of Protestantism is not.
If they were offended it's because they believe everyone should hold sacred the same things they do. That's makes them targets.
Kind of like the Moe of Science.
#126 Dav Laurel
Are you still here?
I hosted a pre-wedding party for about 40 people and I was asked not to serve pork by the Mother of the Bride because her boyfriend is Muslim and he would have to leave the party if there was pork on the buffet table.
Seriouly thought of putting some bacon fat in the salad dressing
a. Answer to your first question: No. No Catholics have been punished in any way. Not one. (Except for Webster Cook, who is being punished in a very real way by people who agree with you). A bit of dried wheat-paste was punished. Yes, I know, you Believe that the bit of wheat-paste was actually a Holy Consecrated Artefact that contained some Ineffable Essence of your Holy Lord and Savior etc. But you know what? It didn't. It was just a bit of wheat-paste, nothing more.
b. Answer to your second question: No. Catholics are free not to watch. Catholics are free to shrug it off and think that "that guy's nuts." Catholics are NOT free to think that everybody in the world has to follow or even respect their stupid medieval rituals.
Hope that clears things up. How's the PhD going?
I've been lurking awhile, and just wanted to add in a few cents worth of discussion.
Dear Pete Rooke,
I sincerely hope that you work at the same company I do. And if you do, I hope that you see me every single day wearing PANTS because my fat ass (that I don't apologize for) just doesn't look good in long skirts and dresses. And, I find pants more comfortable.
I also hope you're fully aware that I'm a devoted mother, who works full time while my husband (a devoted father) is a stay at home dad. I know - give yourself a moment to stop your little world from spinning. Imagine it! A woman wearing PANTS working FULL TIME and also pursuing her degree who has a husband that STAYS HOME!!!!!!111!!1!ELEVENTYONE!!!
I'm also a godless liberal by the way. I know, you're truly shocked. But you know what really tipped the hand? What really convinced me that there is no God? People like you. If God created 'man in his own image' and we wound up with you, that's no god worth worshipping even if he did exist. You, sir, are proof that Intelligent Design is a bunch of hogwash. No Omniscient Intelligent Creator could possibly set in motion anything that would create a misogynist douchebag like yourself. No, only sheer, dumb, rotten luck could account for you.
Sincerely,
An Atheist Feminist (ie - Your nightmares come to fruition).
Steve, every Catholic I've ever encountered who knows about the incident has condemned it, in blogs, fora, and a numerous other types of discussions.
What do you want, the Pope to buy time on national television and condemn the actions? Why would that be necessary? Catholics are already being taught that threatening non-Catholics with violence is against the spirit of modern Catholicism, and that point is so patently obvious that most Catholics, at least in the civilized world, have no sympathy for religious violence. Most of us have other things to do besides going public to restate the things that we all know already.
Phentari:
Right, just as I'm playing leap-frog here in this fast-moving thread. In the time it took me to read the most recent comments and post about Peter's self-correction, you'd already caught up to it and posted an acknowledgment of it, then subsequently commented on my acknowledgment, a comment to which I am currently responding, and... I think you'd better not respond to this, or we'll be leap-frogging for hours! :-D
Peter wrote:
He's either a master of subtle satire - though I can't say we've seen any evidence of this thus far - or he's profoundly irony-impaired. I suspect the latter.
Nate W:
Read the cracker threads from the beginning. It's been hashed and rehashed. Why do you feel your point of view is worthy of consideration? Call someone an idiot on their own blog and then demand respect? Go fuck yourself Nick. You're a rude pretentious prick so I feel no compunction about sending right back atcha.
Come back when you're over your delusions.
He wanted to do more than condemn. He wanted to expose the sheer ridiculousness of it all. Which I think he has.
Okay Nate W, like hell they would have condemned anything.
The same thing that many accuse muslims of is as prevalent in other major religious faction. The utter inability to proclaim clearly that the radicals are not representing us and then condemning their actions with words and actions.
The majority of assumed faithful are unable to utter coherent words against the more radical segments or gods forbid even act against such groups of their own faith as they lack conviction. They are scared that next target of radical behaviour would be they.
The histories of faiths are full of dog eating dog behaviour which take care of those who dare to actually follow the tenets of their faith instead of the leadership of the most prominent, popular and/or powerful grouping within the faith.
If a member of your group acts against tenets of your faith, why do you wait until outsider has to point out the wrong-doing? Because you agree with the radical but are not confident or (scary music) not faithful enough to your religion to really care one way or another?
The silent masses are silent as they follow the tenets of the three monkeys instead of their claimed faith.
But if you too equate a cracker being more important than a human life then I suggest reading that bloody book again and again until you get what the teachings of jesus were.
"Seriouly thought of putting some bacon fat in the salad dressing"
Honestly, even as a Catholic the contempt and sheer nastiness your attitude displays makes me sick. As a Samaritan on the road to Jericho I can imagine you spitting upon the wounded stranger as you jaunted off to take part in other despicable acts.
Again I am quite happy to accept that Catholicism is a cult. What I will not accept is the negative value judgement that accompanies that.
Well, of course you wouldn't! What reasonable person could possibly accept a negative value judgement with regard to an organization that devalues women, promotes superstition, and shields child molesters from the law while threatening their victims?
Oh, wait...
Cubefarmed, a high five to you and your excellent pants-clad hard-working educated fat arse!
The underlying problem is the concept of evangelism, not kooky beliefs. Who (should) care about the Santeria-ists, the Wiccans, or the Buddhists?
The religions that cause the primary pragmatic problems are the evangelistic religions -- the ones that not only believe they have the truth, but demand that the whole world accept. If you were to pee on a Buddha in your home, or use a saint candle in your bathroom, who would care? Not most members of those religions --- since they don't care what you believe.
But Christianity and Islam? They care about "desecration" because it is an explicit and unavoidable statement that you don't believe. That is unacceptable to religions that believe that the goal of creation is to force you to submit.
I give a crap about fundamentalism --- if you keep to yourselves, believe that the earth is literally flat. But the moment you start to believe that I must accept your reality, you've become a danger, no matter how "moderate" you think your beliefs are.
It's evangelism -- a cancer on the human race. God, what a mistake the Roman empire was!
Nate W,
You seem to think PZ's confrontational style doesn't help anyone. I beg to disagree. When I started reading Pharyngula (three years ago) I was still a weak theist/deist unable to completely jettison the religion of my youth, but suffering extreme cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile how the world works (as revealed by science) with what my religion told me about the universe. PZ and all the other commenters here showed me that religion was silly and that clinging to it because it made me feel better was stupid. After I decided atheism was the way to go, the cognitive dissonance disappeared and took my frequent headaches with it. I'm much happier now.
I'm an atheist because of this blog and all the wonderful people here who showed me that atheism wasn't as bad as I'd been told.
Thanks Y'all
Here now! Dr. Chuck Jones wrote the book on situations like this! Ah'll have you know that "maroon" is the correct usage. "Moron" is an inferior variant, suitable only for use in describing inferior maroons!
Any Orthodox Bugist knows that!
E.V., since when has Myers done anything to earn respect? He's become a celebrity precisely by disrespecting others, so why shouldn't he expect to be met with disrespect by the very people he has gone out of his way to offend in the deepest way possible?
The fact of the matter is that Myers has no interest in respectful discussion. That's why he's a threat to democracy, to academia, and to peaceful society in general. If he wants respect, he should learn to show it.
Liveblogging the Dawkins Darwin show:
10 minutes in and Dawkins is trying to engage a class of London schoolkids, many of whom reject evolution because of their religious upbringing. They offer the defence that people should be allowed to believe what they wish to believe. So Dawkins is taking them out on a field trip to go fossil-hunting...
Next, we get Darwin's early life. Beagle. Rhea varieties. Galapagos...
@ 403
Cubefarm FTW I can so use that.
Nate. The whole point is that Catholics find that dumb cracker as the most sacred thing in the world. It's stupid. No one is trying to win anyone over.
It's frackin cracker. PZ said that and the Catholic League went after him so, he asked for crackers to show that he would treat one as just that.
This didn't all start with PZ. It started with Catholics freaking out over a cracker and harassing a student.
Get the fuck over it.
So Nate, where is the official condemnation of what Donohue is up to? Where are the statements from bishops that he's not entitled to speak for the church and should not give his organization a name that suggests he's doing just that?
[crickets]
@ 403
Cubefarm FTW I can so use that.
@ Pete #409,
Gah, you're doing it again. You are comparing a Muslim unknowingly ingesting some porcine lipids to a guy in need being spat upon.
Are you naturally shit at analogies or do you have to work at it?
I'll answer that one.
1. Being an excellent science blogger. I was trained in developmental biology and can testify to the outstanding quality of his posts on that subject, especially the masterly summaries of important papers. It's not at all easy to do that well when it aims at being understood by a general educated audience.
2. Being an important and influential voice against religious insanity in a country that reeks of same and desperately needs airing out.
Your turn. What have YOU done to earn respect? Internet trolling?
Cicely, I had to imagine your post in the voice of from Foghorn Leghorn
Fallacy #27: The response was expected and, therefore, right.
Throwing away a cracker is a threat to democracy, adademia and society? Overreact much?
And talking of the parable of the good Samaritan, this might lift the mood a little. :-D
Your job may be secure...for now. Time will tell for how long. This is FAR from over.
Poor Pete grew up with parabel and religious analogies so was not socialised to reality like the rest of us. He's much like Romulus and Reamus or the chick in the movie Nell. He can't help it.
I am against spittle-flecking since it is icky and often makes people uncomfortable. Surely there's a way to frame the spittling in order to avoid the flecking.
signed
Concern Ilk
More Christian love apparently...
Ooh, a SCARY troll! I'll bet PZ is trembling in his boots.
Gad, these people are pathetic losers. I hope you choke on a Cheeto, dumbass.
Kseniya, OK, I admit, I'm too sloppy a reader.
"It is disturbing to note the increasingly homogeneous nature of clothing to the extent that what passes for menswear could equally pass for womenswear. Nowadays it is quite common to see so called "businesswoman" in suites with close cropped hair. Stick a pen in their pants pocket and they might as well be men. These feminists want to deny the intrinsic differences between the sexes and the roles they have played and should continue to play in society." - Posted by: Pete Rooke
Why in the name of suffering humanity would you find such minutiae as what a woman or man might care to wear 'disturbing'?
For the protection of those around you who might be deletoriously affected by your being set off in some kind of violent, religiously induced rage, DON'T ever visit Nova Scotia during Highland Games or Tattoo season, as you'll be assaulted constantly by the horrifying sight of men in tartan skirts and blouses, many of them also wearing funny hats. Women in pants, too.
If the kind of clothes a person wears prevents you from telling whether they are men or women, and this also bothers you, you'd best stay out of Canada and anywhere particularly Northern all winter, since it's pretty difficult to discern gender under the parkas, scarves, hats, mitts and boots.
I question as well why you even think you need to know whether a specific individual is male or female unless you're planning to have sex with them, an unlikely circumstance given short hair and a suit makes it so difficult for you to tell the difference. FYI: neither head hair nor fabric coverings are secondary sexual characteristics.
"These feminists"... followed (and here preceded) by a misinformed negative rant marks the typical misogynist, clinging to an outdated and ridiculous collection of patriarchal religious codes that have no meaning whatsoever in the real world, where most men and women of good will are striving to enshrine gender equality, as is right.
You, Peter Rooke, instead, choose to whine and nitpick about what women wear (as if it is any of your business under any circumstance, unless it regards safety standards in a factory setting), since you can't manage to find an actual valid reason for objecting to what PZ has done. Clue: there is no valid objection. PZ did the right thing in the circumstances. The howling subset of Catholics who don't see that (check mirror, PR) are an embarassment to the ones who do see it.
John #426, you forgot the "Muhahahahahahahahahaha!"
It's like you're not even trying.
It's interesting that Catholics, who think they have a monopoly on moral values because they belong to the "only true religion", would assault a person for not eating a cracker. They should have been arrested and put in jail for assaulting Cook.
#348 Nate W:
Nate W, Ridiculing the stupidity and the immorality of Catholics like yourself is not bad behavior. Your religion (and all other religions) must be completely eradicated. The only way to get rid of religious insanity is relentless ridicule.
Religions are good for nothing but slowing down human progress, mental child abuse, violence, genocide, ignorance, and ruined lives. All religions must be stamped out.
High five to Bee.
I've said this before but whenever I'm among such hatred and loathing I remind myself of the old Negro spiritual:
"Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty we are free at last."
And I thank God I live in a nation that mandates my right to practice Catholicism.
If you guys would shut the hell up it would be over.
Do you really think a bunch of shrieking Catholics are going to get a professor fired over a cracker?
It's too absurd.
Nate spake thusly:
Honestly, if you had spent any time here, you'd have noticed that not everyone agrees with PZ. The blog was popular long before Crackergate came along, and this was (imho) partly due to the interesting scientific information, the wry sense of humor, and the biting criticism of various religious activities.
Only someone who hadn't read PZ would feel that his popularity is due to his "disrespect". To the contrary, it's his blog, and I'm pretty sure he'd write regardless of what other people felt.
It's is popular only because so many enjoy feeling like they're being persecuted. The real question is: why do you care what he thinks about your religion?
And if anyone knows how to wage a grand crusade, a beautiful inquisition, a lovely hanging, a wonderful burning, a rousing drowning it's the martyr john and the "Christian warriors."
On the other hand, the guy they call Heysoos the Christ would likely approve of PZ's challenge to the authority of the church and the worshipping of idols. Clearly john does not understand the words of the Heysoos.
So PZ, are you and Heysoos in cahoots?
Steve, being good at what you do doesn't earn you respect in a public discussion. Myers could be the best scientist who ever lived, but if he has no clue how to conduct himself civilly in a discussion (or worse, if he just doesn't care), then that doesn't mean anything.
This is a fact: Myers performed an action than any informed person should have known would be considered an act of desecration by anyone who believes Catholic dogma, an act that is bound to earn nothing but disrespect from Catholics everywhere. Be reasonable. If you want to inhabit a moral space with other people, you need to observe some basic standards of respect for them, or else expect to be condemned in return. Myers has shown no interest in living peaceably alongside Catholics, so he shouldn't be surprised if Catholics return the sentiment.
Thank the founders that we live in a country where I can laugh at people freaking out over a cracker.
I guess that guy has never heard of blog software that allows you to post-date posts... thereby permitting a bunch of posts to be pre-written and then posted over time, as if skipping work to do it.
It's a feature I use on my own blog quite often.
Fallacy #27: The response was expected and, therefore, right.
"and respect my right to be unreasonable."
"by allowing them to force their religious views on other people"
You forgot "who insist that others follow their belief system."
That the response was expected doesn't make it right or reasonable.
Pete, you have the right to believe whatever you want. I do not have to agree with them, respect them, or change anything in my life because of your beliefs. I can also laugh at your beliefs. Ha ha ha!
Horseshit, it most certainly does. Somebody with PZ's public accomplishments has earned a presumption that what he says is worth considering whether one initially agrees with it or not. Some random jerk like you? Not so much.
Never in their long history, by the way, have Catholics (with individual and honorable, but rather rare, exceptions) shown any sincere interest in living peaceably alongside others. They only pretend to do so- as long as they don't have the power to do otherwise. My interest in "dealing with" them is limited to insuring that they continue to lack access to that power.
John the Pius at # 426 decreed menacingly
Apparently John is unaware of the Almighty News Cycle
Ooohhh, scary John is making threats. Anonymously on the internet like a coward. He didn't even have the nerve to put in a cheery "kill" or "bash your brainst in". Even George Bush could figure this one out. "They hide in caves and try to scare people. They are terrorists."
The Catholic church has tried to move beyond their "lets kill everyone and let god sort it out" heritage. This being the 21st century and all. Apparently the johns haven't heard that the Dark Ages are over.
While I was out on the street, some character handed me a sheet of paper. It was a coupon for 25 cents off my next purchase of pizza at a particular restaurant, just down the block. I pocketed it and continued on my way.
Later that day, I ended up using that piece of paper to write down an email address. That evening I transferred the address into my computer and threw the coupon away.
Clearly, I did not use the paper for the use that the giver intended. Was that a theft?
So Nate, you do realize that Heysoos the Christ showed no interest in living peaceably alongside the Pahrisees and showed a mighty disrespect for the blind adherence to the dogma of the day. It's rumored that he even worked on the Sabath. I wonder what he was trying to tell us. Something about inner.....inner something.....inner..... Oh well, I guess we'll never know.
#409 The Rooke
Why am I feeding the troll?
Forty people at the party, all of them like pork including the bride, groom and their parents. Only this boyfriend considered himself the dictator of the menu.
Does this sound like Bill Donohue? He publishes e-mail addresses so that his minions can harrass PZ and now Chancellor Johnson. Have you noticed that he does not publish his own e-mail?
Right! PZ threw a cracker to the trash. This made people upset. So these people "condemed" him... by threatening death and bodily harm to his family. Perfectly reasonable response, right Nate?
"I've said this before but whenever I'm among such hatred and loathing I remind myself of the old Negro spiritual:"
That's an interesting fallback. Why does the fact that I disagree with you constitute "hatred and loathing?" Or the fact that I challenge you to back up what you say? Or even the fact that I'm mildly snarky with you and poke fun at you?
Hatred and loathing are awfully strong words, Pete. I wouldn't be so quick to fling them around...particularly not if you're going to turn a blind eye to similar or worse conduct from Catholics.
Nate, I get the opinion that your idea of respectful discussion is everybody avoiding giving you any offense whatsoever. That is asking for special privilege.
Here is a thought experiment where you can determine where a line is drawn. A couple down the street keeps a kosher household. They get upset because you don't obey the words found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. At what point in the discussion must you agree to become kosher to avoid offending them? Or, can you disagree with them, even though they are offended that you don't agree with them? How far can you go to get rid of them? Especially if they don't take polite hints?
I wrote the following email to Mr. Dreher after reading his column:
Dear Mr. Rod Dreher,
I write to you not with respect to the Myers affair per se, though it is not unconnected. You and Bill Donohue have both committed a fallacy that I, both as a homosexual by birth and a philosopher by training, find deeply offensive. You two often analogize contempt for religious beliefs and practices with an irrational hatred for homosexuals, racial minorities, as well as other marginalized groups. This is obviously fatuous to anyone with even slightest respect for reason and clarity, as (1) a person cannot avoid being born the way she is, nor (2) is there anything WRONG with being born that way. The key word is "being," which is an altogether different thing from "believing." A Catholic isn't a Catholic in virtue of being born that way, she must make a conscious and ongoing choice to be a Catholic in the same respect that I have to make a conscious and ongoing choice to be an atheist, a metaphysical naturalist, and a vegetarian. That is, the predicates of the following two sentences, "I am gay" and "I am Catholic," are not predicated of the subject in the same fashion. In the first case, the predicate states who that person is in virtue of powers beyond their control and in the second it is merely shorthand for "I believe all of the following statements to be true: Jesus was born of a virgin, he died on the cross and was resurrected, he was the son of god, etc." To state it again: when someone says, "I am a Marxist" or "I am a Catholic" we do not mean that they stand in the same relationship to that predicate in the same respect that a Kurd, a Tibetan, or a homosexual does to hers. Rather, it is merely a shorthand way of stating one's beliefs by ascribing the blanket-term "Catholic" to oneself, although one does not stand in the relation to being Catholic as one is in to being a Homo sapiens, a primate, a mammal, a vertebrate, etc. The sentence "I am a Catholic" isn't in fact a sentence about what one IS at all, but just a confused and confusing way of stating what one BELIEVES. The same is true of atheists, of course; one isn't an atheist in the same respect that one is an albino. For this reason, to demean a homosexual or a black person, as a Klan member would do, is evil, stupid, and cruel. Being ridiculed for being a Catholic--i.e. holding these-and-these beliefs--is, however, merely one of the unfortunate side-effects of believing things that other people find ridiculous.
When you ask, "If Dr. Myers had carried out a similar extreme act of contempt against homosexuals or racial minorities, for example, does anybody doubt that he'd be shown the door? And should have been[?]," my answer is the same as yours, "yes." However, were one to reflect on the argument that this question presupposes, we can readily see that it is fallacious, because it depends on the hideous conflation of two completely different senses of "being." With that said, I think your analogy between contempt for homosexuals and racial minorities and contempt for religious beliefs and practices trivializes the very real dangers of racism and homophobia and all of the horrors following therefrom, such as lynching and gay-bashing. Your question is an insult to every American who has been deprived, at one point or another, of his or her civil and human rights as a result of something as surficial as skin color or sexual orientation. A young man who is beaten to death for his sexual preference isn't victimized in the same fashion as a Catholic is when someone hammers a nail through a cracker and throws it in the trash, as your idiotic analogy seems to suggest. The legitimate criticism of an ancient dogma is not morally equivalent to racism or homophobia and I hope every racial minority and homosexual in the country resists the comparison.
Sincerely & Concernfully,
A. Eustice
#309
Thanks for that clarification. In the vernacular, people tend to use "assault" to describe what is, technically, battery.
I guess it would sound weird to say that Cook was "battered," especially with all the gastronomic jokes involving communion wafers going on around here.
If anyone's interested, below is the Florida battery and felony battery statute:
Pete #436, we don't hate Catholics; we simply find their beliefs ridiculous. All the hatred (calls for physical harm and loss of jobs) has come from the Catholic side.
Nate W #440:
Why should anyone care if they are not respected by Catholic morons? There is nobody more insane and more hopelessly stupid than Catholics. I wouldn't want their respect.
Nate W, while you're here, why don't you explain why you believe in the Jebus Zombie myth, also known as the Resurrection.
Tell us why you shouldn't be called batshit crazy for believing that disgusting nonsense.
I'm not sure why I bothered coming here. I've dealt with you militant types before, so I should have known better. None of you has the slightest concern for the opinions or cares any human being who doesn't dwell in your narrow, pathetic little world.
Have fun driving away everyone who dares not see the world the way you do.
Sounds to me that Pete is making the classic 'I have been wronged and now I shall leave' statement.
P.S. Please excuse my naivete, I'm not from Nth America, but do people still refer to black people as negroes? Really?
Ha! Now Nate has been wronged and is leaving. Priceless!
Nate W, before you leave, please answer my question in #458. Why do you believe Jebus was a zombie, and why shouldn't we laugh at you for believing in something that idiotic and disgusting?
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Nate. And expect to be relentlessly mocked if you show up again after the weepy curtain call.
Eric #397
Point of order here, Sam: Reason is something that only works when BOTH sides engage in it. The Crackurbation Jihadists have gone to great lengths to AVOID using anything even remotely resembling reason, and so the mockery in PZ's posts is not only appropriate, it's the absolute best course of action. As Thomas Jefferson famously said "Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligble propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
----------------
Ah, yea, sure. Like that crackpot Thomas Aquinas, eh? Now there's someone who never heard of reason, never had the capacity to make his ideas distinct or create an intelligible proposition.
Hmmm. Haven't read much, have you?
Okay, so I've only been able to make it about half-way through the comments, and I have something for Sam, and Pete, and any/all other religious nutjobs.
If *YOU* want to fill your life with all the magic and fairytales of religion, go right ahead. BUT, if ANYTHING that affects MY life is tainted by said fairytales, it has got to go. You will not be forcing your phony morality, or your fraudulent BS about how I should live MY life, on to me. It's fine to be ignorant by yourself - do not, in any way, try to drag me into your fantasy, too. (By the way, that means I'm not paying for any of your crap with my taxes, either, and all of these "churches" have to give up their tax-exempt status, too. No more free rides!)
Oh, and what is it with these trolls continually spewing bible verses at us? It doesn't mean shit to me, so why keep bringing it up? Besides, nothing said here could possibly be sacrilegious, or be considered as desecrating anything - if we don't buy into the bullshit, it has no meaning whatsoever to us. It isn't sacred, so mocking is perfectly normal, and expected, and richly deserved.
For all you religious freaks, here's the Reader's Digest version of your life; you're born, you eat, drink, sleep, poop, and, if you're lucky, laugh and fuck a lot, and then you die. That's it. No 72 virgins, no heaven, no hell, and no credit card bills. No Newcastle Brown Ale, either, which makes me sad. So, instead of coming in here like a bunch of Pharisees, try to live a good life by yourself, and leave us out of it. Earn our respect, not our contempt.
"Reasonable" would be understanding that what you hold "sacred" is not held sacred by others not of your religion. Myers demonstrated that he does not hold the wafer sacred, why can't you respect his beliefs? He did not force you to desecrate the wafer, he does not demand that you stop believing the wafer is sacred, likewise you should not demand that he believe the wafer is more than a piece of bread.
Respecting the beliefs of others does not mean you have to share those beliefs. You respect a Jew's or Muslim's prohibition to eating pork by not serving him pork, not by abstaining from pork yourself. You respect a sikh's prohibition from cutting his hair by not cutting his hair, not by being forced to let your own grow. Myers did not barge into a Mass and bust open the tabernacle to abscond with the wafers. He did not physically assualt a priest and pry the wafers from his hands. He simply demonstrated that he does not hold the wafer sacred, why can't you respect his belief that the wafer is simply a piece of unleavened bread with a "+" (or is it an "x") embossed in it?
And why should he engage in such a "pointless" display of his "unbelief"? To illustrate the hypocracy of those who demand respect for their beliefs while not respecting the beliefs of anyone else. And he got thousands of letters demonstrating exactly that. So not so pointless after all.
cubefarmed @403: Awesome reply. You've made my day, thanks.
and there's no Robbie the Robot to make us scotch!
me #460
No
This arrogant fucktard is paraphrasing Martin Luther King in reference to himself. It's more insulting than you think.
But whenever Christards want to play the victim-card they compare themselves to the civil rights movement, and whine about how oppressed they are then drive off in their fucking Lexus.
It's disgusting
@Me #460: No, the single word isn't used any more. The term "negro spiritual" refers to a form of music that you'll find listed in most music history classes.
Jefferson had a very low opinion of Christianity. If he lived today I'm sure he would be laughing the hopeless stupidity of Catholics who believe in sacred crackers.
Until I saw the signature I thought this was directed at the Catholic jihadists. (Crusaders?)
@73, 62, etc. (Better late than never.)
Hee-Hawdists?
Nate, you didn't say what your discipline is.
It is frustrating when an academic in science holds onto dogma and superstition. It is also frustrating when a theologian with a PhD holds himself as an equal to a PhD in biology, physics, etc. (yeah, I opened that can of worms)
You are offended by the desecration of the eucharist, Nate. I'm offended by government officials lying about WMDs and escalating a war. I'm offended by ID proponents who want to subvert science. I'm offended when I hear "In Jesus name we pray" at a high school football game, as I sit next to jewish friends, just a few rows from an muslim couple who flinch everytime someone asks if they're muslim. That's usually courtesy of the Protestant Evangelicals, but the Catholic Church hasa history of promoting their own brand of offensiveness to any and all who aren't -well- Catholic, but that's not your paradigm.
Worship your wafer in church, psych yourself into believing it's actually "the host" - I would never interrupt your worship services ( I only antagonise street preachers). Religion is your right (and your delusion). The wafer is a theatrical prop in a pageant, a ceremonial rite, a symbolic reminder of Jesus supposed final seder. Outside of church, it's cellulose and gluten. And one more hint, crosses don't repel vampires and holy water is just H2O - it doesn't burn demons, vampires or heretics, you need fire to do that, and the Catholic Church has lit more than its share of heretic staked pyres.
Nate, there is no magic. the laws of physics govern all material things and there is NO evidence anything else exists despite what you were programed as a child to believe (I was programed too, but I got better).
And remind me to insult you when I go to your house and then fail to comprehend why I'm getting a poor reception.
On the street, people tend to be as rude as they're willing to back it up either by wit, intellectual prowess, or by force. As my grandfather used to say: don't let your alligator-mouth overload your killdeer-fanny.
This is actually a nice example, in the opposite sense than you think. Aquinas is a perfect example of the fact- known to anyone who actually understands what "reason" is- that even the most impeccably logical argument which starts from bogus premises can only lead to bogus conclusions.
Which is why modern science, in order to make progress, had to jettison the extreme rationalism of the ancient Greeks in favor of a much more empirical attitude. Reality doesn't care two hoots about what YOU think is reasonable.
Nate, has anybody here threatened you with physical violence, or to take away your job? Calling us militant is just a lie. Bearing false witness, a sin. See your priest for proper penance.
We do not have to agree with you. Period. End of story. You need to develop some of the tolerance you want us to have.
I am in the middle of "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, and saw a reference to this tea-pottish tempest mentioned on Alternet.com.
Coincidence? Synchronicity?
NO, NO!
Ga-awd led me to your website!
Seriously, it is high time all citizens begin to question each other about our beliefs. The same way we talk about why I think this pizza is better than that one; the way we question each other about geometry, physics, etc.
Why is it IMPOLITE and IMPOLITIC to question someone's beliefs? If your faith is so strong and your belief is so true, then what is the fear?
This kind of gut-level reaction-ism is pure fear.
And I understand fear.
Fear induced by terrorism was the primary tactic used on me in Catholic elementary school. You want to scare the wits out of 50 kids? Take a 1 X 4 board and break it over 1 student's back. The rest will do whatever you tell them to do. Really. It's very efficient.
But if the Catholic religion is so perfect and true, why do the adults have to scare the daylights out of little kids to "get it to stick"? If it is the one true way to 'salvation', then why isn't it obvious to everyone? Why do they have to terrorize children into conformity?
Well, as my third grade teacher, the board-swingin' sister Eucharista used to tell us: "You GOTTA suffer!" WHACK!
Has Thomas Aquinas been posting on this blog? Sorry I missed it. But asshats like you who can't even parse a sentence? It'll be good riddance when you leave.
How long, O Lord, are white Christian males going to continue to be oppressed and kept down in this country?
The stones cry out...
Scooter. Cheers, I thought so but had to ask.
That's right Pete Rooke. You have the right to be a religious idiot, and I have the right to call you an idiot.
Nate W (and other Concern Trolls),
The best response the Catholics could have made was, "We don't care what you do with the communion wafer. We don't care what you think about our beliefs. Your opinions mean nothing to us."
It would have meant that PZ was wrong, that they aren't unreasonable and don't think everyone should hold their objects as sacred simply because they do.
That they were offended just shows he was right. You worry about offending a whole group of people who have no right to be offended in the first place. That is the whole freaking point.
No one worries about offending the sensibilities of racists, because the idea that some people are inferior to others is ridiculous and reprehensible. Well, the idea that everyone should be forced to treat an object as sacred just because some do is ridiculous, reprehensible and, when that same courtesy does not extend to others' beliefs, hypocritical.
Your "concern" at the reaction the desecration caused ignores, and even condones, that the reaction is unreasonable.
So don't bother me with your "concern" that PZ might have offended the sensibilities of bigots. Because if they can't tolerate the idea that not everyone holds their crackers sacred, that's precisely what they are: bigots.
me: P.S. Please excuse my naivete, I'm not from Nth America, but do people still refer to black people as negroes? Really?
He was quoting MLK. Pete doesn't understand that quotation like that doesn't work unless you're Mel Brooks, or the enslaved metaphor actually works. Is Pete being beaten by Bull Conneresque atheist sheriffs? No, Pete is just a narcissistic ass, hoping that someone will crucify him to fullfill his self-importance.
Nate,
(Assuming that you're still reading)
You bring up a fair point. Of course, Dr. Myers should expect a negative reaction from Catholics upon ridiculing their beliefs. Of course he shouldn't expect them to respect him. I don't think he did.
The key point here is that there are different levels of disrespect. Many of the posters here show disrespect towards Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and members of any other religion. How many of them have threatened violence against the people they disrespect? How many of them have called for the people they disrespect to suffer sanctions?
It's not the fact of the disrespect that's the issue: it's the degree.
Personally, I think Dr. Myers' stunt was juvenile. I wouldn't have done the same myself. I suppose you could say that I don't respect his decision.
However, I can not respect his decision without calling for his firing, sending him death threads, and otherwise making myself out to be a raving psychopath.
Whateverman, cheers also.
True Bob:
Actually, I was going for John Crichton, but the sound on this thing is lousy!
:)
I kind of felt that way at first, but the volume and insanity of the response it called forth has persuaded me that he performed a very real public service.
Cheers Frog too! You guys rock! See what happens (Pete, Nate, other religious quote-spilling dorks) when you ask a question nicely?! Answers! Conversation!
Sorry for all the exclamation marks. Just happy.
I can tell you why. You're a hypocritical concern troll who thinks respect for your beliefs means we all have to follow them.
The word is "uppity".
My irony meter just exploded.
And I am thankful that I live in a nation that mandates my right to point and laugh at the religious.
psychological projection (or projection bias) - a defense mechanism in which one attributes one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
Pygmy Loris, #413, your story is the same as mine. I wonder how many of there are?
Steve @487:
I don't think the one precludes the other. I agree that he accomplished his objective, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with the means he used. If I form the hypothesis "Dropping my drawers and mooning the congregation of Westboro Baptist Church with the likeness of Fred Phelps painted on my pasty white buttocks will cause them to become irrationally incensed," then in all probability, acting on that hypothesis will prove it true. That doesn't change the fact that mooning people and painting my butt would be a pretty juvenile stunt.
He can't help himself. He's a weak-minded regressive who longs for the good old days when men were men, women knew their place, and everyone worshiped the same god.
Pluralism? Cultural poison! Feminism? Gender anarchy! Yet he sees himself as Enlightened.
Nate. There is no god. Religion is dumb. Am I militant?
When PZ eventually passes away thousands will miss him. I wonder what it would take for Catholics to turn him into a cracker.
Steve_C: No. Just show me the proof that there is no God. There is just one scientific correct position you can take, and that is that we DO NOT KNOW whether there is a god or not.
Hey Nate, when you say militant types are you referring to Heysoos the Christ. I heard he was a pretty rowdy dude that often hurt peoples feelings by not respecting their deeply held dogmas. Some people say he had a pretty interesting message though. Maybe some day Bill and the Catholic League might look into it for us.
Shifting the burden.
Wrong. The complete lack of scientific evidence for a god means there is no reason to believe there is one.
oh boy, here we go again