« To whom should corporate boards be responsible? | Main | White men can't dance »
That's so meta
25 Jul 2008 01:48 pm
Daniel Davies on PZ Meyers and the Cracker of Power.
Comments (39)
The next million times someone dismisses evolution because he remembers some advocate of evolution acting like a bigot, we'll have Myers to thank.
Daniel Davies' and Megan's attack on Myers is premised on their belief that his only possible purpose in crackergate is to hurt people's feelings. Myers' has expressly denied this. I also deny it. It's like claiming that the only possible purpose for burning a flag is to hurt the feelings of people who are offended by that act. Or that the only possible purpose of a cartoon that mocks a politician is to make him feel bad.
If Myers has denied that his only purpose is to hurt other people's feelings, he's a very poor judge of his own motives. Of course that's his purpose. To him, it's a cracker. You're going to tell me he's got some reason to do violence to a cracker other than to offend people for whom it's not a cracker?
You're going to tell me he's got some reason to do violence to a cracker other than to offend people for whom it's not a cracker?
Yes, I am absolutely telling you that. He's doing it to express his strong belief that the Catholic doctrine of transsubstantiation, and religious doctrines more broadly, are nonsense and do not deserve to be treated with respect.
Do you also claim that when Vietnam War protesters burned American flags in public, their sole purpose was to offend people? You don't think they could possibly have had the political purpose of expressing opposition to the war?
Yes, I am absolutely telling you that. He's doing it to express his strong belief that the Catholic doctrine of transsubstantiation, and religious doctrines more broadly, are nonsense and do not deserve to be treated with respect.
And thus, having eliminated the possibility of saying exactly that and then ignoring the crazies in order to go pursue other, more productive pursuits, he presumably has no choice but to go to convoluted lengths to obtain the cracker under false pretenses from a Catholic church and then urinate on it. It's just so obvious.
Voltaire understood how to get under the skin of Catholics with an artful flourish. Meyers is merely a ten-year-old boy with a beard and idle hands.
And thus, having eliminated the possibility of saying exactly
Huh? Exactly how do you claim Myers has "eliminated the possibility?" He has been saying it for years in writing on his blog, and will no doubt continue to do so. He was recently motivated to express the view in this more attention-grabbing way by what he (and I) consider to be the absurd reaction of the Catholic diocese and people like Bill Donohue to the Webster Cook story.
Still waiting to hear why Myers' act is somehow illegitimate if acts like flag-burning and political cartooning are legitimate methods of expressing political or social views.
Still waiting to hear why Myers' act is somehow illegitimate if acts like flag-burning and political cartooning are legitimate methods of expressing political or social views.
What Meyers is proposing to do is akin to asking someone to sneak a flag out of the Post Office so he can burn it in order to complain about a US Government entity losing his mail. It's an immature stunt proposed by a shallow mind for the purpose of making people angry, to the point of detracting from the original injustice that allegedly brought this idea into his head. Moreover he's been quite proud of it, and that pretty much summarizes what this incident is really about.
Note that I have no respect for transubstantiation, either -- if Catholics want to live like Old Testament Jews and erect a fresh sacrificial altar every Sunday, that's their prerogative. (It gets even more ironic when they take a literalist approach to "This is my body..." to justify it, then spin right around and explain the Genesis account as merely allegorical.) Fortunately, I don't need to pee on the Keebler lawn gnome's hospitality in order to maintain this lack of respect, and if for some reason I felt that would be a valid form of expression, the local Kroger affiliate will be happy to sell me any of forty-odd varities.
What Meyers is proposing to do is akin to asking someone to sneak a flag out of the Post Office so he can burn it in order to complain about a US Government entity losing his mail.
So am I to understand that your argument for the allegedly illegitimate nature of Myers' proposal rests on his allegedly nefarious means of acquiring the cracker? Because that's certainly not the argument Megan or Davies have been making. Their objection is all about the supposed purpose and psychological/emotional effects on others of the cracker desecration.
It's an immature stunt proposed by a shallow mind for the purpose of making people angry,
You haven't produced any evidence that that is Myers' purpose at all, let alone his sole purpose. Again, do you believe that the sole purpose of flag-burning and political cartoons is to incite anger in people who find them offensive? You don't think people who engage in those activities do so for other purposes, such as expressing a deep objection to a war or other political policy? How about, say, the images of bloody, dismembered fetuses that abortion protesters sometimes display during their public portests? Do you think their sole purpose is to incite anger and emotional distress in people? You don't think they're also trying to express, in a particularly graphic and arresting way, their belief that abortion kills babies?
He's doing it to express his strong belief that the Catholic doctrine of transsubstantiation, and religious doctrines more broadly, are nonsense and do not deserve to be treated with respect.
No, he's not. If he wanted to "express his strong belief," he could have used the usual memdium for expressing beliefs, i.e., words. If I want to express my strong belief that your devotion to the wooden doll you cherish is nonsense and not worthy of respect, I can honorably tell you so. If instead I burn the doll and cackle while I'm doing it, it's because I'm a sadist: because I want to hurt you.
No, he's not. If he wanted to "express his strong belief," he could have used the usual memdium for expressing beliefs, i.e., words.
He did use words. And then, after the words, he threw away a cracker (he didn't urinate on anything, as another falsely claimed.) Actions are also a means of expressing strong belief, as confirmed by the US Supreme Court.
And then, after the words, he threw away a cracker
Yes, but it was this action directed against what, to him, was only a cracker, that outraged, and was meant to outrage, people who thought differently about the "cracker."
Actions are also a means of expressing strong belief, as confirmed by the US Supreme Court.
You miss the point. Actions may express views, but they are also actions, and the actor is responsible for the action, apart from the views expressed.
It really should not be that difficult to grasp that other people may think differently from you, and it is wrong to go out of your way to give them pain. It really should not be that difficult to grasp that someone who, simply to give offense, violates what is precious to others and meaningless to himself is vile. But I suppose it entails being open to the possibility that someone who differs from you may nonetheless be entitled to the minimal courtesy of not having to suffer your gratuitous outrages, and I guess that's a lot to expect.
So am I to understand that your argument for the allegedly illegitimate nature of Myers' proposal rests on his allegedly nefarious means of acquiring the cracker?
That works. Also, the fact that he's trying to make people angry by that means.
Because that's certainly not the argument Megan or Davies have been making. Their objection is all about the supposed purpose and psychological/emotional effects on others of the cracker desecration.
Theirs has merit, too.
Yes, but it was this action directed against what, to him, was only a cracker, that outraged, and was meant to outrage, people who thought differently about the "cracker."
No, it was directed against an idea - the idea that a cracker can turn into Jesus and be worth more than a man's life.
Actions may express views, but they are also actions, and the actor is responsible for the action, apart from the views expressed.
I don't think anybody is trying to hold anyone but PZ responsible for the action of throwing a cracker in the trash.
But he's not responsible for anything else. Nobody twisted anybody's arm to make them Catholic (or shouldn't have.) The whole point is that it's ridiculous that there's a social taboo on certain random, harmless actions to which the only objections are religious. Nobody has a right to tell PZ what he can and can't do with his crackers.
It really should not be that difficult to grasp that other people may think differently from you, and it is wrong to go out of your way to give them pain.
He hardly went "out of his way." It was the work of seconds to toss a cracker in the trash. That this act has infuriated the nation's Catholics is evidence not that PZ is a jerk but just how truly loony religion makes you.
At some point, everything you say or do is going to be offensive and painful to someone else, if enough people find out about it. That cheeseburger you ate is a painful offense to vegans. Playing Wii is a dreadful offense to Xbox owners. For the most part we recognize that most people need to mind their own damn business, and that their outrage is ridiculous and meaningless, but for some reason that rule goes out the window when the objection becomes religious.
Why is that? To shield religious claims from scrutiny, ultimately.
"He hardly went "out of his way.""
TR: Really? What you can get consecrated Hosts from the local bakery now?
"That this act has infuriated the nation's Catholics is evidence not that PZ is a jerk but just how truly loony religion makes you." Chet
TR: No, honey it's called human emotion. Similar to emotion that gives people the desire to keep photos of loved ones or connect specific songs to love or happiness.
Human emotion can look crazy if you're a robot. Still maybe you'll get the chip someday.
"How about, say, the images of bloody, dismembered fetuses that abortion protesters sometimes display during their public portests? Do you think their sole purpose is to incite anger and emotional distress in people" Mixner
TR: Maybe not their sole purpose, but I think it's certainly a goal in doing such a thing. I'm Pro-Life, but I think some of that stuff is counterproductive and hurtful as well. I would wager it makes some who consider the Pro-Life position go "no thanks." Even if it's not counterproductive a big point of it is to shock and upset people. The same with flag-burning. Or St. Boniface chopping down an oak sacred to German pagans. Or Muslims blowing up statues of the Buddha.
If his intent is not largely to distress people then he perhaps just lacks empathy. He could think "no one really believes something so stupid" or "I can not understand the beliefs of others and therefore they are irrelevant to me." It'd be tempting to get him into some anthropology classes. Anthropologists are often atheists too, but they're usually not this foolish about human beings.
"He hardly went "out of his way.""TR: Really? What you can get consecrated Hosts from the local bakery now?
Really. He didn't have to make any elaborate plans to get one. Probably someone went to a bit of effort and then just handed it to him, possibly while in his office. Iow _less_ work than actually making a physical trip to the local bakery.
Here's a thought: how do you even know the cracker was a consecrated one? A plausible scenario has it that a member of the church simply took a regular 'unconsecrated' one - much easier to get hold of, I imagine - and gave it to PZ to do with as he wished. Presto! No 'real' sacrilege, and everyone's happy.
I'm guessing that even if that were the case, you'd _still_ be upset. Whadda surprise.
SoV:"Really. He didn't have to make any elaborate plans to get one. Probably someone went to a bit of effort and then just handed it to him, possibly while in his office."
TR: Taking communion by hand was probably a mistaken innovation. I see the value in it, but if it is this easy I think it's time to think of rescinding it.
Still you can order pastry from your house in many cases. He had to ask people to commit fraud, because taking the Eucharist for this purpose is a kind of fraud. Just like taking peyote because you falsely claim you're part-Indian can be a kind of fraud.
"I'm guessing that even if that were the case, [meaning it wasn't consecrated] you'd _still_ be upset." SoV
TR: Not necessarily. His intent would still be the same, but he'd sort of be the butt of the joke in such a case. I guess he'd still be a jackass, but he was a jackass before so not much has really changed.
Do you also claim that when Vietnam War protesters burned American flags in public, their sole purpose was to offend people?
Yes. Burning a flag is not a legitimate means of political expression, it's an ignorant and childish tantrum. Anyone who does it shows their cause as being immature and ill-thought, and diminishes their cause thereby.
It is a legal means of political expression, because if there is no measurable harm, we do not distinguish in the law between legitimate and illegitimate means of expression.
Hey, here's some history courtesy of pz myers: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php#more
"The first recorded accusation [of desecration of a host] was made in 1243 at Berlitz, near Berlin. As a consequence all the Jews of Berlitz were burned on the spot, which was subsequently called Judenberg. Another famous case that took place in 1290, in Paris, was commemorated in the Church of the Rue des Billettes and in a local confraternity. In 1370 in Brussels, the charge of host desecration, long celebrated in a special fest and depicted in artistic relics in the Church of St. Gudule, led to the extermination of the Jews of the city. The case of 1337, at Deggendorf, still celebrated locally as "Deggendorf Gnad", led to a series of massacres across the region. In 1510, at Knoblauch, near Berlin, 38 Jews were executed and more expelled from Brandenburg. The alleged host desecration in 1410, at Segovia, was said to have brought about an earthquake, and as a result, the local synagogue was confiscated and leading Jews were executed; the event continues to be celebrated as a local feast of Corpus Christi. Similar accusations, resulting in extensive persecution of Jews, were brought forward in 1294, at Laa, Austria; 1298, at Röttingen, near Würzburg, and at Korneuburg, near Vienna; 1299, at Ratisbon; 1306, at St. Pölten; 1325, at Cracow; 1330, at Güstrow; 1338, at Pulkau; 1388, at Prague; 1399, at Posen; 1401, at Glogau; 1420, at Ems; 1453, at Breslau; 1478, at Passau; 1492, at Sternberg, in Mecklenburg-Schwerin; 1514, at Mittelberg, in Alsace; 1558, at Sochaczew, in Poland. The last Jew burned for stealing a host died in 1631, according to Jacques Basnage, quoting from Manasseh b. Israel. Casimir IV. of Poland (1447).
That is the true power of the cracker, this silly symbol of superstition. Fortunately, Catholicism has mellowed with age — the last time a Catholic nation rose up to slaughter its non-Christian citizenry was a whole 70 years ago, after all — but the sentiment still lingers..."
Looking at this history and how PZ Myers has been attacked by Catholics and you just have to wonder. Faith can inform our lives, but it can twist them, too.
Though Megan McArdle sees an equivalence between PZ Myers and Bill Donohue, I don't. In fact, I don't understand how she can call herself a libertarian. It's a cracker, even if you are a Catholic. It's a cracker. And it's crazy to threaten lives and careers over it. They act like Muslims, or worse.
SoV,
I saw you posted your little - these people hold different political beliefs than I do, and that makes them evil - comments over at Crooked Timber as well. You keep brining up ID/evolution as if it related to his prank even though Catholics aren't in that debate. You still have not provided me with the SoV sanctioned list of appropriate reasons for holding policy preferences...
I'll reiterate to both you and Mixner - what Myers did was legal, should remain legal and should not result in threats to his person or livelihood. That being said, it is childish, immature and counter-productive. That other people took offense to it, and some of them took it too far, is to be expected when you advertise and then act like an a**hole. You are responsible for your actions, and the reasonably expected reactions, which in this case seem to be about where you'd think.
mouseforallseasons
Your comments don't make much sense. I asked you if your argument that Myers' action is illegitimate rests on the allegedly illegitimate way he proposes to obtain the cracker (since you keep mentioning that). You responded "That works" (which I take to mean "yes"), but then go on to say that your argument is also that "he's trying to make people angry by that means."
So in fact your position does not rest on the cracker-theft angle. You'd still be arguing that what Myers is proposing to do is an illegitimate form of protest even if he acquired the cracker by means you considered legitimate, or even if he used an unconsecrated cracker that he legally obtained from some other source, right?
So is your objection now merely that you think Myers is trying to "make people angry?" Is that your fundamental argument against him? If anyone engages in any form of protest with the purpose of inciting anger (regardless of what other purposes the protester may also have for his actions) then you consider it an illegitimate form of protest? Is that it?
skullberg,
I'll reiterate to both you and Mixner - what Myers did was legal, should remain legal and should not result in threats to his person or livelihood. That being said, it is childish, immature and counter-productive.
I don't think it's childish, immature or counter-productive. I think it is a very powerful way of expressing the view that, basically, religion is nonsense and that religious doctrines like transsubstantiation do not deserve respect.
But if this "it's childish" thing is your real objection to it, it's hard to know why you're so upset by it. Surely there are all sorts of people doing all sorts of things you consider "childish, immature and counter-productive," and yet you don't seem remotely as bothered by their "childish" actions as you are by Myers'.
Which makes me think that there's something else driving your anger at Myers, not just a belief that his behavior is childish, etc.
I'm not angered or upset by it at all, no more so than I am upset by seeing drunk people act like idiots at bars. It's not fun to watch, but I don't much care. This little display didn't persuade any one, certainly not Catholics, and furthered no debate. Shakespeare comes to mind: "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
Myers is going to go on teaching, Catholics are going to go on believing and the small number of people who ever heard of it will soon forget this. To laud childish behavior instead of debate is to get more of the same.
My issue with people like SoV, is that he takes this occasion to place people who hold a broad spectrum of beliefs as illegitimate participants in the political arena. That is mere bigotry, nothing more, and has no defense. He shows that it has no defense by ignoring those who reject it.
skullberg,
I'm not angered or upset by it at all, no more so than I am upset by seeing drunk people act like idiots at bars. It's not fun to watch, but I don't much care. This little display didn't persuade any one, certainly not Catholics, and furthered no debate.
And you know this, how?
Look, attention-grabbing public protests on contentious issues that incite a lot of anger are an important and long-standing tradition in American social and political life. Female suffragists chaining themselves to buildings. Rosa Parks refusing to sit at the back of the bus. Abortion protesters wielding images of dismembered fetuses outside the entrances to abortion clinics. AIDS activists staging mock funerals on public streets. PETA activists comparing meat-eating to the Holocaust. Anti-war protesters burning U.S. flags. And so on. People engage in this kind of protest because it draws public attention to their cause and expresses their view in a particularly powerful way.
If you don't think any of this is effective, if you really think it's all just "childish" and counterproductive, then just ignore it. I and others who believe there is value to this kind of "outrageous" public protest will continue to support and defend it. I do not believe that politely-worded books, essays, letters to newspapers etc. are the only legitimate form of expressing grievances and calling for change. And if you think that such methods are not likely to upset people or incite anger (unlike crackergate), I suggest you take a look at the fury that has been directed at Richard Dawkins for daring to write books and create television shows attacking religion.
The fact is, any highly visible form of public protest against religion is going to generate a lot of anger and resentment among people who think religion is important and valuable, especially religious people themselves. It's not the medium that gets them angry, it's the message itself.
Look, attention-grabbing public protests on contentious issues that incite a lot of anger are an important and long-standing tradition in American social and political life.
The thing is, transubstantiation isn't a "contentious issue" like the ones you mentioned. The role of religion in society certainly is, and seems to bring out the evangelists for atheism and organized religions. But this tantrum was not about the role of religion in society - it was about annoying Catholics because members of Catholic leity annoyed him.
I think thoughtful protests are a boon to democracy in general and America in particular. Looking over the list you provided shows the difference pretty starkly. These protests were well done, challenged people to think and ultimately were effective.
-Female suffragists chaining themselves to buildings.
-Rosa Parks refusing to sit at the back of the bus.
-AIDS activists staging mock funerals on public streets.
-Anti-war protesters burning U.S. flags.
These protests are not designed to change minds and are simply there to make the protesters feel better about themselves, either through moralizing or attention.
-Abortion protesters wielding images of dismembered fetuses outside the entrances to abortion clinics.
-PETA activists comparing meat-eating to the Holocaust.
Myers stunt is solidly in line with the last two, it is self-righteousness manifest and people are grouping it with Rosa Parks. It's just not the same thing, no matter how much you want it to be so.
The fact is, any highly visible form of public protest against religion is going to generate a lot of anger and resentment among people who think religion is important and valuable, especially religious people themselves. It's not the medium that gets them angry, it's the message itself.
So what? You don't get to say people can't be upset about someone calling a personal, private belief you have as childish lies. Protesting against religion is like protesting against food preferences. Unless we're eating together, my choices don't effect you. It's a fools errand to try and dismantle religion as a concept.
That some people get upset, and some people go to far, does not mean you can excuse whatever actions your protests take. Surely Myers could have gotten reactions by sh*tting in a confessional - but that wouldn't mean it was a good protest. Dressing up his tantrum as high-brow discourse only invites more of the same.
The fact that most publically evangelical atheists are raging assholes (PZ Myers, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) is parsimoniously explained by the existence of a God with a sense of humor.
skullberg,
The thing is, transubstantiation isn't a "contentious issue" like the ones you mentioned.
Huh? Then what's all the fuss about? Some people think transsubstantiation is a mystical transformation by which a piece of bread is imbued with the "Real Presence" of the Son of God. Others (me and Myers, for example) think it's a load of religious codswallop. It's obviously "contentious."
The role of religion in society certainly is, and seems to bring out the evangelists for atheism and organized religions. But this tantrum was not about the role of religion in society - it was about annoying Catholics because members of Catholic leity annoyed him.
Of course it was about the role of religion in society. For the umpteenth time, Myers' point in "desecrating" the host is to express his strong belief that religious doctrines like transsubstantiation are nonsense and do not deserve respect. He's been writing posts to that effect on his blog for years, and will doubtless continue to do so. He was motivated to express this belief in this particular way at this particular time by what he (and I) regard as the ridiculous response of the Catholic diocese and people like Bill Donohue to the Webster Cook story. The spokesperson for the diocese called it a "hate crime." Donohue said it was "beyond hate speech." A priest compared it to kidnapping a human being.
These protests were well done, challenged people to think and ultimately were effective.
-Female suffragists chaining themselves to buildings.
-Rosa Parks refusing to sit at the back of the bus.
-AIDS activists staging mock funerals on public streets.
-Anti-war protesters burning U.S. flags.
These protests are not designed to change minds and are simply there to make the protesters feel better about themselves, either through moralizing or attention.
-Abortion protesters wielding images of dismembered fetuses outside the entrances to abortion clinics.
-PETA activists comparing meat-eating to the Holocaust.
Once again I ask: How do you know all this? How do you know that, say, flag-burning isn't in your second category and, say, PETA's meat-is-murder campaign is not in the first? You're simply guessing about the motives of the protesters and the effectiveness of the protests.
With respect to PETA, the organization's leader has written of the group's controversial campaigns:
The fact is we are the biggest group because we succeed in getting attention. ... The fact is we may be doing all sorts of things on a campaign but the one thing that gets attention is the outrageous thing. It simply goes to prove to us each time, that that is the thing that’s going to work; and so we won’t shirk from doing that facet — in addition to all the other things we do that you never hear about because no one cares.
In other words, PETA engages in these "outrageous" campaigns because it has evidence that they work. They bring a lot of public attention to the issue and they attract support for the organization.
So what?
So, the claim that the anger is a response to the particular way Myers is expressing his message rather than to the message itself (religion is nonsense) is simply false. If he'd written a best-selling book arguing that belief in God is a delusion and that religion is basically nonsense, like Richard Dawkins did, lots of people would still be angrily attacking him, as they're attacking Dawkins.
You don't get to say people can't be upset about someone calling a personal, private belief you have as childish lies.
I'm not saying people can't be upset about it. Of course they can get upset. I fully expect them to get upset. Just as I would fully expect someone who believed that racial segregation is proper to get upset at what Rosa Parks did or someone who believes that abortion is a fundamental right to get upset at anti-abortion protests. People will tend to get upset any time a cherished and deeply-held belief of theirs is mocked or attacked or challenged. But the fact that a protest upsets people is not a reason avoid making it. It doesn't mean the protest is somehow invalid or illegitimate or unjustified.
Oh, yes Mixner! You atheist bigots are the new champions for civil rights! PZ Myers/Rosa Parks...I SEE THE SIMILARITIES.
Sweet Jesus, you are a tool. I'm not upset about PZ Myers, it really doesn't make me angry. It kind me makes me pity the guy, but just a little. No, it's morons like Mixner who really make me mad. You know, members of the Church of Dawkins who think they are smarter than everyone, have some sort of patent on "reason" and "rationality" (have you read MacIntyre, Mixner? Real philosophy might be a little difficult for you), and just generally excuse any sort of incendiary behavior because it is done in the name of ALL HOLY DARWIN and IRRELIGION.
Dude, get over yourself.
Philip Marlowe,
Well done. All those words, and not a single sentence that qualifies as an actual argument. Just one ad hominem after another.
"Yes. Burning a flag is not a legitimate means of political expression," Anthony
TR: I agree. It might be legal, but it's not legitimate or useful. Did burning a flag get us out of Vietnam? How? Where's the evidence?
"Female suffragists chaining themselves to buildings." Mixner
TR: This was probably not necessary either. In Britain the suffragettes got violent and I don't think that helped anything.
"Rosa Parks refusing to sit at the back of the bus." Mixner
TR: This is disobeying an unjust law. It is not the same kind of thing at all. There is no unjust law involved in anything in this story. It has nothing to do with the law, as normally understood, at all.
"Abortion protesters wielding images of dismembered fetuses outside the entrances to abortion clinics." Mixner
TR: Crass and unnecessary. Believe me there are people outraged by this.
"the last time a Catholic nation rose up to slaughter its non-Christian citizenry was a whole 70 years ago" PZ Myers via some other alphabet soup.
TR: I take it he means Croatia, The Ustase government of Croatia was sadly slightly worse than this. It went after Orthodox Christians too I believe. Although as the Orthodox also believe in transsubstantiation, more or less, that wasn't really an issue in the matter. Still even then there was a strongly ethnic and nationalist element involved. I admit though they had significant religious motivation so the Ustase are a vexing sadness in recent Catholic history. If he was thinking of this his knowledge is impressive as this is not that widely known in the West.
(Now obviously he could not mean Germany. Germany is not a Catholic nation and the Protestants were the main people to vote Nazi. Granted Hitler was raised a Catholic, but he was the founder of a Protestant-derived church and I believe that makes him automatically excommunicate)
Thomas R,
You claim that flag-burning is not a "useful" form of protest against war, that suffragists chaining themselves to railings was not a "necessary" form of protest against disenfranchisement, and that displaying images of dismembered fetuses is likewise "unnecessary" to the anti-abortion cause.
Claims about "necessity" are basically irrelevant. The important question is whether the protest is useful, whether it advances the cause. Even if it is not strictly "necessary," it may obviously still be helpful.
So, assuming that what you're really denying here is that any of these forms of protest are useful, that they help the cause, I ask you the same question I asked skullberg: How do you know this? How do you know they're not useful?
I think it's pretty obvious that you don't know this at all. You're just guessing.
The fact is, no one really knows what works and what doesn't with respect to protests of this kind. For all you know, Rosa Parks' act, and other acts of civil disobedience in support of civil rights for blacks, may have been a net liability to that cause. They may have done more to retard the advance of civil rights by inciting anger and backlash among segregationist whites than they did to inspire support civil rights.
You personally may believe a particular form of protest is counterproductive to a cause, but that doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to share your view. You and skullberg obviously disagree about flag-burning as a protest against the Vietnam War. He thinks it was "well done, challenged people to think and [was] ultimately effective." You think it was "not legitimate or useful."
You seem to equate the "legitimacy" of a form of protest with whether you personally think it is useful or effective. I completely reject that definition. Just because I (or you, or anyone else) doesn't think a protest helps the protesters' cause doesn't mean they are wrong to engage in that protest. And this is just as true for Myers' protest against religion as for civil rights protests or anti-abortion protests or PETA protests or whatever else it might be.
That's great, Mixner. So now we have no standard to measure any action because we can all just reject whatever we want (because we just CAN). Jesus H Christ, man, do you read your own writing? Mixner thinks PZ Myers desicrating a Eucharistic Host is USEFUL FOR ADVANCING THE ATHEIST CAUSE SO GOSH DARN IT NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO TELL HIM OTHERWISE. It doesn't matter that his action just pisses people off! You see, in Mixner-verse Myers is paving the way for a world free of religion! Where everyone will be happy and rational! And there will be unicorns! And gumdrops! Yay!!!!
Tool.
It doesn't matter that his action just pisses people off! You see, in Mixner-verse Myers is paving the way for a world free of religion! Where everyone will be happy and rational! And there will be unicorns! And gumdrops! Yay!!!!
Funny, but I don't see any of that 'concern' about ticking people off going in the other direction.
As usual, it's the hypocrisy.
Mixner thinks PZ Myers desicrating a Eucharistic Host is USEFUL FOR ADVANCING THE ATHEIST CAUSE SO GOSH DARN IT NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO TELL HIM OTHERWISE.
You can certainly "tell" me otherwise, but unless you can support your claim with evidence I'm not sure why you think I should believe it. Sorry, I mean, YOU CAN CERTAINLY "TELL" ME OTHERWISE, BUT UNLESS YOU CAN SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM WITH EVIDENCE, I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU THINK I SHOULD BELIEVE IT.
It doesn't matter that his action just pisses people off!
I didn't say it "doesn't matter." I said it's not a valid reason to not take the action. Rosa Parks pissed off a lot of people. PETA pisses of a lot of people. Anti-abortion activists piss off a lot of people. Pro-choice activists piss off a lot of people. Flag-burners piss off a lot of people. Myers pisses off a lot of people. Any time anyone engages in any public act that mocks, attacks or challenges the cherished and deeply-held beliefs of a large number of people, a lot of those people are going to get pissed off. I'm not sure how you think this can be avoided, other than through the suppression of all public protest on all controversial issues.
Unless we're eating together, my choices don't effect you.
If only. 3000 people died on 9/11 because of the religious choices of 19 other people.
"How do you know this? How do you know they're not useful?" Mixner
TR: I don't know for absolute certainty, but history would seem to indicate they're not. The Vietnam War continued for about 4 or 5 years after the first big spate of flag-burning. The more graphic signs of the Pro-Life movement have not ended abortion. Nor is their real evidence that that element of the movement contributed to reducing abortion rates. I'm not certain on women's suffrage, but the British were generally slower on the matter and their suffragettes were more likely to do things like this.
"about ticking people off going in the other direction." SoV
TR: Atheists are not a unified group and have nothing important to them all that can be demeaned. If you want me to defend the atheist's right not to swear on Bibles, I'm there. Or if you don't like people saying atheists have no morals, well I don't like that either.
However this was not merely ticking people off, it was taking things on false pretense to deride other people. I doubt you can understand that so I think I'm done with this issue.
TR: Atheists are not a unified group and have nothing important to them all that can be demeaned.
That's a pretty flat-out ignorant statement, I would say. Nothing important? Really? As an atheist, that's somewhat of a surprise to me - that there's nothing in my life I consider important, simply because I don't see any evidence for your magic sky-man.
Chet you misread me in a pretty radical way, but that could be my fault as I'm not great at grammar.
What I meant is there is no single person or object that all atheists agree is important. By "nothing important to all of them" I meant there are many different things important to each of them. Some atheists consider their families important, but some atheists don't like their families at all so prefer their friends. Some value symbols like the flag, but some do not value any symbol. Some have a hero that they even pattern their life after, but others very much do not. There is no atheist Pope. There is no single great thing that unites all atheists in reverence.
That's all I meant. Do you even disagree with that?
| 
The back and forth over the PZ Meyers crackergate is an incredibly fun spectator sport. All sides come off with egg on their faces, and their tempers are so hot that said eggs are fried sunny side up. That said, Megan needs to add some spice to this.
Megan should make some vegan hosts, mail them to Meyers saying they're transsubstantiated, and then expose him once he desecrates some non-godly crackers.
But that would be silly.
Posted by Peter | July 25, 2008 2:09 PM