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.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Atheists have done better out of America's committment to pluralism than any other religious group
Could you clarify what you mean here?
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."
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
Link fixed
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You just made a special exception. *buzz* you lose.
Are you angry athiests sure that you're the apotheosis of reason?
AFAICT, you are espousing the belief that because one or more unnamed but possibly Catholic allegedly made a death threat against the original kid, it's not only acceptable for Myers to deliberately offend all Catholics, it's actually a good idea.
Do you know how cheaply death threats can be obtained? Do I seriously get to offend every believer in a given idea because I read some place that some *other* believer made a death threat?
I agree, no one should threaten anyone else with death, but I fail to see how A's death threat justifies B's boorish behavior against C.
Sprite -
I believe you are mistaken. If mode of worship was really unifying then there wouldn't be such controversy over the versions of the missal, nor would historical particular churches within the faith be permitted their own modes of worship. However, all those modes of worship /and/ those political acts are both parts of the same social institution, however distantly related they may be, and it is that social institution that defines the Church (at least to those who aren't making fine theological distinctions about what constitutes communion with the Bishop of Rome).
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.
I think a key distinction is that the items above are commonly available without giving assent to their sacredness, while the Eucharist is not.
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.
This could, quite possibly, be one of the stupidest things I've ever read.
Read slowly: no one is taking *your* cracker out of your hand, peeing on it, and laughing.
Your examples are so inapt, it's hard to even convert them to sanity, but here's a simile that comes a little closer: "Would it be ok if I made a little tombstone with John Q. Public written on it, and I spray painted it day-glo orange? Even if your mother had died recently???"
Why the hell would I care? Oh, wait, what if it had the name of a fictional character who you really, really liked?
OK, if it were a fake tombstone engraved with "Jesus H. Christ" you could go ahead and spray paint that, too.
Thanks for giving further evidence that religious belief really does make folks irrational, though.
Yes, they are. (Well, I don't know if Dr. Myers is planning on peeing on the Eucharist, but that's one plausible course of action) Asking someone to read it slowly doesn't make it true.
The only way to acquire a consecrated host is to go up to a Eucharistic minister (most likely at a Cahthilic Mass in a Catholic Church) and say "Amen" to the proposition that it is the Body of Christ.
There seem to be some atheists who think that Catholics are declaring the entire starch aisle at the supermarket off-limits. We're not. We're asking you not to desecrate something that we handle with great reverence ourselves.
Myers threatened to desecrate the cracker because some people THREATENED TO MURDER the boy who removed it from a church.
I keep re-reading that sentence and it doesn't get any less absurd. What part of Myers' response is rational?
JohnMcG -
There are many, many Catholic priests, all of whom are required to say the holy office every day, and at least some of whom are corrupt. It may be dastardly to consecrate a host for pay or other consideration, but it strains belief to suggest that it never happens.
Once again, spraypainting obscenities on a gravestone is vandalism. You know, destruction of property. Desecrating a cracker is not. Even if it really hurts someone's feelings. Unless that little hunk 'o Christ was procured in some coercive way, I can't see how the two things even come close.
I suppose you might compare desecration of a communion wafer to someone sticking out their tongue at a gravestone. Those are probably more comparable activities.
Megan, "crazy" is not a numbers game. Crazy ideas don't gain validity because they reach a tipping point of adherents.
Perhaps you think the word "crazy" has too many negative connotations. Maybe so. But the belief Catholics have about the consecration fo a communion wafer and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ is nothing short of magical thinking. There are really no two ways about it.
The sillier points of Catholic doctrine are irrelvant to the matter at hand. Whether or not the host is just a cracker, it is a cracker which is the property of the Catholic Church and distributed to participants in their ceremonies with the understanding that it will be used in a particular way, as Myers is well aware. Participating in the ceremony under false pretenses in order to try to smuggle one out is unethical, since it is using deception to obtain an object one would otherwise not be entitled to.
It's unnecessary to address the subjective issue of value to determine who has a right to an object. If the church were to give Myers the wafer with no strings attached and he chose to desecrate it, they wouldn't have a valid complaint, but since, as the whole incident makes abundantly clear, the church provides the wafers specifically to be consumed as part of the Eucharist and expects them to be consumed on site specifically to prevent actions like Myers, there's no legitimate way for him to get one.
Shecky,
I'll compare this situation to this:
I see Shecky insult someone on the street. I go home and piss in a bottle at my house, seal it, drive to a cemetery and pour the piss directly over the ground on top of the grave of Shecky's mom/dead relative. I then send Shecky a video of it. Now, no property was defaced nothing needs to be repaired.
rickm wrote: Its not merely meaning, or merely symbolism. Its a deified cracker
God is Whitey? I can't believe how carelessly you lord the opression of the Black Man. I might have to go at another round of gangsta slang just to deal with this atrocity.
Oh, jeez. Differential targets of outrage seem to be the norm here. 'Yes, he did something bad, but we're talking about you right now.' Only, somehow, whadda surprise, these people never seem to get around to talking about the incivilities of the other guy.
Look. The religious types have been told, and told, and told again that forcing their beliefs on others is nasty, uncivil, and outrageous. What do we get, "Oh, you have to prove that we're forcing our beliefs on you" said with a Church Lady smirk. No. I. Don't. All I have to feel is that you are being unreasonably intrusive before I am moved to action. And I don't need your approval for this.
If you were really into civility, all you religious types, you'd back off. But you won't, will you?
First it's not even a cracker. As far as I can tell the "a cracker" line comes from Anti-Catholic pamphlets of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. I'm Catholic true, but I'm not saying this as a Catholic. A person who disbelieves transsubstantiation, but has at least seen Catholic Mass on the TV or at a friend's wedding, wouldn't say something so stupid. The parroting of PZ Myers on this displays a potential lack of creativity or independent thinking.
Second how absurd something seems to you I don't think really matters. In many ways PZ Myers is behaving exactly like the more militant missionaries of old. Sometimes those missionaries had legitimate complaints about those religions. In African traditional religions twins were sometimes abandoned to the elements to die and in Shinto/Buddhist Japan the burakumin faced lives as outcasts while some women lived as virtual slaves of prostitution. Still disrespecting their sacred items was a clear act of hostility that often did more harm than good. This is dealt with some in Chinua Achebe's "Things Fall Apart." Anyway it really doesn't matter if you consider it silly to think a Mountain is sacred or a dead relative lives in a teacup, what matters is they give it that meaning. To disrespect that is to disrespect them.
Third humans are never going to be purely rational in their emotions. If you want a world where people only having feels about things that are rationally verified then you're going to want a world without art, music, or much of anything beyond the cold equations of science. A world that might be fit for autists, but not much else.
"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. .... In fact, voting for atheist got the lowest support of all groups in the U.S."
You're saying that each person has a right to receive a majority of votes regardless of whether a majority of people agree with and support that person? There's an obvious mathematical quandry here (except in Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average). But this illuminates your thinking - you're upset because your way of thinking is so obviously right, and yet most people discriminate by not agreeing with you. Those people deserve to be insulted and offended, because after all, they wouldn't be insulted if they agreed with you.
As for actual discrimination, my mother had a Catholic friend who grew up in Kansas. The KKK once burnt a cross on their lawn, as a warning to Catholics. That's a bit more intimidating than having someone say in a survey that they don't agree with you.
Regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Purple Unicorn references, Jesus was a living person that was murdered in a particularly painful way, after spreading a message that many, many people found meaningful. The night before he was tortured and murdered, he met with his supporters, gave them food and wine, and told them to hold similar gatherings in the future to remember him. Followers of his still meet to remember him through this ceremony. How is stealing something from such a ceremony, in order to desecrate it, different from desecrating a tombstone?
"Only, somehow, whadda surprise, these people never seem to get around to talking about the incivilities of the other guy."
What is there to discuss? As far as I've seen on this thread and other related ones, no one has expressed support for death threats, and many people have explicitly condemned them. The debate is over how Myers is responding to a few kooks making threats, not over whether those kooks were right to begin with.
It's Myers who is trying to force his religious beliefs on others. Do you think he should?
There are many, many Catholic priests, all of whom are required to say the holy office every day, and at least some of whom are corrupt. It may be dastardly to consecrate a host for pay or other consideration, but it strains belief to suggest that it never happens.
Ok -- would it suffice to say that it would require either deception or force for Myers to obtain a consecrated host?
This isn't a Gideon Bible, which is available to all hotel patrons whether they want it or not.
SoV,
I asked you this in the other thread, but can you enumerate me for all of the approved motivations for policy preferences. Since listening to philosophers like Thomas Aquinas is apparently out of the question.
That is a HORRIBLE standard. No one in this incident is pushing policy, they are simply asking that Myers either not fraudulently obtain something they care about and desecrate it - or -if he does, that he be socially stigmatized for doing so.
The fact that someone somewhere offends you by their policy preferences - somehow gives you carte blanche to behave in a completely anti-social way in order to offend said person's co-believers?
Ditto above... can you enumerate what I can use for my basis for my policy preferences.
I'm surprised no one has used better analogies involving genuine non-Christian religions. Here are two obvious ones:
1. Jains are said to sweep the path before them wherever they walk to avoid inadvertently crushing any tiny bugs they would otherwise step on. They consider all life sacred, no matter how tiny. What would you think of someone who had a grievance (quite possibly a legitimate one) against a family of Jains next door and decided to satisfy it by offending their religion? Suppose he got some big boxes of tiny live insects or crustaceans from Carolina Biological Supply and poured them out on the ground in his own yard, in full view of the Jains as they sat down for their vegetarian dinner, and crushed thousands of tiny squirming beasts to death by stomping on them with hobnailed boots and glee? I would think he was a vicious creep, and likely prejudiced against (Asian) Indians.
2. Many American Indians are said to worship white buffaloes. Somewhere in the west (or so I've read) is a non-Indian farmer whose buffalo herd includes a white buffalo calf, which he refuses to sell or give to the Indians because he wants more money than they have offered. What would think if some wealthy atheist bought the white buffalo from him, killed it in some legal and humane but very public way, and threw a big barbecue to cook and consume it, while making sneering remarks about how a sacred buffalo shouldn't be so easy to kill? I would think he was a vicious creep, and likely prejudiced against (American) Indians.
It wouldn't be hard to come up with some clever and vicious way of mocking Hindu belief in transmigration, and I'm sure there are Buddhist and other beliefs that are eminently mockable. I'm also sure that plenty of people here who gladly mock Catholics would decline to mock Buddhists or Hindus or Jains or American Indians -- some religions are cool and some (Catholicism most of all) are uncool. Are they anti-Catholic bigots? Seems likely, in at least some cases.
JohnMcG -
deception? Surely someone has had success with open offers of money or sexual favors. I'm willing to grant that most priests are comparative paragons of virtue, but some of them struggle with and loose faith just like everyone else, even becoming bitter with their role. Marginal, sure, but you've got to grant me existence on this one.
Moreover, while this doesn't apply in the Meyers case, lets assume that I believe that properly ordained priests were empowered to perform this miracle, and just really hated god and wanted a piece of the tyrant to grind under my heel from sheer pique. I wouldn't be lying with my "amen" to the proposition that I was receiving the Body of Christ, just holding an aberrant, albeit sincere, intention.
"Teach them better, if you can; if not, remember that kindliness has been given to you for times such as these." - Marcus Aurelius, Emperor and Stoic.
I don't see how Myers improved the situation or advanced any discourse-- Indeed I posit that the made inflamed the situation and is reacting with the very irrationality that he would condemn.
In this country you have every right to condemn someone else's religious practice and/or belief in any manner of ways, but if you set out to anger a group of people you don't come out of it looking any better by feigning surprise when they are actually angry. There are people in the western world, both religious and secular, who seem determined to limit our freedom of expression bit by bit, and engaging in pointless stunts like this will only embolden them!
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 Datendisplay 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.
The analogy between critising specific beliefs, drawing cartoons and desecrating doesn't work because those actions are not the same.
I'm sure many Muslims would consider it as insult to say that Mohammed was hearing voices. And there are some places on this planet where you would be well advised to keep such opinions to yourself. Fortunately in the west everyone is free to speak his mind, you don't have to be civil and decent when you prefer to do otherwise.
Befouling religious symbols is more than disgusting. Someone who acts like this tells me nothing about the beliefs he disagrees with, but a lot about himself. Quite frankly I find it hard to believe that it is even necessary to say this.
An analogous behaviour with regard to islam would be to use a copy of the Quran as toilet paper (it's just paper after all, who can seriously believe this story about Gabriel?).
The point the publication of the Danish cartoons tried to make was that it should be possible to treat Islam like any other religion. You could argue that the prohibition to depict Mohammed should lead to more restraint when dealing the Muslim faith, but the protests were sparked by the perceived insult and attack on Muslims (which was arguably a wrong interpretation of the cartoons, but it was probably wrong to assume that someone whose religion has no pictoral tradition would see them the same way).
And we're asking _you_ not to force your personal beliefs on us. But you're going to keep doing it, no matter how offensive we find it . . .
Ahhhh, the old, "no one who disagrees with me should have a say in policy" argument!
I don't think Myers has any 'religious' beliefs to force on others, so that part is just nonsense. As to the rest . . . how many of you have actually contacted your church authorities, your priests, your bishops, and demanded that they do something about this Donohue character? Has Donohue even apologized for his behaviour, or anyone of his stripe? If they haven't, why aren't you contacting them and telling them to knock it off?
Because see, from where I stand, you really don't have any sort of conviction behind your 'condemnations' of these rogue Catholics. And until I see it, I simply won't believe your protests to the contrary.
Donohue is A Catholic, not a member of the clergy. The priests, bishops and other clergy are in no position to tell Donohue how to act politically. He should get advice from his priest, but the Church should keep itself out of directing political activities.
SoV,
I'm still waiting for you to let me know what I can use to inform my policy decisions?
If the Host is just a cracker than the American Flag is just a rag. According to the 'logic' posted above, anybody who says differently is forcing their personal belief on me. However, I assume that many of you would take offense to me ripping a rag with stars and stripes on it off a poll and using it to light a bonfire, not to mention a cross.
Of course he does. Atheism is a religious belief--the belief that no deity exists. It's no more provable than any other religion. That's the whole point of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" thought experiment: you can't prove that such a thing doesn't exist. So the assertion that no god whatsoever exists is as much a matter of faith as any other belief system.
"given the level of atheist hatred in the U.S"
Yes it's just like nineteenth century hatred of Catholics. All the time you hear of Humanist societies being burned to the ground. Why Madalyn Murray O'Hair was killed by Christian fanatics. (Not really, but that was what some of her associates openly hoped when she went missing)
Now for reality. 4.3% of hate crimes were Anti-Catholic, compared to .4% being anti-Agnostic/Atheist.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm
Around 4% of America is atheist/agnostic while 24% is Catholic. The hate crimes do not breakdown atheist vs agnostic, but still as a group atheist/agnostics are less likely to be victims of hate crimes.
http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations
better late than sorry - from the n-word game:
I do not have a problem with religious people as long as they do not tell non-religious people that they cannot be as moral as themselves are.
I can relate to a situation where non-religious people argue amongst each other in non-religious terminology who is less or more moral - it is called the legal court system. But I do not understand how this applies to cross-religious arguments that involve the supernatural as an ethical guiding force?
This, I guess, was why the separation of state&church as well as the right to practice your religion freely are two distinctively different rights and arguments? The founding fathers had it right and I am surprised to see that hundreds of years later - Christians feel the urge to add an amendment to stress that the US is a religious, Christian, nation? Isn't the right to practice your religion or non-religion freely enough?
Again - I do not think that non-religious people have any problems with religious people as long as the latter does not claim that atheists cannot be (as) moral and as long as we are taking the separation of state& church seriously (in doubt as literally as possible...).
NB: Regarding the term "non-religious" - it reminds me of the John Steward quote: "what is the opposite of terrorists?"
In absolute terms 5 people were subject to anti-atheist/agnostic hate crime in 2005. They were all victimized by 1 offender.
23 were victims of an "anti-heterosexual", yes heterosexual, hate crime. There were 18 offenders responsible for these incidents.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table1.htm
So in 2005 atheists had much too fear, from one guy.
The Muhammad cartoons is actually a pretty good analogy for what PZ Myers is doing.
The Muhammad cartoons were not just drawings and Muslims were not protesting the pictorial display by itself but the fact that the cartoons showed Muhammad with a bomb in his head, with a dagger about to kill two women, with horns on his head etc.
The purpose of the cartoons was to offend Muslims and test their ability to tolerate offensive cartoons about Islam. Btw, the same newspaper which published those cartoons had earlier refused to run cartoons mocking Jesus.
I think in a free society we should have the 'right' to offend the religious sensibilities of religious people but I am surprised that hypocrites like Andrew Sullivan who were in the forefront of defending the Danish cartoons and now oh so upset over Myers stunts.
I dont know what Megan said about the Danish cartoons.
Very true, Interesting. And as far as the 'incivility' goes, let me repost the Four Horsemen roundtable discussion.
It seems that no matter what, people who point out that the Emperor has no clothes will always be charged with being 'rude' and 'incivil'. Shrug. Might as well be hung for sheep as for lambs. I will also note - again - that no one seems to be taking any steps to shut Donohue down. So I find the 'we condemn him too, btw' act very thin.
SoV,
I see you are still avoiding answering your issues head on. Is this simple cowardice? Or do you realize you are taking untenable positions?
I don't take Donohue seriously, I think he is a blowhard and a self-important a**. I don't have to take responsibility for him simply because we are co-religionists. Just as I don't think all athiests need to spend their time reigning in petulant children like PZ Myers. If Donohue was a member of the clergy, then you would have an issue, but simply because he says he speaks for Catholics does not mean he does so.
Interesting,
Plenty of non-Catholic Christian sects don't allow images of Jesus - the whole idolatry thing. What they don't do is try to ban OTHERS from drawing Jesus. Did they boycott the Book of Daniel show - yes, but that is a welcomed practice in a pluralistic society. Attempting to make something unpopular or unprofitable is distinctly different from making it illegal. Muslims - as was expected - pushed for criminal punishment or death.
Per Roberts rules of order, Skullberg, I've decided simply not to reply to you. Others can draw their own conclusions about the quality of your posts. I'm sorry if that is 'condescending' or 'rude', but I honestly don't know how to handle the problem of people like you, so I'm going to take Rob Lyman's suggestion.
So what you're telling me is that there's still no evidence that a Catholic sent any death threats?
SoV,
I would assume that answering my questions would be an acceptable tactic, but that would require you to argue in good faith. I don't know that I've been anything other than civil here.
But, if you think taking your marbles and going home is the best option, then by all means do it. I will continue to poke holes in your positions and snipe from the sidelines if you think it isn't woth your time.
Megan: "Atheists have done better out of America's committment to pluralism than any other religious group,..."
Ever heard of the phrase 'Danbury Baptists'?
Wonder why they were so concerned with the separation of church and state?
Of course, for many these days, 'religious freedom' is redefined as their right to persecute, so it's no wonder you're confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danbury_Baptists
Example?
I'm going to take Rob Lyman's suggestion.
How delightful to know that I've successfully convinced SoV of at least one thing! I think I'll call my mother to tell her.
If only we could somehow persuade ScentOfViolets to stop replying to everyone else, Megan included, this would be a far pleasanter and more intelligent blog, without all the "Sigh"s and "Chuckle"s.
If the Host is just a cracker than the American Flag is just a rag.
And "n----r" is just a word that is deserving of no criticism or censure...
Donohue is A Catholic, not a member of the clergy. The priests, bishops and other clergy are in no position to tell Donohue how to act politically.
Yeah, right. If he were gobshiting about how altar-boy-buggery isn't such a big deal, the hierarchy would be sending out a crack squad of Opus Dei ninjas to shut him up.
"a crack squad of Opus Dei ninjas" pseudonymous in nut.caseland
TR: If Opus Dei had ninjas I think they would have done something about Robert Hanssen. He was linked to them in some way, but he spied for the Soviet Union and passed tapes of his sex-life to a friend.
Fordham University has a whole page to celebrate Pro-Gay historian John Boswell. The Church is barely able or willing to "shut up" clergy, so to think they can shut-up laity is naive.
"I don't think Myers has any 'religious' beliefs to force on others, so that part is just nonsense."
As Catcube pointed out, atheism is a religious belief. PZ Myers is very zealous in his proselytizing. It's not enough for him to hold certain beliefs - he's determined to force others to hold them. He's an evangelical atheist, and a crude one with very odd tactics.
Regarding "the incivilities of the other guy", I thought you meant the death threats but realize now that you mean Donohue contacting the University of Minnesota-Morris to point out that Myers' threat doesn't fit their standard of "respectful, fair and civil" interaction. I have no problem with that, since it seems clear to me that Myers is deliberately violating that standard, and thus Myers' official University website shouldn't link to his blog.
Ann, I'm not sure I'd say that Myers is "determined to force" people to hold his religious beliefs. He's pushy about them, and he does proselytize, but that isn't using force.
Perhaps by the standards that some have used to talk about theists "forcing their religious beliefs on others" perhaps is is "forcing", but I don't think those are very legitimate standards.
You're right, the word "force" is too strong and badly chosen. "Attempting to convert"?
My point was that many atheists are surprisingly evangelical. They have every right to express their viewpoints and attempt to convert others, but they're doing many of the things that they so strongly object to from religious people.
And as Megan once pointed out, the reason many evangelical Christians are trying so hard to 'spread the word' is because they think that we'll all go to hell otherwise, and they want to save us from that. It's at least a nice sentiment, although it can be very annoying in practice. What are atheists trying to save us from?
I guess I can agree with that. Possibly with some quibbling over how many or how high of percentage it has to be to be "many".
From what they see as a delusion.
Or perhaps they just think if they can bring more people around to their way of thinking that they will get a bit more support on some political issues. (Although its not as if either atheism or theism necessarily implies a specific set of political ideas)
Ann: What are atheists trying to save us from?
The threat of radical Islam. Sam Harris started to write his book, The End of Faith, on September 12, 2001; he, along Dawkins and Hitchens, strongly criticized the West's scandalous reaction to the Danish-Muslim cartoon controversy. This is not to say that atheists are alone in their crusade against radical Islam or that all atheists are the Dawkins or Harris variety, but those atheists who are of that variety are owed a debt of gratitude.
"The threat of radical Islam." RE
TR: That doesn't make much sense. Atheism is the best way to combat radical Islam? Why? What evidence supports that?
Besides which the Palestinians and Kurds both had secularized Marxist or Nationalist terrorism. Is getting killed by an atheist totalitarian better than getting killed by a theistic totalitarian? Why?
That doesn't make much sense. Atheism is the best way to combat radical Islam? Why? What evidence supports that?
"What are atheists trying to save us from?" is a completely different question from "What is atheism trying to save us from?" I was under the impression that Ann was talking about a collection of individuals and not a philosophy or worldview, however negative, in itself.
In other words, I am not saying that atheism (the worldview) is the best way to combat radical Islam but rather that atheists (Hitchens, Dawkins) are being exceptionally vocal critics against radical Islam even as the mainstream media buckles and caves as it did with the Danish Cartoons. I think that we all should at least acknowledge that much.
The best way to combat radical Islam, I think, is with moderate and liberal Islam and that will start only with secular governments.
RE - I didn't know about the efforts of atheists such as Hitchens and Dawkins against radical Islam. Thanks for pointing them out.
But I agree with you that the best way to combat radical Islam is through secular governments and encouraging more moderate Islam. Everyone should have a right to their own beliefs (or lack thereof). Much of the problem with radical Islam is with the idea that they should force their religion on everyone (and this time I think that the word 'force' is appropriate).
McArdle's post and Dr. Weevil's 10:12 comment pretty much nail it right on the head.
For the record: Atheism is not a religious belief. Atheism is a lack of religious belief--the exact opposite.
Atheism has nothing to say about the handling of pork, the honoring of cows, the consuming of fish on certain days, nor the desecration of bread. Here is how you know atheism is not a religion: it don't worship food! I could not believe in gods as much as Stalin and it would tell you absolutely nothing about about my views on women, homosexuality, or Jews. The same could not be said if I were as fundamental about any of the three great monotheisms. There is no book of atheism, no atheists hymn, no atheist God, no atheist church, no atheist ritual, no door-to-door campaigns.
Has anyone seen the result of Myers' little stunt? You would not know what you were looking at unless someone told you. This is not a desecrated American flag, but a something so disposable that it hardly looks out of place next to stale coffee grounds and a spent banana peel.
Rossiss - Atheism is a religious belief. Its a belief that God doesn't exist. Agnosticism is a lack of a belief.
Rules on handling (or not handling) pork, honoring cows, consuming fish (or just not consuming meat) etc, are connected to and come from religions, and thus are connected to specific religious beliefs, but they are not not required in order to have a religious belief.
Views on women, homosexuality, other religions etc. are also often influenced by religious dogma, or history, but again they are not requirements for a belief to be religious.
The same holds true for ritual, hyms, organized congregations, worship, defined places for worship, door-to-door campaigns etc.
All that's needed for something to be a religious belief is for it to be a belief about God/god/gods/Allah/Zeus/the divine force/the invisible pink unicorn/the spaghetti monster/the creator of the universe/higher supernatural beings/a personified universe/the divine force/or any similar religious concept,being,figure,or construction.
That includes the belief that "no divine being or force or creator exists".
I say agnostics don't have religious beliefs because they are unsure, but if they are have hard beliefs about the relative possibilities than they also have religious beliefs.
Tim Flower, the fact that atheism entails no obligation of door-to-door campaigns nor endorses a view on homosexuality might not stand alone as proof that atheism is not a religion, but it is certainly more suggestive than you are letting on. If worship of food or sacred houses or idolatry are involved, ninety-nine times out of one-hundred, you are taking about a religion. Every religion that I am aware of involves the practice rituals (the worship of food, the singing of hymns). Atheism does not. Therefore, atheism is not a religion. It is that simple.
(And, before you sharpen your (over)qualifying axe, this is not to say that every thing that has a ritual is a religion, only that ritual is a constant of all religions.)
You seem to be injecting agnosticism against atheism as though the to were mutually exclusive. They are not. In fact, agnosticism is not the metaphorical Limbo between atheism's Hell and theism's Heaven, but a stance (or, more aptly, a lack there of) than can be applied in any philosophy, ideology, science, or worldview. You can just as well be agnostic about the science of global warming as you could about the existence of gods. You can only be atheistic or theistic about one of those propositions.
Agnosticism is a lack of a positive stance on any position, not a lack of a positive stance on one specific position. In other words, in the this context, all the world "agnostic" is an optional adjective--not a noun; as in agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.
OK fine, lets take this argument to its natural conclusion. I belong to a new religion I will call zerbaglism. As a zerbaglist I believe corn stalks contain the immortal spirits of my ancestors and to cut them down and harvest them is to cause them immense eternal suffering, this harvesting corn, any corn, is offending my religion... thus cutting down corn stalks will consititute a hate crime against me...
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.
You're obviously not from Minnesota. Myers has described himself as a third-rate professor from a third-rate university, but he gave himself rather too much credit in doing so. The "university" of Minnesota-Morris is a jumped-up community college that accepts 80 percent of its applicants, less than half of whom elect to attend it.
The appropriately named UMM doesn't report average test scores, but they are proud of the fact that only 17 percent of their current freshmen scored BELOW 500 on the verbal portion of the SAT.
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.
You're obviously not from Minnesota. Myers has described himself as a third-rate professor from a third-rate university, but he gave himself rather too much credit in doing so. The "university" of Minnesota-Morris is a jumped-up community college that accepts 80 percent of its applicants, less than half of whom elect to attend it.
The appropriately named UMM doesn't report average test scores, but they are proud of the fact that only 17 percent of their current freshmen scored BELOW 500 on the verbal portion of the SAT.
>>By the way, death threats - a peculiarly right wing phenomenon? Discuss, with bonus points for reference to our "culture of life."
How do you explain the Weather Underground then?
Atheism is obviously a religious view. Just as anarchism is a political view (in fact, the former is basically the metaphysical form of the latter).
My only other comment is to observe that this whole episode has really opened my eyes to just how intolerant and uncivil militant atheism/secularism really is.
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.
This is not true. In order to desecrate the host, a gay person would have to be sexually active, and have failed to attend confession to seek absolution for his or her sins before receiving the host. In this, he or she would be under exactly the same obligations as a heterosexual person practising fornication (intercourse outside marriage, adulterous intercourse), or any other sin.
Myers and the two people who tried to walk away with a consecrated host were guilty of fraud, not simple desecration. An analogy: I collect money from people intending to give it to charity, and then decide to spend it myself. The law calls this fraud, and sees it as a form of theft, although no violence or intentional deception are used. No Koran-burning (unless someone stole it from an Imam), no cartoon mocking any faith group, are exactly analogous.
I think Myers is absurd but I don't share the sense of injury that some Catholics have regarding his fraud. Jesus suffered far worse in dying on the cross. These assaults on His body and blood are nothing new.
Resigned to It
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.
This is not true. In order to desecrate the host, a gay person would have to be sexually active, and have failed to attend confession to seek absolution for his or her sins before receiving the host. In this, he or she would be under exactly the same obligations as a heterosexual person practising fornication (intercourse outside marriage, adulterous intercourse), or any other sin.
Myers and the two people who tried to walk away with a consecrated host were guilty of fraud, not simple desecration. An analogy: I collect money from people intending to give it to charity, and then decide to spend it myself. The law calls this fraud, and sees it as a form of theft, although no violence or intentional deception are used. No Koran-burning (unless someone stole it from an Imam), no cartoon mocking any faith group, are exactly analogous.
I think Myers is absurd but I don't share the sense of injury that some Catholics have regarding his fraud. Jesus suffered far worse in dying on the cross. These assaults on His body and blood are nothing new.
Alias Clio
Atheism is obviously a religious view. Just as anarchism is a political view (in fact, the former is basically the metaphysical form of the latter).
My only other comment is to observe that this whole episode has really opened my eyes to just how intolerant and uncivil militant atheism/secularism really is.
Second point first. If this little stunt is the lowest depth militant atheism can travel, that should serve as a relief. At least militant Christian have the gumption to do things that affect actual living bodies, like oppose embryonic stem-cell research or tell the terminally ill when they are allowed die. All militant Islam wants to do is wipe entire countries off the map. No, really, bad militant atheism.
On to the first point. That is patently ridiculous, as evident by the fact that there are many atheists who reject gods yet accept religion. So much of Dawkins' critics were atheists that he was moved to write a rebuttal in the paperback edition of The God Delusion.
Atheism is of no party or clique, let alone religion. Seriously.
Atheism has done well in the United States, where a majority of people would refuse to vote for an admitted atheist? I don't buy that.
I don't know all the background, but it appears that Meyers was rude.
On the other hand, some of my ancestors ended up in America because the Catholics would have murdered them if they had stayed at home. That seems more rude.
And yeah, it's just a cracker.
Jesus's comments on taking what he said literally:
"How is it that ye do not understand that I spake [it] not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?" (Matthew 16:11)
No, really, bad militant atheism.
Yes - Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot. All identified themselves as atheist. I concur.
Do I hang the crimes of Stalin around the neck of every atheist? No; that would be unreasonable.
Since the existence of God can neither be objectively proven nor disproven, and all evidence which does exist either way is subjective in nature, atheism is a religious belief.
Too much has been made of this story. This Myers is nothing more than a juvenile little a-hole. Nothing more.
Rossiss -
Maybe a bit less than that if your using the term religion in a strict way, but then maybe 100% if you use it loosely. Either way I agree with your point that such things are VERY likely to indicate religion (or at the very least a quasi-religious group or organization). But that's fairly irrelevant. Taking your own figure lets say 99% of the time when they occur you have a religion.
Such information tells us nothing about the percentage of time when they don't occur but you do have a religion. More importantly, I'm not talking about "a religion", but a religious view idea or opinion. The lack of such characteristics, is not strong evidence at all for the lack of a religious view or opinion or idea.
Ritual isn't a constant of all religions, just most of them, and again I'm not talking about a religion, certainly not an organized one.
Lots of people believe have a belief in a divine being of some sort, without having any membership in any organized religion, and without worshiping, let alone, believing in or seeking to impose religious rules. The lack of such rules, such worship, and such organization doesn't make the religious belief a non-religious one. The same goes for belief in the opposite, that there is no devine being.
tahhsard - re: "zerbaglism"
Even if this "religion", was actually a real belief presented in good faith (and of course it is not), there is quite a bit of difference in the importance to the wider world of consecrated communion wafers and corn. The rest of the world is not harmed by restrictions on access to, or what is done with, communion wafers, it would be by similar (or greater as you propose) restrictions on corn.
Also in a certain sense the Church has a certain ownership of the wafers. Unconsecrated wafers could be bought or made, and then you could do whatever you want with them. Consecrated wafers, would have to be consecrated by an agent of the church and then would be given out under certain conditions with certain understandings. The proper analogy would be if you had a religion that said the corn on your property was sacred, rather than all corn.
------------
Hiberniensis -
Good way of expressing it.
Militant anything, can be pretty intolerant and uncivil.
--------------
General note on comments - I seem to, even after submitting just one comment, to have a problem submitting a 2nd. Even if I wait several minutes it tells me that I've submitted too many comments in too short of time, when its only my 2nd of the day.
Ritual isn't a constant of all religions, just most of them, and again I'm not talking about a religion, certainly not an organized one.
Lots of people believe have a belief in a divine being of some sort, without having any membership in any organized religion, and without worshiping, let alone, believing in or seeking to impose religious rules. The lack of such rules, such worship, and such organization doesn't make the religious belief a non-religious one. The same goes for belief in the opposite, that there is no devine being.
It is most certainly possible to be a believer without belonging to an organized religion. Conversely, it is possible to be a nonbeliever who does belong to an organized religion. It is fair to use the word"religious" (or any such terminology) to describe either of those peoples. Howbeit, if you are a nonbeliver who does not belong to an organized religion, any continued use of those terms stretches them limp.
More importantly, I'm not talking about "a religion", but a religious view idea or opinion.
Atheism is not even that. There are plenty of atheists who do not believe in God, but "believe in belief." That is to say, being an atheist says absolutely nothing about your opinion of religion or anything else. Perhaps you can classify the manufactuered term "New Atheism" to hold a collection of beliefs, but even within that movement you will find notable points of disagreement and from without you will find many critics who are themselves atheists. Sam Harris is no more my ayatollah when he posits that the term atheism should be retired than Daniel C. Dennett is my pope when he introduces the term "brights."
Richard Dawkins, November 2006: "Of all the questions I fielded during the course of my recent book tour, the only ones that really depressed me were those that began "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ."
Also its not like religious agnosticism and atheism, or even religious agnosticism and theism or deism, have very clear dividing lines.
Well, if I were operating under the premise that atheism was a religious view, I might agree. In fact, all atheism is is a lack of belief in the existence of gods; all theism is is a belief in the existence of gods. All deism is is a belief in a creator god that does not meddle in our Earthly affairs making it a "soft" form of theism. And, if you insist on making it a noun, agnosticism is, by definition, a lack of belief and thereby a "soft" form of atheism. On the spectrum of belief and nonbelief, where theism and atheism occupy either extreme, you can think of deism as lying between the axis and theism at the opposite point where agnosticism lies between the center and atheism.
I was not applying religions to the person, but to the belief. The belief is indeed religious.
Holding a religious belief or opinion, does not imply that you have any ayatollahs, or leaders or structures of any kind. It also does not imply that you push or even have a formally constructed systems of beliefs. It only implies that the specific belief is in some way about or related to God/gods/devine beings/supernatural creator(s) etc., including the belief that no such things exist.
Agnosticism is the lack of belief in such existence (combined with the lack of belief in non-existence)
Atheism is the belief that no such being(s) exist(s).
Tim Flower, even I accepted your two-lined reply with respect agnosticism (which, given its slim pickings, I guess I'll have to do for the sake of argument), you should realize that your definition of a religion allows for a viewpoint that neither necessitates affirmation of the supernatural nor requires of its adherents no assembly nor ritual. You are welcome to that definition, but since it is one that I refuse to accept (and since you have no apparent interest in justifying it) I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
Rossiss -
[blockquote]you should realize that your definition of a religion allows for a viewpoint that neither necessitates affirmation of the supernatural nor requires of its adherents no assembly nor ritual.[/blockquote]
Once again, I make no such definition of "a religion".
I am defining "religious ideas", "religious viewpoints", or some very similar phrase, not "a religion".
If an organization does no affirm the supernatural, and does not require or support any ritual, I almost definitely would not consider it a religion.