I'm also completely flummoxed by the people saying a consecrated host is JUST A CRACKER, so why is everyone getting all upset?
Would it be okay if I spraypainted obscenities on your mother's grave because it's just a piece of highly compressed igneous rock with some lines chiseled into it? How about if I photoshop your a photo of your now-grown child onto a piece of child porn, because after all, no one's actually hurt by this--it's just a piece of paper.
If you reduce symbols to their base physical constituents, then of course it sounds silly to get all excited about them. Nonetheless, you'd probably be pretty damn upset if someone dug up a relative's grave and desecrated the corpse on the grounds that it's just some rotting meat.
People do not live without symbols. The fact that you do not share someone else's symbols does not give you the right to descrate them. Desecrating other people's symbols is the act of a bully and a boor.
Atheists have done better out of America's committment to pluralism than any other religious group, so it's hard to see why any of them would now condone an attempt to break down the social compact that demands that we mostly leave other peoples' religious beliefs alone. Yes, yes, I know--evolution!. Except, ummm, the Catholic Church isn't against evolution, and most of their energy is devoted to perfectly acceptable civil practices like boycotting sexy movies and complaining that everyone is mean to them. When you catch Bill Donohue pissing on PZ Myers' grave, come back and we'll talk.
« The N Word, revisited | Main | Exurbs delenda est »
Humans are complicated, part 11,284 in a continuing series
19 Jul 2008 08:41 am
Comments (151)
The obvious rejoinder here is... not all symbols are equal. A gravestone, or more generally, any marker used to remember the dead, does not require any religious belief in order to warrant respect. Calling a cracker a piece of Jesus does require a religious belief.
"Except, ummm, the Catholic Church isn't against evolution, and most of their energy is devoted to perfectly acceptable civil practices like boycotting sexy movies and complaining that everyone is mean to them. "
Don't forget one of the Catholic Church's favorite activities: fleecing their constituents for money used to fund gag orders against parents complaining that Catholic priests raped their children. That should deserve some ire.
But there is a hierarchy of significance, and one thing that humans find endlessly diverting (consider this comment part 11,285) is arguing about the relative significance and worth of different people's symbols. So, the Catholic noise machine claims that the cracker is so important, that taking it is worse than kidnapping a *real, live person*, and that anyone who does so is worthy of death threats. Myers et al. claim that the cracker is a gosh darned *cracker*, and that stealing it to make a political point is so unworthy of our concern that we should be shocked and outraged that any Catholic would have the gall to compare its moral value to that of a flesh-and(-untransubstantial)-blood person.
I agree with Myers. Trying to take the argument to a meta-level where we postulate that Myers must be wrong because the Catholics really, really do care about the host is at best misguided. Even in a pluralist society, no group gets to decide on the worth that other members of society accord their symbols, although they can (and frequently do) make demands in this direction. If the ADL demanded life in prison for grave desecration, or if the NAACP demanded prison time for whites who say "nigger," and so on for many other groups which have symbolic grievances, I would not only dismiss the demands, but sympathize with people who ramp up the desecration of the symbols in protest.
By the way, death threats - a peculiarly right wing phenomenon? Discuss, with bonus points for reference to our "culture of life."
Humans are complicated
Well, except for when you encounter a new-to-you area of a city that's dying/being abandoned--then it's clearly The Man at work. :-(
I don't disagree with the basic thrust of your post...yes, people should be nice to each other. PZ wasn't being nice when he desecrated their symbol.
PZ lives in a society which is openly hostile to his beliefs. It is wrong, but not surprising, for someone to react to that hostility with self-righteous anger.
I can't imagine what you mean by "Atheists have done better out of America's committment to pluralism than any other religious group". How have Atheists done better than other religeous groups?
PZ lives in a society which is openly hostile to his beliefs.
Funny I hear my priest say the same thing about Catholics.
But in your world, PZ is persecuted because there are people who do not believe in Anthropogenic climate change and evolution.
Call me when someone submerges a copy of a Inconvenient Truth in urine and calls it art.
A point that occurred to me after the prior thread degenerated: The legal systems of many states -- perhaps most, perhaps all -- recognize a tort called "intentional infliction of emotional distress." So that if I called you up just for fun and said "I am your child's teacher, and our class was on a field trip to the zoo, and there was a slight misunderstanding which led to your child being eaten by a polar bear," a jury could make me pay you money.
Probably no individual Catholic, including Bill Donahue, has standing to sue PZ Myers over this. But the point is that our society does in fact have a mechanism to try and stop people from inflicting pain on others for no good reason.
The Catholic Church certainly doesn't think it's a symbol. It thinks the wafer is actually the body of Christ. PZ does not think it is the body of Christ.
So a better analogy, while we're talking about mothers' graves, might be this: if someone told you that a piece of stone was actually his mother, would it be OK to desecrate the piece of stone?
I suspect you would answer that the person himself would be clearly crazy. I couldn't agree more. The question then becomes, what do you do about crazy people, who after all have feelings too?
Paul L, no, we know PZ is persecuted because people send him death threats.
Crazy is a pretty strong word for something that is believed in by hundreds of millions of people. Obviously, if you think that there is no God, a belief in the mystical transformation of an ordinary object is odd--but it doesn't seem all that much odder to me than the belief that a rock becomes, with the addition of some spit polish and a little writing, a tombstone which it is profane to deface. Most people live in both the physical and the symbolic world.
Catholics do not believe that the bread is transformed into the same sorts of molecules that would have composed the actual flesh of Christ. What they believe is "meat" is not the most important attribute of the concept of "body"--that the word has a deeper, more essential sense, and that under the right circumstances, bread can take on all the necessary and important attributes of the flesh of Christ. This is also the sense in which they look for the resurrection of the body--no one things that God is going to bring back the exact same corruptible flesh.
If you understand that a tombstone is more than a rock, that a flag is different from a sheet, that money is more valuable than copy paper, and that smearing excrement on the side of someone's house is more offensive than smearing pungent dirt, then you, too, are giving symbolic values precedence over the merely physical. As you should, since this is an important part of what it means to be human.
If I understand correctly, Catholic theology doesn't consider a consecrated host as a symbol; it IS the body of Christ. Of course non-believers won't buy that, but if you want to understand why believers are so offended, the appropriate analogy wouldn't be pissing on your mother's gravestone -- it would be more like pissing on your mother.
This might sound (well, it is in fact) a tad old fashioned but there's a very good reason why you don't go around pissing on gravestones, desecrating the host nor telling people that their mothers are ugly.
Because it is impolite.
Manners maketh man and all that.....
"If you understand that a tombstone is more than a rock, that a flag is different from a sheet, that money is more valuable than copy paper, and that smearing excrement on the side of someone's house is more offensive than smearing pungent dirt, then you, too, are giving symbolic values precedence over the merely physical."
The obvious difference, again, is the you just listed symbols that everyone recognizes as such. They are universal. Believing that Jesus lives in a Saltine is not.
"So a better analogy, while we're talking about mothers' graves, might be this: if someone told you that a piece of stone was actually his mother, would it be OK to desecrate the piece of stone?"
No, because I am not afflicted with a pathological need to be right. If there belief that the stone is their mother is harming no one but themselves, what good is there in deliberately hurting their feelings? I might try to talk them out of the idea, but desecrating it? That's like burning a book you don't like.
Is "crazy" a strong word for someone who believes a stone is her mother? To describe all Catholics, "crazy" certainly does seem harsh, but it's clearly what Myers thinks. And the revised analogy makes his reasons clearer for thinking that way.
Perhaps he is not understanding the distinction you and the Catholic Church seem to be making between the actual and the symbolic. Is there a difference?
Anticipating one answer: Not really, because symbols are "actual" too. E.g., a hundred-dollar bill is real, and is different from other bills, even though it's just ink and paper. I think this answer reduces the argument to trivialities. Myers doesn't deny that things mean other things; what he denies is "that under the right circumstances, bread can take on all the necessary and important attributes of the flesh of Christ." Put another way: he doesn't disagree that the Catholic Church thinks that the host is the body of Christ. He disagrees that the host is the body of Christ!
To reduce all this to a misunderstanding about symbols is not to take the Catholics seriously enough. Catholics do not think the consecrated host is just a symbol, and PZ Myers does not (I am trying to be charitable to both sides here) misunderstand the nature of symbols. Any accounting of the etiquette for each side should recognize that they disagree fundamentally about facts about the world.
MikeS,
The analogy posed the question: would it be right to desecrate a stone that a person thought was his mother?
I'm not sure the answer would be no. The belief that one's mother is a stone is not necessarily a benign one, particularly if the believer tries to get other people to believe the same strange ideas about the stone. Even more so if he succeeds. And what if your desecrating the stone performs the necessary service of reminding other people that it's just fine to believe that the stone is not one's mother, and that the earth won't swallow one up for disbelieving this?
This is surely what Myers &co. believe about the Holy Eucharist -- that belief in it is pernicious, and that acts of disobedience, even hurtful ones, are a public service.
Many of the people here arguing against the "just a cracker" crowd were also stating that "nigger" is just a word.
But lets ask another question. If someone did desecrate your mother's grave, is it ok for that person to then receive death threats?
Yes, PZ Meyers may be being mean to a symbol, but Donahue's followers are threating PZ's life, and livelihood. Isn't that more severe? Symbolically hurting someone vs. physically hurting someone?
And, speaking of desecrating graves, when you have religious leaders like Phelps protesting at the funerals of dead American soldiers, what do you do? Are you arguing in favor of issuing death threats against them?
You are also overlooking the attempts to ban (or defund programs that promote) contraception, condoms, etc. by religious groups like Donahue's. These views affect the lives of all American's, not just members of the individual religious groups. In the case of abortion, this has led to murdering doctors. Considering that, one cannot conclude that the threats to PZ's life are harmless in the slightest.
So yes, "its just a cracker" is a bad excuse, but that is vastly overshadowed by death threats from groups that seem to nearly idolize abortion clinic bombers.
And, regarding Donahue in particular, maybe he didn't desecrate any mothers' graves, but he did say that Hollywood actors would sodomize their own mothers with a smile on their face. I'd say that is comparable to pissing on a person's grave.
Megan, would you ban me if I made such a comment about you and your mother or father? Can we put that to a test?
Threatening PZ Meyer's life is obviously wrong, and anybody who has should be prosecuted.
Private citizens threatening his livelihood by peacefully lobbying, protesting, or boycotting his employer are NOT doing something wrong. Since when do people have immunity from social censure for being jerks in public?
And when did people lose the right to tell a public university "this is not public scholarship, this is bigotry, and you should stop supporting it."
The wafer, as used in the Catholic ritual, is categorically different from many other symbols in that it explicitly says that the symbol and the thing symbolized are identical, are one and the same, in some mysterious sense that eludes rational thought. Symbols are very useful as a tool of thought. Ask Alan Turing. But to use a symbol in the service of wild and utter superstition, to make the symbol subservient to something that is nonsensical and absurd, is implicitly to minimize the value of symbols as a tool.
So repellant tactics asidem maybe this is what drove the miscreant you so primly castigate,
The comment Myers made was part of an escalating hostile conversation he's involved in with a lot of Christian fundamentalists of various stripes. People often say things in the course of hostile conversations which they wouldn't say in other contexts. I think addressing Myers's comments in isolation is an interpretive failure. I also think it's an interpretive failure which is guaranteed to generate a spinoff hostile conversation of its own, as we witness here.
These kinds of hostile conversations generated by yanking other statements out of context are increasingly a mainstay of the American culture industry. This has come to resemble a form of glass bead game in which the key moment of play comes when someone announces "You can't say that!" I think Megan is right that the rules are in fact usually easy to understand, as in the "nigger" case, where the simple rule is that people cannot use words meant to denigrate members of other ethnic or religious groups except in the context of discussing the word itself. But I also think that this cultural game we engage in for fun and profit is starting to generate declining returns and is often generating perverse results -- excluding worthy or acceptable conversants from the public sphere for insufficient reason. And I think that's true both on the right and on the left.
Private citizens threatening his livelihood by peacefully lobbying, protesting, or boycotting his employer are NOT doing something wrong.
This is wrong. No one should lose their job for making an intemperate comment. PZ Myers's blog is a personal blog, not an official university site; he is not speaking with the authority of his university when he says whatever he wants to say about Catholics, intelligent design adherents, the New York Yankees and their fans, or what have you. I do not see much of a line between advocating that Myers be fired for what he said on his blog, and advocating that Safeway fire a checkout cashier who once said the same thing verbally; and I think people who would organize to demand either one are behaving in an un-American fashion.
This is wrong. No one should lose their job for making an intemperate comment. PZ Myers's blog is a personal blog, not an official university site; he is not speaking with the authority of his university when he says whatever he wants to say about Catholics, intelligent design adherents, the New York Yankees and their fans, or what have you. I do not see much of a line between advocating that Myers be fired for what he said on his blog, and advocating that Safeway fire a checkout cashier who once said the same thing verbally; and I think people who would organize to demand either one are behaving in an un-American fashion.
I agree that PZ Meyers shouldn't lose his job for being a bigot. I'm not riding Bill Donahue's crazy train.
However, if I were a Safeway checkout clerk, and somebody wanted to get me fired for some reason, they're free to try. If my employer is weak enough to fold when I truly did nothing that deserves firing, I was working in the wrong place.
Trying to get PZ Meyers fired is "un-American" in much the same way that soliciting communion wafers for public desecration is "un-American". If simply worshipping at your own church is a political act that can be protested by other people, then so is going to work. He's reaping what he sews.
Trying to get PZ Meyers fired is "un-American" in much the same way that soliciting communion wafers for public desecration is "un-American".
No. It's different. Wherever you draw the line between "speech" and "action", whatever difference you seek to establish between saying something that hurts someone and doing something that causes someone material damage, getting someone fired is action that causes them material damage. That crosses the line. And I believe that most employers would in fact "fold" and fire an employee when faced with a large number of angry customers, regardless of the merits of those customers' objections, unless the employer were legally prohibited from firing the employee.
It is a statement of legal fact that people are free to try and get other people fired. People who get fired are then free to sue the people who got them fired for damages. But all of this is contrary to the ethos of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression that is a cornerstone of American society. The response of Americans to people who say or do outrageous stuff has classically been, "Hey, it's a free country." Of course legally Americans are free instead to respond by saying "I think that guy should be fired," but that spirit of censorious punishment is not part of our best tradition.
How hard is it, really, to get your hands on communion wafers and desecrate them to your heart's delight?
I can't believe that these items are secured the way the Hope Diamond is; PZ Myers' appeals seem done merely to abuse and excite Catholics. Much as I loathe their beliefs, there would seem to be an easier way to desecrate their symbols, were I so inclined.
Piss Christ, etc., would be one way. Getting my hands on communion wafers and doing whatever PZ Myers wants to do to them would be another.
But to make public his appeal for communion wafers suggests he cares less about taking a principled stand against Catholics, and more about, well, abusing them. The latter would seem to take no courage.
Greg,
Please point me to the post where anyone supported the much-celebrated death threats.
Also, when was the last abortion clinic bombing or mudered doctor, and when were they publically celebrated or encouraged by someone with prominence equal to what you believe PZ Myers has or should have?
I, perhaps unwisely, hold PZ Myers to a higher standard than the most unhinged people on the internet. If you think he should be held to a lower standard, that if there are a few whackos on the other side who did something worse then he shouldn't be criticized, that's fine.
But that will also result in his words being given the same weight as a random crazy on the internet. If that's what you want, then fine.
Fortunately, Myers has tenure, so he can't be fired for speech. Also, those protesting against Myers can boycott his university all they want, but my guess is they don't have the intellectual chops to get accepted there.
Excellent post, Megan.
On the difference between desecrating a grave and doing this, PZ Myers' justification is that the wafers are freely handed out during communion, which apparently makes them fair game.
"the Catholic noise machine claims that the cracker is so important, that taking it is worse than kidnapping a *real, live person*, and that anyone who does so is worthy of death threats."
This is not the position of the Catholic church. A few disturbed individuals said some nasty things, but there are disturbed people on both the left and the right, and among atheists as well as religious people. Even Myers admits that "the majority of the angry emails threaten nothing but to assault me with prayer".
Donohue is asking that the University of Minnesota, whose website links to Myers' blog, enforce their policies, including the one that the interaction of faculty members with others should be "respectful, fair and civil". If Myers had made a similar threat to a Koran, the U of M wouldn't be linking to his blog. Donohue is asking for equal treatment.
Your understanding of Catholic theology is wrong. The text of the Bible also says otherwise.
38And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43And he took it, and did eat before them.
Catholics believe the Host and wine are actually the Body and Blood of Christ. It is a Mystery, and accepted as such.
Your understanding of Catholic theology is wrong. The text of the Bible also says otherwise.
38And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43And he took it, and did eat before them.
Catholics believe the Host and wine are actually the Body and Blood of Christ. It is a Mystery, and accepted as such.
The comment Myers made was part of an escalating hostile conversation he's involved in with a lot of Christian fundamentalists of various stripes. People often say things in the course of hostile conversations which they wouldn't say in other contexts.
This same argument could be used to excuse the DEATH THREATS we keep hearing so much about.
We say things to our family members in the heat of arguments that we don't mean, too.
When this happens, decent people apologize and retract the offensive statement. Jerks stand behind them and continue to escalate the vitriol.
---
I used to live in an apartment that backed up to a Denny's. Occasionally late at night, I would hear a man screaming at his woman acquaintance, and I would call the police (perhaps I should have done more).
Did I know the full story? Do I know that the woman didn't do something equally bad? No, but I did know that the behavior I was witnessing was objectively unacceptable, and had to be stopped, regardless of the context.
Megan, I just want to say that as a Catholic I appreciate your open-mindedness. But clearly most of your readers already have strong biases on one side or another and constantly revisiting this topic has proven fruitless. It's probably best just to let it go.
JohnMcG-
I suggest you get new intercoluters. Really, if you regularly engage in hostile conversations with people, and find death threats to be a totally normal response to these conversations, then you should find new friends.
Thanks, Greg, for making the connection between this post and the one below it. They're both about the same thing, which is intentionally offensive speech. And the ground rules governing the two situations ought to be the same:
1. People desiring to be treated as members of polite society don't use speech that they know well will be deeply offensive to another group.
2. People who do so have earned whatever contempt and/or shunning is forthcoming from that group and its sympathizers.
3. While treating such people as "bullies and boors" is fair game, death threats are not.
That said, the difference between the comments on the two threads is interesting. While I'd venture to guess that Myers expected the outrage he caused and embraced it (that was, after all, part of the point), the complainers on the "nigger" thread seem to expect to be allowed to offend with impunity.
I wish we could dispense with the language of "rights" here. Rights are Constitutionally guaranteed: religious provocateurs and racists have the right to offend others, as long as they don't prevent those others from the free exercise of their own rights (to practice their religion, to be free of discrimination or the threat of harm, and to yell as loud as they want about how offended they are). And any of us has the right to think less of them as a result.
Rick -
I don't think JohnMcG's point was that death threats are acceptable, but that Myers' threats are unacceptable as well. Simply saying "he started it" isn't sufficient, for either side.
Overall, no one is saying that death threats are in any way appropriate. But Myers isn't going after the disturbed few that made these threats. He's trying to hurt a large number of people (i.e. all Catholics) simply because he objects to the fact that they care about communion wafers. Even if you think that religious people are crazy for their beliefs, hurting crazy people for the sheer joy of hurting them isn't particularly admirable.
Calling the host "just a cracker" is hardly an example of liberal "tolerance" is it? One need not have to share in the belief that the host is really the body of Christ, but denigrating the faith of those who do is rude and derogatory. Athiests who don't wish to be see as arrogant and anti-religious would do well to belittle the faith of others so crudely. Even if you think that transubstantiation is a stupid superstition, crying it from the rooftops and behaving boorishly is not going to make people more open to atheism.
The arguments that it's OK to denigrate Catholicism because some nuts sent death threats to Myers doesn't fly either. Last I checked, Bill Donohue wasn't the one sending the threats, and the illegal conduct of others does not justify the boorish conduct of others.
It wasn't long ago that this country was home to some virulent anti-Catholic bigotry. To desecrate a host just to make a point is not all that different in substance from desecrating another religious symbol, the difference being that a certain segment of the population seems to have a double standard - howany people would support Myers were he to desecrate a Qu'ran?
"The obvious difference, again, is the you just listed symbols that everyone recognizes as such. They are universal. Believing that Jesus lives in a Saltine is not."
-rick
Surely that's the point of an example, isn't it? Why mention it if it fails to connect with your audience? We can't disqualify the subjective value of any symbol just because it doesn't have universal appeal.
I'm disappointed in the logical legerdemain used to justify what is, at heart, PZ's real motive here. This entire exercise was done because he enjoys hurting people. If he was sincere about changing minds, there are so many better ways of going about it than a stunt this crude.
Let's put this intolerance fad to bed once and for all.
I think what offensive--to Catholics, and to anyone who believes in justice as fairness--is that universities are generally quick to discipline those who, for instance, trample the name of "Allah," but for the most part would never dream of disciplining those who desecrate Catholic religious symbols.
"If I understand correctly, Catholic theology doesn't consider a consecrated host as a symbol; it IS the body of Christ. Of course non-believers won't buy that, but if you want to understand why believers are so offended, the appropriate analogy wouldn't be pissing on your mother's gravestone -- it would be more like pissing on your mother."
I'm not a theologian either, and I am an ex-Catholic. I did attend Catholic schools from second grade through college. Unless I'm very wrong, the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ under Catholic doctrine ("This is My Body... This is My Blood"). However, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, like all sacraments, is both sign and symbol of the reality that already exists (in the case of the Eucharist, that God loves and sustains us). There are physical objects or actions in each of the Sacraments (water, oil, bread and wine, laying on of hands, prayer) through which that reality is expressed. (Note: I'm not 100% sure on the theology of that last bit, it's been about ten years since my last sacramental theology class).
And even though I'm an ex-Catholic now, I think the whole thing is terrible. Doing something like desecrating a central religious symbol of any religion is pretty close to "fighting words." There probably isn't any equivalent symbolic destruction that would strike to the core of what an atheist believes - burning an effigy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, maybe? - so it is kind of hard to communicate to Atheists just how much that the Eucharist means to Catholics.
wow. you get this upset over a cracker, and yet when the bill donahues of the world call me an "abomination", and then sets to make public policy on that claim, i don't feel like they're leaving me alone.
If only the catholics (and religious groups in general) would "leave others alone" then i don't think we'd have a problem. But they don't.
It's interesting, a CRACKER matters more to these people than actualy HUMAN BEINGs.
priorities, anyone?
JB,
If it helps, then think of it as, "PZ Myers matters more to these people than whackos on the internet."
There probably isn't any equivalent symbolic destruction that would strike to the core of what an atheist believes - burning an effigy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, maybe? - so it is kind of hard to communicate to Atheists just how much that the Eucharist means to Catholics.
To play devil's advocate I think this is Myers's point -- that they don't irrationally value things that don't matter thant much. It's only religious people than assign meaning to things as ordinary as crackers, and such belief deserves ridicule.
Some things are ridiculous enough that they warrant ridicule. The Eucharist is one of those things. The fact that people earnestly believe in communion is all the more reason to excoriate them for it. The idea that I should have to tip toe around other people's superstitions is absurd, and implicates me in those superstitions even if I don't believe in them. Pluralism is fine and dandy, and tolerance is a wonderful thing. But that tolerance shouldn't be some kind of safeguard against criticism. "Desecrating" a cracker doesn't constitute "intolerance". PZ Myers didn't imprison, torture, or kill someone because they were Catholic. What he did was simply mockery: an effect religious institutions have been shielded from for far too long.
I share the confusion of seeing this issue discussed without the context it took place in. Myers was responding to a controversy in which a bunch of people made some pretty extreme claims (i.e. kidnapping) all in the service of trying to get a kid expelled (real world consequence) because of what was, ultimately, a pretty minor scuffle during a service that both parties should never have let get out of hand, let alone become a national controversy. Myers’ reaction was hyperbolic, and actually going on and soliciting the desecration a wafer instead of just talking about it hypothetically was a quite poorly justified tactic.
But it isn’t like Myers just decided to do it out of the blue, or one day just decided to be hurtful. He doesn’t think the beliefs hurt no one: he thinks the beliefs are pernicious enough, particularly in light of the incident, that they needed to be challenged. Now, it’s one thing to think that he’s wrong about that and that the beliefs are, in fact, harmless. And it’s also reasonable to point out that desecrations are insulting to all Catholics, not just targeting the absurd Bill Donahue. But a lot of people seem happy to simply make up his motives out of the blue instead of arguing with the ones he described pretty clearly.
I also think people are, in an effort to sound more self-righteous than necessary, asserting a lot of principles they themselves almost certainly don’t really believe. How many people cheered the Muslim cartoons, which were to Muslims just as much a desecration of the sacred as uneaten communion wafers (and which, by the way, were themselves part of another escalating game of rhetoric)? Sometimes symbols (or things that some believe are magically something else) get attacked and its justified. Sometimes beliefs, when they start impacting people’s lives, get called to the mat. Sometimes it isn’t justified. It’s a judgment call, and Myers is making the wrong one here. But there’s no general principle against doing something just because it causes offense to some.
I also think Megan is confused about what religious pluralism is all about. Atheists are not somehow indebted to religious people for NOT preaching, insulting, and generally trying to interfere with their lives, because religious people do that all the time (often without even thinking, so deeply ingrained is it in their everyday practice). If this “social contract” is that we aren’t supposed to criticize and ridicule certain people’s beliefs or lack of them, then it’s a remarkably one-way contract.
Of course, the bizarrity in all of this is that “desecrating” a wafer in this context doesn’t have to involve doing anything to it. In fact, Webster Cook’s original offense was NOT destroying his wafer in the approved fashion: annihilating it with stomach acid.
And as others have pointed out, every gay person that takes communion is desecrating the body of Christ just as much as Myers would be, according to the beliefs of the Catholic Church.
The idea that I should have to tip toe around other people's superstitions is absurd, and implicates me in those superstitions even if I don't believe in them
No, it doesn't. Just don't go in a Catholic Church. And if you can't avoid that, don't go up to communtion. And if you can't avoid that, don't hold out your hand and say "Amen" when the minister says "The Body of Christ" and offers you the Eucharist.
It seems that one could manage to do that without being implicated in the superstition.
I want to point this out again, but at least one of the policies / issues PZ Myers dislikes and people like SoV and Mixner use as justification for behaving like a spoiled 3rd grader, aren't issues with the Catholic Church but are instead issues with Protestants: Evolution. My priests explicitly include evolution as part of creation, nothing in the Bible excludes it. Catholics are not literalists.
I also think that the 10 commandment statues and such were Protestant movements, not Catholic ones. As for the Gay Marriage and Abortion issues, those are common to both Catholics and Protestants - but those are far more secular debates than the other ones. There is legitimate debate on both sides of those issues, informed by religious and secular beliefs, that deserves an open hearing. To marginalize the opposition as simply religious is a tool used be the self-righteous to place the debate as out of bounds and assume a conclusion.
Yes, PZ Meyers may be being mean to a symbol, but Donahue's followers are threating PZ's life, and livelihood.
Has this statement been substantiated AT ALL yet?
So far, all I have seen is that someone from 1-800-FLOWERS sent an email which has been described as being a death threat. Where's the text of this supposed e-mail? And has anyone substantiated yet, AT ALL, that the actual sender is an actual Catholic? Let alone "one of Donahue's followers?"
Nobody's answered this yet. Can I infer the answer is no?
bearing,
The test of the e-mail in question referred to beating Myers' brains in, which to me, is close enough to a death threat.
"No, it doesn't. Just don't go in a Catholic Church. And if you can't avoid that, don't go up to communtion. And if you can't avoid that, don't hold out your hand and say "Amen" when the minister says "The Body of Christ" and offers you the Eucharist.
It seems that one could manage to do that without being implicated in the superstition."
If all these differences of ideology could simply be resolved by retiring into protected enclaves where people of like mind could count on never, ever encountering anyone with a different set of ideas about the world, then maybe your glib response would make sense. I wouldn't want to live in that world, but I'm sure you'd love it.
'"Desecrating" a cracker doesn't constitute "intolerance".'
Would burning a cross constitute intolerance? I think it would, and I suspect there are a lot of atheists who would agree. But a cross is just two pieces of wood, right? And fire is a perfectly natural process; fires happen all the time without any human or divine involvement. So why is this considered intolerance? Becuase of the implied threat of violence, among other things. We wouldn't give the time of day to a person who asks, "It's just a piece of wood burning, what's the big deal?" It's a symbol that's well-known to any reasonable human being, and that any reasonable human being would consider to be an act of intolerance.
Religious symbols are also well-known to any reasonable human being. If you know anything at all about Catholics, you'll know that communion is really important to them. Ditto for the Quran with Muslims, keeping kosher for Jews, and so on. Even aside from religions, national symbols are important to many people, too. Burning a flag is likely to anger the people who belong to that country. And even on a more superficial level - when your sports team is on the road, buy a jersey of the opposing team, go to the game, and desecrate that jersey in the parking lot. That's even your own property, that you bought and paid for with your own money. You didn't even have to defraud anyone to get it. But would you really expect the other team's fans to shrug their shoulders and say, "Hey, it's just a jersey, no big deal." Even in atheist Europe, that kind of behavior is apt to earn you some broken limbs! An attack on the symbol is an attack on the person to whom the symbol is important.
Tel-
A cross seems to me like a perfectly reasonable thing to respect--it was used as an instrument of death, and memorializes the death of Jesus (no need to believe he was divine here). However, a Saltine, no matter how many times a magic trick is performed above it, is still a Saltine. Catholics are practically asking for ridicule by deifying such a silly object.
If all these differences of ideology could simply be resolved by retiring into protected enclaves where people of like mind could count on never, ever encountering anyone with a different set of ideas about the world, then maybe your glib response would make sense. I wouldn't want to live in that world, but I'm sure you'd love it.
Oh, gimme a break...
My point is that in asking you not to desecrate the Eucharist, I am not asking for very much. Continue to trade wisecracks about saltines, crackers, wafers and other starchy items. I won't care. Just don't come into my house of worship, take the Eucharist under false pretenses so you can screw with it.
Call me a rosy optimist, but I think that's possible without us both locking ourselves into enclaves or you implicating yourself into what you see as goofy superstition.
If all these differences of ideology could simply be resolved by retiring into protected enclaves where people of like mind could count on never, ever encountering anyone with a different set of ideas about the world, then maybe your glib response would make sense. I wouldn't want to live in that world, but I'm sure you'd love it.
The response wasn't glib. If you think it is stupid/silly/crazy to believe in transubstantiation - don't go to Mass. Catholics don't do it on the street, don't do it in schools, don't do it in non-Catholics property...
If you wish to mock them or disparage them, go right ahead. Some people may reciprocate - as is their right. You don't however, have to purposefully desecrate something they care about. I may think it is weird that people keep urns of ashes of loved ones, but that doesn't mean I should find one and piss in it.
What he did was simply mockery: an effect religious institutions have been shielded from for far too long.
Do you live in the Middle East? In America circa 1700? How you can claim that religion has been shielded from mockery and keep a straight face?
Off the top of my head I get 'Life of Brian',
Dane Cook's Jeez-its routine and Southpark.
universities are generally quick to discipline those who, for instance, trample the name of "Allah"
Possibly this is true. Please produce one or more examples.
Rick,
Thanks for being so generous to include a cross in items that might be worthy of respect.
Would you be so kind as to provide a full list of items that meet your approval to be considered OK to respect? I wouldn't want to go down the wrong path here.
BTW, does it matter for your disqualification that the items you are referring to as "Saltines" (but are kind enough to capitalize) are not actually saltines, in that they are not topped with salt?
If what we used for the Eucharist more closely resembled regular bread (and thus more plausibly echoed Jesus's words at the Last Supper), would it be Ok to respect it?
Possibly this is true. Please produce one or more examples.
A FIRE press release on discipline proceedings against SFSU who trampled Hezbollah and Hamas flags, which apparently bear the word "Allah."
JohnMcG-
Let me put it this way: Most secular people have lazy tolerance for religious folk. We don't quite get what you do, why you do it, but we acknowledge our differences. Hell, we'll even attend your weddings and funerals, and perfunctorily kneel and bow our heads when demanded. We'll even go so far as to feign interest at (cocktail) parties. But then, religious folk's belief sometimes cross the line from 'Quaint' to 'Crazy.' Revering the cross because that's where your favorite person died is quirky, but not a form of abject wackiness. The same goes for abstaining from meat on fridays. But, by golly, when you burst through the line from quaint to crazy with this batshit insane idea that jesus lives in something that should accompany a tomato-broth based soup, well then, let the ridicule begin.
That is, SFSU students
Mr. Lyman, linky-no-worky.
The link doesn't work, but I found the release with Google. (It says disciplinary proceedings were initiated, but doesn't give the outcome.)
Next question, open to whoever thinks the right of university students to desecrate the name of Allah should be protected: Is there any symbol of any faith or group to which that right should not extend?
Is tearing down the statue of a tyrant "desecration"? Is it the crass act of a bully and a bore, or the noble act of righteous free person? How about breaking apart a fasces, and would it matter if the breaker was a persecuted Italian? What about a young girl abused by a priest, or a young man scarred by a bris, do they not have the same right to use religious symbols to express what they believe, what they feel, however much it would disturb those who hold them sacred? Moreover, isn't that disturbance often part of the virtue of the act?
but, by golly, when you burst through the line from quaint to crazy with this batshit insane idea that jesus lives in something that should accompany a tomato-broth based soup, well then, let the ridicule begin.
Right, and it's not even that. We won't interfere with your enjoyment of your delusional beliefs, as long as you don't try to forcibly impose them on others. Myers didn't wake up one morning and decide to annoy millions of Catholics just for kicks; this whole idiocy only exists because some nutjobs assaulted and threatened the kid for not eating the wafer.
Shall I assume that everyone who is upset at Myers has similar outrage for the creators of the Mohammed cartoons and the South Park Scientology episodes?
"A cross seems to me like a perfectly reasonable thing to respect--it was used as an instrument of death, and memorializes the death of Jesus (no need to believe he was divine here). However, a Saltine, no matter how many times a magic trick is performed above it, is still a Saltine. Catholics are practically asking for ridicule by deifying such a silly object."
Actually, I was trying to ask whether or not re-enacting the KKK's crossburnings would be considered an act of intolerance. Sorry that got a little garbled.
What, exactly, is it about a cracker that makes it ridiculous - or at least, any more ridiculous than any other symbolic object? A flag, an instrument of death, a team jersey, ceremonial underwear, the mummified remains of a long-dead ruler, or a shiney rock put into a ring of metal - they're all symbolic objects. All matter is equally as ridiculous and meaningless - except for the meaning that people put into it. I think that meaning is what we ought to respect, whatever form that matter happens to take.
Tel-
Its not merely meaning, or merely symbolism. Its a deified cracker
If I ate a candy leprechaun, would I be guilty of offending people who believe in superstitious nonsense where there is no evidence to substantiate such belief? What about a candy witch (the Wiccan's maybe?).
Personally, I don't feel offended when people eat spaghetti with meatballs (I am a pastafarian, who believes that God is the Flying Spagetti Monster, which touches man with His Noodly Appendage). I am also a member of the Church of the Invisible Purple Unicorn, and would not be offended is someone made a tasty unicorn burger.
Irrational beliefs and the inherent tribalism and the damage that they inflict on the world and its people, are perfectly in the public's interest. Since the offended cannot rationally defend their belief system with evidence, they make a big deal of their "hurt feelings".
And bringing up anti-Catholism as a reason not to challenge someone's beliefs is ABSURD given the level of atheist hatred in the U.S. Ever looked at the research as to how many people would vote for an atheist backs this up. More people would vote for a gay person than for an atheist. In fact, voting for atheist got the lowest support of all groups in the U.S.
Brian 2,
Oh, so they started it? I didn't realize Myers had such a sound and sophisticated defense. Never mind, then. As long as the other side started it, then you can do whatever you want.
I better let my mother know this is a valid defense, so she can apologize for punishing me when I hit my sister after she started it.
And for the record, I did think the Danish cartoons were rude and needlessly provacative. I am unfamiliar with the Scientology episode, though I've been moved to cringe at some of their treatment of Jesus and Catholics, but nothing more.
It's worth noting that neither of the above required entering the targeted group's place of worship and acquiring a sacred item for that religion under false pretenses.
Shall I assume that everyone who is upset at Myers has similar outrage for the creators of the Mohammed cartoons and the South Park Scientology episodes?
I'll take these seperately.
Southpark - Mockery of religion is fine, as I posted above, saying mean things is acceptable and a welcomed part of a pluralistic society.
Mohammed Cartoons - Doing things forbidden by another religion is also allowed. Baptists can't demand no one dance, Catholics can't enforce a Lenten fast, Muslim's don't get to ban people from drawing their prophet. These are also acceptable and welcome parts of a pluralistic society.
And as for Myers, we are talking social contempt, not legal prohibition. Legally he can do whatever he wants to religious icons (excluding hate crime legislation which is another discussion entirely), but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be shunned for it.
If Myers wanted to crap in a yarmulke, desecrate a Koran, desecrate a Torah scroll, piss on a grave, desecrate a <insert wiccan item> - solely because some people who share those beliefs annoyed him - then he is an a** and should be treated as such.
"Shall I assume that everyone who is upset at Myers has similar outrage for the creators of the Mohammed cartoons and the South Park Scientology episodes?"
The respect for symbols, to me, doesn't extend to a denial of all critique of a belief system. South Park didn't destroy, or advocate the destrcution of, any Scientology symbols. It just said, pretty loudly and clearly, that it thinks the Scientologists are a bunch of loons. I generally agree. But that doesn't mean I ought to go around and burn copies of Dianetics. I'm pretty sure Trey and Matt would agree.
The Mohammed cartoons are a lot closer of a case, for me. The right to speech isn't absolute. The religion does have a very serious injunction about displaying images of the Prophet. I think that Mohammed was hearing some voices, all right; but I don't think I ought to go out and deliberately anger people who think he was hearing the Voice of God. If the artists could have gotten their point across without depicting the Prophet, they probably should have done so. But I'm not completely convinced it could have been done any other way while maintaining the point they wanted to make - an opinion which they have every right to make known. So at least in my opinion, the cartoons are a lot more of a borderline case.
"If Myers wanted to crap in a yarmulke, desecrate a Koran, desecrate a Torah scroll, piss on a grave, desecrate a - solely because some people who share those beliefs annoyed him - then he is an a** and should be treated as such."
The difference is, Myers threatened to desecrate the cracker because some people THREATENED TO MURDER the boy who removed it from a church.
In fact, voting for atheist got the lowest support of all groups in the U.S.
That equals hatred how?
"Tel-
Its not merely meaning, or merely symbolism. Its a deified cracker"
Yes. This is neither more nor less ridiculous than a signed piece of paper that becomes a deed of a house, or a jersey that becomes the essence of a team, or a flag that becomes a stand-in for a country, or a piece of metal with a rock in it that becomes a stand-in for a marriage. What is it about crackers, specifically, that makes them more ridiculous than any of these?
"Next question, open to whoever thinks the right of university students to desecrate the name of Allah should be protected:Is there any symbol of any faith or group to which that right should not extend?"
-roac
This question applies to cultures as well. If it's open season on any beliefs and behaviours that you don't share, you've opened the door to much wider set of prejudices. It's a very slippery slope. Let's not legitimize intolerance please.
"...insane idea that jesus lives in something that should accompany a tomato-broth based soup, well then, let the ridicule begin."
-rick
I think with this statement we've just reached rock bottom. I hope so, anyway.
The difference is, Myers threatened to desecrate the cracker because some people THREATENED TO MURDER the boy who removed it from a church.
I missed that, can you show me where the boy was threatened? I was under the impression they wanted him expelled.
Also, my point still stands - a small group of people who believe something annoyed Myers and his response is anything but reasoned and proportional. Myers is a petulant brat and should be mocked as such.
rick - re: " The obvious rejoinder here is... not all symbols are equal. A gravestone, or more generally, any marker used to remember the dead, does not require any religious belief in order to warrant respect. Calling a cracker a piece of Jesus does require a religious belief. "
A gravestone doesn't require a religious belief in order to feel that its an important symbol. So what? Its an important symbol to many people, and thus one that shouldn't be damaged, defaced, or seriously disrespected without a very good reason. Religion doesn't change any of that. In that regard religious symbols ARE "equal" to others.
I'm not saying we should shoot him, or lock him up, but he is acting like an ass. Generally acting like an ass shouldn't face severe legal sanction (often it shouldn't face any such punishment), but that doesn't mean its ok.
The difference is, Myers threatened to desecrate the cracker because some people THREATENED TO MURDER the boy who removed it from a church.
Again with the "they started it" defense....
All right, let's be as charitable as possible. Let's assume that Dr. Myers was purely motivated in this case by pity for Wesley Cook and outrage over his treatment. Maybe we can go even further and say that Dr. Myers wanted to take some of the heat off Cook and have Bill Donahue pick on someone his own size, so to speak. Ok..
Now, it's a week later. Wesley Cook has not been murdered. I would be willing to bet my next paycheck (if it were tasteful to bet on such things) that Wesley Cook will not be murdered over this incident.
So what are Dr. Myers and his defenders doing now? What is their justification for continuing to do this stunt? Revenge?
I am stunned by many of these comments. The typical line seems to be: "I'm tolerant of religion - but only if I never have to deal with it. If I do, I ridicule its adherents mercilessly, because showing respect to a belief I don't hold out of respect for the believer is a surrender of all integrity!" This view is rightly denounced when it comes from believers about nonbelievers, but apparently it's ok the other way round.
It is not that difficult to coexist. I'm a Catholic, and my boyfriend is an atheist. We sometimes joke about our differences, but I don't want to convert him, and he accepts my churchgoing. If we can do it while sharing a home, surely everyone can do it when we only have to pass each other on the street.
And would people please stop equating Catholic worship with political actions taken by Catholics? Yes, there are Catholics who take political action to further their beliefs. That's no crime, but instead the right of every citizen. Plenty of Cathlics who share those beliefs are not activists, and plenty more don't share them at all. What unites us all is our mode of worship. Objecting to the actions of a few by insulting us all is not the best way to change anyone's mind.
The Mohammed cartoons are a lot closer of a case, for me. The right to speech isn't absolute. The religion does have a very serious injunction about displaying images of the Prophet. I think that Mohammed was hearing some voices, all right; but I don't think I ought to go out and deliberately anger people who think he was hearing the Voice of God. If the artists could have gotten their point across without depicting the Prophet, they probably should have done so. But I'm not completely convinced it could have been done any other way while maintaining the point they wanted to make - an opinion which they have every right to make known. So at least in my opinion, the cartoons are a lot more of a borderline case.Posted by Tel | July 21, 2008 3:55 PM
You just made a special exception. *buzz* you lose.
Are you angry athiests sure that you're the apotheosis of reason?
Atheists have done better out of America's committment to pluralism than any other religious group
Could you clarify what you mean here?
Posted by Anonymo | July 21, 2008 11:56 AM