http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/91269/
Hes entitled to his opinion, but a little common decency seems to be beyond his grasp.
And his verbal rudeness is only going to serve to make the "not-Catholic but respectful of others" demographic less willing to listen to him on topics that he's good at.
His language and his attitude certainly have lowered my opinion of him, and I'll leave his name off my list of "rational and well-behaved publicly declared atheists to read" when discussing the whole rational thinker/person of faith topic with people on line. (Yes, as a Christian, I DO point seekers in the non-Christian directions, if that's where their interests lie.)
Unfortunately, my list of atheists is shrinking rapidly...has that kind of rudeness EVER made someone feel positive about themselves? Like they've made an intellectual advancement, or opened a dialogue? No, I doubt it's done a thing except for raising the smugness level to 'obnoxious'.
Ooh, rude language aside, that bit asking for a wafer so he can do a damn proper job of desecrating it is a little much.
Auntie, could you post a copy of that reading list?
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on July 15, 2008, 03:07:14 AM
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/91269/
Hes entitled to his opinion, but a little common decency seems to be beyond his grasp.
And his verbal rudeness is only going to serve to make the "not-Catholic but respectful of others" demographic less willing to listen to him on topics that he's good at.
His language and his attitude certainly have lowered my opinion of him, and I'll leave his name off my list of "rational and well-behaved publicly declared atheists to read" when discussing the whole rational thinker/person of faith topic with people on line. (Yes, as a Christian, I DO point seekers in the non-Christian directions, if that's where their interests lie.)
Unfortunately, my list of atheists is shrinking rapidly...has that kind of rudeness EVER made someone feel positive about themselves? Like they've made an intellectual advancement, or opened a dialogue? No, I doubt it's done a thing except for raising the smugness level to 'obnoxious'.
Actually, aside from the language, I pretty much agree with PZ.
The Catholics went way over the top on this one, and made themselves look extremely foolish.
Not to mention, the assault issue-- there SHOULD have been charges filed by the student-- but who gets punished? The woman who assaulted the kid? No-- the KID gets punished instead, and the woman gets painted as some sort of hero....
I immediately flashed on the priest in
Les Mesrables, when John stole that candlestick, and the response of the Priest when John was caught. Now THAT was an example of grace....
But the priest's response to what was basically a prank? Unconscionable-- he all but called for the kid's death. He certainly encouraged the extreme behavior the kid suffered as result.
Way over the top on that one....
I don't know much about PZ Myers and wouldn't remotely claim to be an expert on Judaeo-Christian morality. I'm inclined to agree with Bob though. If the boss of the religion believes in forgiving those who nail him to a tree, then Christians obsessing over a prank with a wafer seems a little off-message.
Quote from: Alpaca link=topic=1436.msg69451#msg69451
Auntie, could you post a copy of that reading list?
For an academic dissection of religion by someone from the Arts and Sciences side, who's probably never insulted anyone you might find Jonathan Miller interesting. Here are some quotes from his "Brief History of Disbelief" series,
with references to some historical atheists.
http://www.secularsites.freeuk.com/jonathan_miller_quotes.htm (http://www.secularsites.freeuk.com/jonathan_miller_quotes.htm)
Interestingly PZ seems not to mention that in the past desecration of the holy wafer was a standard charge against Jews and often used as justification for robbing them of their possessions and burning them on the stake. So, this is "just" a return to traditional values. Now imagine, if the prankster* boy had been a Muslim or a Jew.
Btw, I personally think the wafer to be a (mild) perversion of the original intent**. Get some real bread instead of this barely edible cardboard (some churches actually do)!
*this does not mean that I condone the action. I think it was tasteless 8even more so than the wafer concerned)
**As I have stated elsewhere, the way the wafer has to be treated reminds me of the regulations for radioactive material (see the use of the ostensory, the need to properly desecrate unused wafers before disposal etc.)
As a (non practicing? former? educated as?) catholic, I find the whole thing ludicrous. On one hand the fundamentalism displayed is certainly (as Swato pointed out) a return to the 'old values' and it certainly furthers my desire to get away from the church. On that regard I understand the anger of PZ while writing the blog.
OTOH, it would seem to me there is a lack of understanding of what the communion is on all the parties involved. Yes, the wafer symbolizes the body of Christ, and the church officially considers it in a literal way:
Quote from: wikipediaAccording to the Roman Catholic Church, when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine, and become instead the body and blood of Christ: although the empirical appearances are not changed, the reality is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit who has been called down upon the bread and wine.
Technically, this is a valid case for automatic excommunication (which is logic, the kid cannot be trusted inside the church) and in a way, by not receiving the body of Christ is being condemned unless he repents and ask for forgiveness, particularly in this case to the pope himself.
Now, claiming that the wafer was 'kidnapped' suggests that the Holy Spirit is trapped inside it, something that I would consider as a very silly thing: are you telling me that the Holy Spirit, -the one that came unto the disciples to enlighten them with knowledge- isn't powerful enough to get away from the wafer as soon as it is held by a heathen? Wouldn't that suggest that the priest -by casting the Holy ghost prisoner in the wafer- is really a necromancer? Do they really have that power? IOW and to make it simpler, are you telling me that an omnipotent god is helpless?!?!?!?!
Yes, the priest should be outraged by the desecration, but going beyond by claiming kidnapping he is pretty much diminishing the god he is supposed to serve.
From then on is all idiocy in all levels. PZ should have been more mindful of his words although I totally understand his outrage. And the church... well, just gave me another reason to avoid it.
QuoteGet some perspective, man. IT'S A CRACKER.
IMHO, it's not a cracker to the people it was taken from.
I get a very different impression of the situation reading PZ's blog and reading the original news story. The original news story makes it seem like a relatively benign situation being overblown (Webster Cook did something a little stupid - if in fact he was just planning to show his buddy the Eucharist - the church leader resorted immediately to physical force rather than discussing the situation - Cook got his back up and started playing the asshat). PZ's version makes Cook sound like some kind of brave atheist soldier standing up to the Big Bad Church. ::)
IMHO, PZ is ratcheting up the level of rhetoric and promoting conflict over this minor event, and I'll have to agree that he's NOT Toadfish material. The event he's writing about is not the issue, it's the way he's writing about it.
I'm not toadfish material either then. As a lapsed catholic who has eaten my fair share of 'bodies of christ' I can confirm that it is indeed a cracker (wll more a sort of flatcake), and not a very nice one at that. If other people want to believe it is something else then fine but it does not alter the TRUTH. We spend far too much time in this world trying to accomodate lots of peoples different contradictory beliefs and not nearly enough time searching for what is true.
never been much of a one for pandering to other peoples mumbo jumbo. bread is bread, wine is wine - transubstantiation does not exist any more than reincarnation, life after death, UFO's, miracles, compassionate conservatism, corporate social responsibility or the thousand and one other things that people choose to believe because it is EASIER than making the effort to really understand what is going on.
Probably makes me a terrible toadfish but at heart I am a goat and I am with PZ on this one.
sorry chatty.
love Goat
PS. As Frank Carson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Carson) said... "its a cracker!"
and who am i to argue with the legendary Irish comedian. After all he was awarded a Papal Knighthood by the Pope in 1987...
Quote from: goat starer on July 15, 2008, 02:31:21 PMnever been much of a one for pandering to other peoples mumbo jumbo. bread is bread, wine is wine - transubstantiation does not exist any more than reincarnation, life after death, UFO's, miracles, compassionate conservatism, corporate social responsibility or the thousand and one other things that people choose to believe because it is EASIER than making the effort to really understand what is going on.
Probably makes me a terrible toadfish but at heart I am a goat and I am with PZ on this one.
OTOH Goatie, I've not often heard you call someone a 'demented fuckwit'. ;)
Or seen you go looking for spare communion crackers to publicly desecrate:
Quote from: PZCan anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart.
:P
true... but I fully understand WHY PZ is so incensed by this. Its hundreds of years since the enlightenment yet we are still having to argue with the religious right over matters of fact and science. When religious people get angry about slights to their beliefs that is our fault for not being inclusive and sensetive enough. Well balls to that. Belief does not trump the truth. Saying I have faith does not make you right. it generally shows you are too stupid and lazy to go and have a proper think about things.
This is why Dawkins and PZ and Wheen and Me and others get so incensed. If you use the intelligence that god blessed us with (that is a joke by the way) then it is blindingly obvious that a cracker is not the son of god and the fact that people still choose to believe this simply holds back human understanding. The fact that we then accord beliefs that are no more credible than those of UFO spotters with all the protections a state can afford and then accuse anyone who challenges them of being intolerant and sacriligeous is simply bizarre.
So if PZ is pissed off by this then I understand it completely. I dont want to go nicking catholics bread and doing things to it - for no better reason than that it lends some credibilty to their preposterous beliefs. I dont desecrate my local bakery either.
Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on July 15, 2008, 05:23:08 AM
Actually, aside from the language, I pretty much agree with PZ.
Me too. The language is regrettable because the same sentiments could have been expressed less offensively.
It seems to me from what I read that the congregation could just have said a prayer for forgiveness. And that seems to me what a compassionate religion would do.
What intrigues me is what was really going on and why PZ over-reacted.
Only then would I feel able to consider whether he would ever be Toadfish material, because I don't know if this is an aberration of expression and tolerance works both ways.
Quote from: Aggie
QuoteGet some perspective, man. IT'S A CRACKER.
IMHO, it's not a cracker to the people it was taken from.
Of course. To them it is holy. But that doesn't mean losing perspective.
I watched a recent documentary on orthodox Judaism and the documentary maker was concerned about where she could put her cup of tea (with milk) down. Apparently the floor was OK but the table wasn't because the family eat off it (complex meat/milk rules). The complications of why it was ok for her to put her milky tea down on a patch of carpet where someone might have previously placed some meat dish were too hard for the family member to explain. OK, she was respectful, but it was impossible not to realise that she had trouble with it.
I wonder about the honesty of silence. If we are thinking this is crazy, but not expressing it, isn't that just as bad? Isn't it just stifling debate?
Is taking something that has special meaning to someone as bad as making physical threats ?
Is atheist expression of disbelief any more or less important than expression of religious belief?
Chatty, PZ was not well-behaved, nor tolerant, in this instance, but he is certainly rational.
has anyone ever thought that.....
people getting hot under the collar because of the language something is expressed in even when they think the content is right
is not that far removed from
people getting all annoyed about the mistreatment of a loaf?
I for one like a bit of swearing, dogma and grumpiness. Anyone who knows me will tell you I am one of the most pottymouthed people and that I like nothing more than some good dogmatic argument to put the cat among the pigeons. I think its about time atheists became more vocal. We get told we are going to hell, that we are sinful etc by christians all the time. But they dont like it when we describe their beliefs as stupid? give me a break
Cardinal Goat
PZ for Pope Campaign
PS. Griffin. I like the second bit of your message a lot!
Quote from: Cardinal Goat on July 15, 2008, 03:25:10 PM
has anyone ever thought that.....
people getting hot under the collar because of the language something is expressed in even when they think the content is right
is not that far removed from
people getting all annoyed about the mistreatment of a loaf?
To some, language is as important as religion :irony:
Personally, I think PZ's points would have been better made by using language more effectively ;D :mrgreen:
Which is why I wonder if there's some back story.......
But then there is also the issue of U.S. swearing v. U.K. swearing and where and when it is useful ;)
Quote from: AggieOTOH Goatie, I've not often heard you call someone a 'demented fuckwit'.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on July 15, 2008, 03:16:28 PM
Is atheist expression of disbelief any more or less important than expression of religious belief?
Thanks Griffin, you've hit exactly what was bothering me on the head. I consider both equally important, and I admit having extreme contempt for persons in either camp using deliberately inflammatory language towards the "other side".
Note that the ONLY familiarity with PZ I had to this point was the Friday Cephalopods thread, but
based on that single blog post only he comes off as a real dung-flinging chowderhead asshat. I don't condone this sort of shit from RRR fuckheads and scumsucker fundie whackjobs, but quite frankly, I concede that people like that are NOT rational and put no weight in their arguments. But damnit, I consider myself in the rational camp (regardless of spiritual or religious affiliation) and
I damned well expect better from a professor of science. I've about had it with all the bitching about the extreme behaviour exhibited by certain members of group X, Y or Z while the person bitching is simultaneously egging them on and potentially driving some of the more moderate or sympathetic members of group X, Y or Z towards the extreme end of the spectrum.
(anyone who cares to can edit out the pottymouth above - it's attempting to prove a point in some small way)
My opinion is that if one is going to uphold rationality, one should act in a rational manner. Whether the argument is rational or not becomes irrelevant when the argument itself is made to be deliberately inflammatory. Of course it's PZ'd right to present himself any way he chooses, the post itself isn't rabidly out-of-line (would probably be fine for posting on the FSM forums), and I don't take issue with the content; neither am I concerned whether any of my Siblings agree or disagree with the content (should be obvious, but y'all wouldn't be much fun if we agreed on everything!). But again,
I expect better and since the original post here was focused entirely on the language and attitude, I have to agree with Chatty that this has lowered my (formerly neutral-to-positive) opinion of PZ.
Quote from: AggieOTOH Goatie, I've not often heard you call someone a 'demented fuckwit'.
you know another thing I cant help thinking is that if PZ had called astrologers "demented fuckwits" nobody would be jumping up and down about it. To my mind the beliefs of astrologers are as strongly held as those of religious people... and based in the same amount of reality.
Quote from: Agujjim on July 15, 2008, 04:17:33 PM
Quote from: Griffin NoName on July 15, 2008, 03:16:28 PM
Is atheist expression of disbelief any more or less important than expression of religious belief?
Thanks Griffin, you've hit exactly what was bothering me on the head. I consider both equally important, and I admit having extreme contempt for persons in either camp using deliberately inflammatory language towards the "other side".
Quote from: goat starer on July 15, 2008, 04:20:54 PM
Quote from: AggieOTOH Goatie, I've not often heard you call someone a 'demented fuckwit'.
you know another thing I cant help thinking is that if PZ had called astrologers "demented fuckwits" nobody would be jumping up and down about it. To my mind the beliefs of astrologers are as strongly held as those of religious people... and based in the same amount of reality.
Yes !
My take is that religious people are just as inflammatory, in their application of ideology of dire things happening as a result of non-belief to non-believers (eg. going to hell), as non-believers who use bad language to scoff at religion.
It seems ridiculous that, if someone can tell me I will go to hell and it is ok for them to do so because they are a true believer, I should be considered bad in any way for telling them to fuck off.
Surely the offense is equal? Or non-existent in both cases? Take your pick.
What is it about religion that protects it ?
<end devil's advocate>
Quote from: Griffin NoName on July 15, 2008, 04:50:24 PM
What is it about religion that protects it ?
erm...
THE POWER OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD AND HIS ANGELIC HOSTS!!!!!and the Swiss Guards at the vatican with their pen knives
Generally agreeing with Aggie on one side and Griffin on the other, although I want to pass a question:
Do you personally care if some [insert term of contempt here] individual tells you that you are hell bound? Heck, at this point not only I expect it but welcome it, I don't wanna go to whatever heaven they're suppose to go, in fact I see hell as a wonderful place free of fundies.
Then again, no fundie atheists will be there either because they don't believe in heaven or hell... ;) :mrgreen: :irony:
I still have to agree with Chatty and Aggie here.
Of course the response of the religious fanatics has been ridiculous - I think, personally, that "demented fuckwit" is a perfect way to describe a person who issues a death threat against a kid who stole a cracker (though if I was a university professor I wouldn't go on the record with that phrase). And I think it's lovely that PZ is doing his best to bring attention to religiously-fueled stupidity like this, and I think that more people should go out of their way to highlight the idiocy that religious fanatics and perpetrate.
I don't like it, though, when he goes beyond attacking the fanatics and starts attacking the religion, and further offers to commit more heresy, just to prove how much contempt he has for it. This is precisely the sort of attitude that causes such intolerance towards atheism in this country.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on July 15, 2008, 04:50:24 PM
It seems ridiculous that, if someone can tell me I will go to hell and it is ok for them to do so because they are a true believer, I should be considered bad in any way for telling them to fuck off.
Surely the offense is equal? Or non-existent in both cases? Take your pick.
What is it about religion that protects it ?
<end devil's advocate>
My level of offense at PZ is (I think) largely rooted in his perceived 'leadership' or at least public-eye status. If it was Joe Nobody Blogger ranting to the blogosphere, it would not bother me in the least. Similarly, I can't stand Dawkins these days.
Going toe-to-toe with intolerance at the street level doesn't bother me, and open rudeness sometimes deserves open rudeness. Religion is not a sacred cow, HOWEVER I still perceive a difference between conflict with an individual (whose actions are directly influencing you) and publicly, rudely blasting a group of people as a third party observer.
I also feel strongly that it's the responsibility of the moderates in ANY group to monitor their own extremists, and dismantle them if they cross the line. PZ doesn't need to be called down for this, it's minor and it's his right of free expression, but if there was a line drawn between "science people" and "religious people", I'd consider myself on the science side of it* - therefore
I give myself the authority to jump up and down, rant, scream and disapprove of what I perceive to be misbehaviour by anyone from 'my side', ESPECIALLY if they are in a position to get their misbehaviour on the radar of the 'other side'. It makes ME look bad personally, eh? It's not limited to this issue - white supremacists make ME look bad for being white. Sexists and perpetrators of violence against women make ME look bad for being a man. George W Bush makes Y'ALL look bad for being Americans. There'd be damned fewer religiously-cloaked extremists if the moderates would take them to task for their hate speech, and I've noticed a lot more permissivity by moderate 'rationals' towards science-cloaked extremists lately, which is doing nothing but forcing a progression of grey tones into black and white.
THAT'S why I'm outraged, not because someone took issue with Catholic beliefs.
*although I'd probably be chatting across the line to the exasperated moderates on the other side about the stupidity of drawing the line in the first place. ::)PS - caught Zono's post: No, I don't care - I've been saying I'm headed there for years now. In such an encounter I'm sure BOTH of us would walk away thinking the other is hopelessly deluded. ;)
Where the whole thing becomes totally ridiculous (imo) is that (according to the follow-up article) there are now armed police guards present during the mass to prevent another abduction of the Body of Christ.
I agree btw on the point of unnecessary rude/inappropriate language.
Quote from: Swatopluk on July 15, 2008, 05:50:26 PM
I agree btw on the point of unnecessary rude/inappropriate language.
Despite being just as bad as Goat when it comes to swearing, as someone said, "Profanity is for inarticulate motherf***ers."
I've always felt that you can get across the same message with either no profanity or strategically placing it. Generally, I find that my tone (of contempt, disgust or whatever appropriate feeling) is more than enough to display my feeling about/towards fundies.
As an ex-Catholic, I suppose I see the offense, but I also hardly think it's necessary to go to those lengths to prevent a repeat--what? re the police going to arrest another idiot that does this? Separation of church and state, ladies and gents.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on July 15, 2008, 05:33:53 PM
Generally agreeing with Aggie on one side and Griffin on the other, although I want to pass a question:
Do you personally care if some [insert term of contempt here] individual tells you that you are hell bound?
Actually, I tend to snort and shrug with a, "Mhmmm, and?" I don't get it a lot, despite living amongst scads of fundies since they generally just look at me like I'm crazy and/or contagious and let it go at that.
I've actually spent more time dealing with heathen fundies than Abrahamic ones. I know a Satanist that ripped into a Catholic friend of mine and I ended up telling him to shut the hell up because he A) had no idea what he was talking about (as is frequently the case with fundies), and B) what did it matter to us if he worshiped a dead Jewish carpenter? What did it matter to him if we either didn't believe in anything or thought Satan was the coolest?
I also agree with Aggie. I think and do act against fundie atheists because it acts against us in the long run and who really wants to deal with any kind of fundie?
Well said, Scrib! ... if someone is raking a whole group of people over the coals without noticing that each is an individual, then what he is saying is obscene to me, even if his language is clean. None of us are completely alike, even twins have differences. That is why this guy isn't Toadfish material, he lacks the invaluable humbleness necessary to be able to see others on equal terms, even during disagreement. It's a skill, an art!
Quote from: Augujjim
OTOH Goatie, I've not often heard you call someone a 'demented fuckwit'. ;)
One day Goat and I should publish our private correspondence. Only then will you all realize the depths of visceral hatred that lurk just beneath the serene surface of our calm monastic life. Think Cadfael with WMDs.
Quote from: Griffin
It seems ridiculous that, if someone can tell me I will go to hell and it is ok for them to do so because they are a true believer, I should be considered bad in any way for telling them to fuck off.
Surely the offense is equal? Or non-existent in both cases? Take your pick.
You're threatening them directly instead of being an accessory to the acts of your imaginary friend. ;)
Quote
What is it about religion that protects it ?
<end devil's advocate>
Custom and practice, and a long history of wielding power, sacred and profane.
Quote from: Swatopluk on July 15, 2008, 05:50:26 PM
Where the whole thing becomes totally ridiculous (imo) is that (according to the follow-up article) there are now armed police guards present during the mass to prevent another abduction of the Body of Christ.
Does the U.S. have anti-cannibalism laws? I mean either this wafer is or it isn't.
Quote from: beagle on July 15, 2008, 08:51:09 PM
One day Goat and I should publish our private correspondence. Only then will you all realize the depths of visceral hatred that lurk just beneath the serene surface of our calm monastic life. Think Cadfael with WMDs.
I am saving our correspondance for my memoirs. There is no hatred there... just utter incomprehension (and I still have no idea why you sent me those saucy etchings)
Quote from: beagle on July 15, 2008, 08:51:09 PM
Does the U.S. have anti-cannibalism laws? I mean either this wafer is or it isn't.
does anywhere have anti cannibal laws? I bite my nails :o
Seriously though I honestly do not see anything much in PZ's blog that makes him anything other than a pissed off rationalist having a bad day and letting off some steam. We need more profanity and irreverance in this world not less. The first time I read the challenge at the end I thought... "hmmm.. thats a bit steep!" and then I thought no it isn't. If people hold up innanimate objects as items of reverance then they need to be challenged. When people forget that goodness resides in people not in the trappings of their own particular minority belief then they have truly lost their way.
I believe in many of the things that many of the worlds faiths teach. I'm even hapy to call myself a Christian (so long as the christ in question is the marxist philosopher I see when I read the bible). But blind faith insenses me as much as it clearly does PZ. That Cracker cum host is one of the many ways that the catholic church tried to brainwash me as a kid. Frighten children with hell and damnation, reinforce mumbo jumbo with repetition and surround everything with an aura of power. These are tried and tested techniques of the indoctrinator. If peoples irreverance is directed at a loaf that to me symbolises the antethesis of freedom of thought and exploration then frankly I would probably join them.
in the unlikely event that I am wrong and there is a god then i look forward to sitting down over a nice cup af tea and a biscuit and having a good chat with him about how horribly badly some people misinterpreted what is important in the world. If I had made this place I would be sitting up there funing about how a bunch of people managed to turn all of the importrant questions into a charade of icons and symbols that have no relevance to anything. And I would use my mighty powers to make sure that there were a few PZs out there to remind people how the trappings can obscure the meaning.
So I think PZ is a grand toadfish. We all go off on one now and again and on this one I rather suspect (and hope) that almost all of the people here wopuld agree that what is important is what people believe and how they behave. The rest of it is all window dressing.
here endeth the sermon
with apologies
Goat
Eh, no apologies necessary Goat. Your post is self-evident proof that you are indeed Toadfish material. ;)
Quote from: goat starer on July 15, 2008, 11:12:37 PM
We need more profanity and irreverance in this world not less.
Generally, I agree. But I'm not one for screaming matches with fundies and at least around here, when you take on a fundie and call him/her a fuckwit, it stops being a debate or discussion and all they can focus on is that you insulted them (hlaf the time
I'd rather have a logic discussion that leads them to the proverbial dark side* then a screaming match that cements them further into their ways.
Irreverence, though, that's a hell of a lot of fun and drives them mad without it turning into a fight.
Quote from: goat starer on July 15, 2008, 11:12:37 PM
That Cracker cum host is one of the many ways that the catholic church tried to brainwash me as a kid. Frighten children with hell and damnation, reinforce mumbo jumbo with repetition and surround everything with an aura of power. These are tried and tested techniques of the indoctrinator.
Rumble.
*If they're allowed to try to convert us, then I'm certainly allowed to offer them the cookies of rationalism to get them over here.
Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe on July 16, 2008, 12:11:28 AM
then I'm certainly allowed to offer them the cookies of rationalism
And what if they kidnap the cookie (and by extension rationalism)? Or perhaps a well organized method saying that any non-rational person trying to hold the cookie is committing a heresy punished by a trip to Heck? :mrgreen:
From Aggie, upthread...
QuoteBut damnit, I consider myself in the rational camp (regardless of spiritual or religious affiliation) and I damned well expect better from a professor of science. I've about had it with all the bitching about the extreme behaviour exhibited by certain members of group X, Y or Z while the person bitching is simultaneously egging them on and potentially driving some of the more moderate or sympathetic members of group X, Y or Z towards the extreme end of the spectrum.
That's the problem. I'm in contact with a LOT of people that are nominal "Christians" that DO have questions.
One of them, whom I had suggested PZ's blog to, contacted me after reading that entry. And the story. And researching it.
She was appalled to see such venom, such hatred. An exact quote? "He's acting like some right-wing moron, screaming expletives over some imagined abuse because THIS KID, not HIM, but this dumb kid, did something stupid, and some other stupid people got their panties in a wad."
With most of these folks, I start with science. Alpaca, Eugenie Scott makes the list here, with
Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction (on Amazon). Then, I send them to rationalathiest.com and tell them that much of Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens is not exactly what they need to read...
Michael Schermer's
The Science of Good and Evil, about the morality of non-faith based thinking is a key book. (Thought provoking for those raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition.)
A little Florence King, a little Emma Goldman...it changes depending on the individual and the approach. (Tends to the feminine side, but so do my friends.) I've stopped with the blog suggestions for the time being, because of stuff like this.
A 58 year old, divorced from a minister who cheated on her and abused their children STILL isn't culturally acclimated to be at ease with the kind of rant PZ's done here. Unfortunately, the bogs, which tend to be much more relevant on a day to day basis, also tend to that sort of language. An older Southern gentlewoman is STILL an older Southern gentlewoman, no matter what her intellectual curiosities are.
I'm protective of these people. As they progress from the introjected value systems they were given to one more in line with their feelings and experiences, I don't want them to reject something based on rudeness.
===============
I've got more to say, but I need to rest. Bein' sick sux.
Wow! I found this thread a bit late, but will throw in my 2 communion wafers' worth...
As a recovering Roman Catholic, and as a former candidate for Holy Orders in the Episcopal Church (as a *gack* female the RC's couldn't even contemplate me!) I found this story interesting -- and embarrassing -- on several levels.
1. RC's are supposed to believe that the Communion Wafer is, literally -- yet not chemically -- transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. Some do, some do not. (Personally, I thought it was a damned creepy concept when I was preparing for my First Communion way back in 4th grade, and did my best to conceal my Hell-bound Lack of Faith for years).
2. The concept of losing one's mind over the 'insult' of smuggling a host which was otherwise intended to be chewed*, salivated upon, swallowed, subjected to hydrochloric acid in the stomach, passed through the intestines and whatever remnants survive all that excreted into a septic system ... well ...
At least, that was how it was taught way back when, because our mortal hands were too defiled by sin to touch it. Nowadays, it's different. And I could regale all y'all with some *quite* entertaining stories of distributing bread and wine to communicants at the rail under the current guidelines in both the Roman and Anglican Communions. But I cannot imagine a circumstance under which a sane 'Eucharistic Minister' would attempt to wrestle someone to recover a [checks article] kidnapped host...
[EDIT] I just remembered this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rxE_qRatFM). At about :43 a priest *is* attempting -- without success or sense -- to retrieve a host, but at least she wasn't trying to 'kidnap' it to show someone else back in the pew... [/EDIT]
3. What is wrong with the Bishop of this diocese? If the local priest is so out in right field, why isn't the Bishop correcting the extremely bizarre theology being disseminated to this congregation? (Hmmm -- An Idiot Priest in my college town gave me the courage to literally get up and walk out -- for ten years -- as well.)
4. Any properly educated Catholic knows that the first 'communion' was just bread broken off from a larger loaf, and s/he was probably indoctrinated with Saint-&-Martyr legends about parishioners 'smuggling' it out of the house church to friends or family who were unable to attend. Granted, that doesn't seem to be the case with Mr. Cook, but I'm with the posters here who take a dim view of anyone who piously asserts that an omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent deity could be 'held hostage' in a cracker. For God's Sake!
5. Bill Donohue is raving lunatic. Why *his* Bishop is unable or unwilling to privately call him in for a little ... counseling ... and/or issue a public statement that Bill is kinda out there as an Army of One is beyond me.
6. The 'armed guards' bit has me confuzzled. That are they going to do, really? Demand that all communicants open their mouths, stick out their tongues, and say aaaaaahmen to *prove* that they swallowed, not spit?
[sorry] :devil2:
7. P.Z.: you're entitled to say what you think. And you've taken enough crap from fundamentalists to be cut a little slack. But you're also intelligent enough to realize that ridicule and insult are not the tools of one interested in changing hearts and minds. They are the tools of one preaching to his/her own choir and giving the finger to the opposition. In this case, the opposition seems to be begging for it. Sadly, too many mainstream RC's will knee-jerk fall in line at hearing your gleeful plans to 'desecrate' the cornerstone of their faith, rather than to side with what could have been an eloquent and rational voice against the crazies in their own midst.
8. I *have* a consecrated host, acquired one day when packing a kit to take communion to shut-ins. I brought it home, put in a small metal box, and retained it after deciding that this just wasn't going to be the right path for me. I don't feel that I've 'desecrated' it, nor do I have any plans to do so, although I know plenty of people who would consider its existence a desecration. Every once in awhile I come across it and take a peek, or show it to a non-christian friend who is curious; it's sort of like Schrodinger's Host! Is it still in there or not?
9. Man, am I glad I don't live in that town!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
* There were actually two schools of thought: Chew and Swallow or accidentally-stick-to-roof-of-mouth and slowly, uncomfortably, scrape off with tongue, Dissolve and Swallow. Which one is a worse sin depends on which ancient Dominican nun taught your First Communion Class...
Quote from: pieces o nine on July 16, 2008, 04:54:54 AM
There are actually two schools of thought: Chew and Swallow or accidentally-stick-to-roof-of-mouth and slowly, uncomfortably, scrape off with tongue, Dissolve and Swallow. Which one is a worse sin depends on which ancient Dominican nun taught your First Communion Class...
It's like sucking on one of those cheap packing peanuts--the kind that dissolve if you get them wet.
Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe[It's like sucking on one of those cheap packing peanuts--the kind that dissolve if you get them wet.
But not quite the same consequences, eh?
:devil2:
In defense of PZ, (or not, you judge) I've been reading his blog for quite some time now.
First off, he is routinely attacked for being an unapologetic atheist-- of the sort that Dawkins and Hitchens is, only most times not so "in your face" about it.
He is about as tolerant of fundamentalist religions of ANY stripe (including but not limited to astrology, voo doo, UFO'ists, etc) as Bush is of Muslims-- that is to say, not much if at all.
He's a science professor, who tries to teach biology, including evolution, to an increasingly ignorant number of kids each year. Kids, who through no fault of their own, were fed the garbage that is Creationism/ID INSTEAD OF actual science.
For Creo/ID includes a sort of mockery of actual science (such as man-fishes, and dog-birds and other absurdities-- no really!). Creo/ID "teaches" a straw-man version of "science" that is patently absurd, and as easy to knock down as, well-- a straw man is.
Thus, PZ is rather annoyed at such fuzzy "thinking" and is increasingly becoming annoyed as time goes on.
Add in, that PZ, being a "hard" atheist, is often ridiculed for his lack of belief. He's a second-class citizen in many places in the US, because of this-- and he's tired of that, too.
As Goat (and others) put it-- when did religion become such that it was NOT ALLOWED to point out it's silliness? And laugh?
When did religion get a "by" so that anything a nut-job says, in the name of religion, gets a free pass in the media?
The kid in question was an asshole-- no, strike that-- he was a spoiled brat. No question.
But. Where is the outcry that he was physically assaulted by one of the Church proctors?
Where is the outcry that the priest compared a mere symbol (their cracker) to actual human suffering? (kidnapping)
It is right up there with our stupid state senator comparing homosexuals to the holocaust... (Sally Kerns)
PZ might have been more diplomatic. But the thrust of what he said was on target.
I think that PZ is a very thoughtful person. I, myself, use inflammatory language in venues other than the Monastery. Look for some of my posts over on Topix, evolution and Topix, top stories.
I fully understand the limits there, as opposed to the deliberate limits here.
I cheerfully abide by those, too-- in fact, I usually start my posting here, so as to help keep my attitude in check over there. It usually works, but not always-- I'm pretty intolerant of people who post to me, ASSUMING that I'm "this" or "that"-- I call'em on those assumptions, too. Again and again. Sometimes, I use deliberately inflammatory word choices, so as to get a rile out of them-- sometimes it's the ONLY way they even notice.
The world is a big place-- and I think there's room for the likes of PZ, and I for one am grateful that he is trying to pull us back from the brink of religions idiocy.
Sometimes, to keep one from going over the edge, one needs to pull two times as hard as one would like, just to keep the balance....
I agree with Bob.
I also have been reasonably active over on Topix the last few weeks or so. Whilst I try to maintain my tolerance over there, some of the people are so willfully pig ignorant that it seriously strains my tolerance levels. On occasion I too have gone over the top there, much to my chagrin. Alas, I am not always as good a Toadfish as I might wish. But OTOH, there have been some over there who started out fairly much on the fundie side who seem to beginning to grasp some level of understanding, so I think overall it is for them that it is worth continuing. Some of the people on there know much more about things than I do and I have learnt quite a lot as well, which is always a bonus. Our own Vita Curator has made some amazingly informative posts.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I read the article about PZ that started this thread and I can see why people might get upset by what he said, or more to the point how he said it. However, I think that the ideas behind what he said are entirely valid, and given the level of provocation he has experienced at the hands of some of the so-called religious types, I am prepared to cut him a little slack.
Maybe that is just me being an ex catholic, like some of the other posters here, or maybe I am biased because I largely share the views expressed, even if I hope I would put them more tactfully, but there it is.
Should PZ one day wish to join the Monastery, I would judge him by his behaviour here. I would not decide whether he was Toadfish material until then. It is very easy to to take something someone says out of context and get entirely the wrong idea, nor should we be too harsh on someone, just because they had a bad day and blew off some steam.
I dont think tolerance and humility are incompatible with having a good rant. Bill Hicks was thoroughly offensive whilst ranting on stage but that was ok because it was 'comedy'. I thought the PZ blog was quite funny and falls into the same category. A rant is a personal thing.. a primal scream of frustration at a world that is crawling around blind in the sludge of uncertainty. Tolerance and humility are to me about how we engage with people. A good rant is about how we release the tensions that build up from being tolerant and humble in the face of mind numbing stupidity.
I say let people have rants. if we dont like them we dont have to read them or listen to them. sometimes they spark debate in a constructive way. Sometimes they provoke extreme reactions but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Often it is not until we see the extreme reactions of people that we can judge their ideas properly.
I believe PZ made me think about how I feel about catholicism and the sanctification of objects in ways I have not done before. He also let me get in a good Frank Carson joke (that nobody seems to have appreciated enough!). His rant sparked a rational debate here that I have found interesting and enlightening and that is not to be sniffed at.
Offending people is not in itself a bad thing. In the case of many of the worlds religions you can't critiscise at all without causing offense. And I for one would not like to live in a world where tolerance and humility were used as surrogates for laissez faire and torpor.
Ahhh, but there are ways to suggest you're not talking seriously, and the desecration stuff is, well, really offensive as the original story proves. Had he said "I should ask for a wafer to desecrate" while still objectionable, it becomes clear that he doesn't intend to follow thru, but it sounds like a I-had-it-you'll-see-now-time-to-go-to-war statement, regardless of the apparent snarkiness.
Does being angry justify being an @sshole?
Scuzi! Posted with Zone.
So here's a question: if said PZ were to enter these gates, would we have tolerated his rant here? How about if he had posted it in the Venting department?
I think PZ has good points, and I agree that religions really need to try to be flexible if they want to seem rational. Basically, the clergyman chose to go ballistic over the stolen wafer when he could just as well have shook his finger at the boy. It was his choice as an individual and maybe others would not have done so. (I feel absolutely sure that this is not the first stolen wafer in history, as is illustrated by PO9.) Maybe he was fed up with the anti-fundamentalists? Equally, PZ could have chosen a more balanced arguement against the incident and also seemed more rational.
Quote from: goat starer on July 16, 2008, 02:36:49 PM
I dont think tolerance and humility are incompatible with having a good rant. Bill Hicks was thoroughly offensive whilst ranting on stage but that was ok because it was 'comedy'. I thought the PZ blog was quite funny and falls into the same category.
That's the part I disagree with.
I love reading rants, and I agree with you completely about their necessity and permissibility. I thought PZ's rant was funny, and I happen to agree with it personally.
I can't claim to have read much of PZ's blog, but I associate it more with posts like this (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/i_guess_eponymous_wasnt_on_the.php). That's written in a fun way, too, but it presents a rational debunking of some of the obscene logic perpetrated by the ID crowd. And it's that sort of rational, intelligent discourse I want when I read Pharyngula.
I might be mistaken about the nature of the blog, in which case I retract any objections I ever had to PZ's rant - but given that Chatty refers (or referred) people to it is a source of reasonable, rational, polite atheism, I suspect that's not the case.
I suspect Auntie would be better off with the Jonathan Miller school of atheism for her Southern ladies; articulate and polite. Also doesn't require dissecting any frogs in order to understand the philosophical concepts involved.
Quote from: beagle on July 16, 2008, 06:02:32 PM
I suspect Auntie would be better off with the Jonathan Miller school of atheism for her Southern ladies; articulate and polite. Also doesn't require dissecting any frogs in order to understand the philosophical concepts involved.
Please understand that these are generally educated women, almost all of them more in the arts than the sciences. They've DONE the dissecting, they're aware of that kind of language, it's just that I keep trying to explain that NOT EVERYBODY is Hitchens, Dawkins or Sam Harris, and then...
I start them with the science as a break-into-the-genre, but NONE of them is now or has ever been a YEC. (No matter what the opinion is of Southern gentlewomen, we're NOT stupid.)
I'll look into Jonathan Miller.
I know that not all of these women will move away completely from the tradition in which they were raised. I ALSO know that the Southern Baptist religion has moved WAY too far away from what they were raised with, or can tolerate. I really want to 'raise their consciousness' without raising their blood pressures...
True, one's in-Monastery behaviour is where the Toadfish 'decisions' are made. I do, however, feel that maintaining a certain level of civility in public dealings with others is an excellent idea. it makes you better prepared to deal with people in a manner congruent with that which YOU would prefer to be dealt with.
Trust me, if I thought they were stupid J.M. is the last person I'd suggest. Unless I wanted to see heads explode. I merely meant his approach isn't based solely on the minutiae of stratified stability and arguments about bacterial tails, though it embraces science as well as philosophy.
Apparently his series (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/atheism.shtml) "wasn't carried on a national feed" in the U.S. , which is probably a polite way of saying the national networks wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on July 16, 2008, 03:10:14 PM
Ahhh, but there are ways to suggest you're not talking seriously, and the desecration stuff is, well, really offensive as the original story proves. Had he said "I should ask for a wafer to desecrate" while still objectionable, it becomes clear that he doesn't intend to follow thru, but it sounds like a I-had-it-you'll-see-now-time-to-go-to-war statement, regardless of the apparent snarkiness.
Does being angry justify being an @sshole?
you see i just dont agree that it is objectively offensive and I have little patience for any attitude that says we cannot offend peoples beliefs even if they are patently ridiculous. To me his response is ridiculous, clearly so as he can hardly expect a shower of communion wafers from avid readers. It is ridiculous and in being so points out how ridiculous the whole issue is. It very clearly shows how organised religion pulls people away from the message and into the structures. The message is clear - be nice - but people ignore the be nice message in the process of defending the superstition and fripparies of religion.
if it takes an arsehole to point that out then yes being angry justiies being an arsehole. Sometimes if you want to remove some of the bad things that will otherwise poison you only an arsehole will do!
Jonathan Miller has always been one of my pin ups.
I may be wrong, but I see a cultural difference in this debate, possibly due to the lack of centrality and threat to the state and the scientists here in the UK by religion (at present).
Our pre-occupation such as it is, with religious issues seems to be entirely taken up with sexually abusive and fornicating priests, females presuming they can equal men, and gay Bishops. That's enough to keep us busy. Especially is trying to contemplate the nature of G-d ;D
Quote from: Bob
He's a science professor, who tries to teach biology, including evolution, to an increasingly ignorant number of kids each year. Kids, who through no fault of their own, were fed the garbage that is Creationism/ID INSTEAD OF actual science.
Again, this kind of problem - the increasing ignorance of kids coming into university education - polarises around those who have no maths (sciences) and those who have read no literature (humanities) in the UK. That too keeps us busy.
Even the Jehovah's Witnesses are getting easier to dodge. Their cloting and the little books they carry give them away. And the one who lives opposite me offers stewed chestnuts rather than conversion.
Finally, I believe there is also a cultural difference in our perception of "influential figures" one "looks to for" "ideas" and "opinions". What kind of "professor" (small p) is PZ? Is he what one of many thousands of people who's working life is spent on the teaching staff of a university? Or is he one of the select band of those University teachers who have managed to reach the pinnacle of their profession - and tend to be hopeless at ordinary life skills, wear cardigans, and be brilliant in minute and obscure areas of research? Much comment is made about the fact he is a professor - but it seems to me a bit irrelevant, unless he has a big P. ((And if he does have a big P. then odd ideas and behaviour would be expected :mrgreen:)).
<end cultural diversity polemic>
I fear that until Atheism becomes an organised religion progress will be slow.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on July 17, 2008, 12:29:31 AM
I fear that until Atheism becomes an organised religion progress will be slow.
:ROFL:
Quote from: Griffin NoName on July 17, 2008, 12:29:31 AM
I may be wrong, but I see a cultural difference in this debate, possibly due to the lack of centrality and threat to the state and the scientists here in the UK by religion (at present).
Was mulling this topic, and I'll plead guilty to cultural differences. Us small town British Columbians is godless hippy pinkos, and overly religious types out there are in the minority and looked at with suspicion (seriously). It's not that we have a strong atheist culture; rather, the majority of people are probably best described as apatheists and/or CPC*s.
*Canadian, Presumed Christian 'cause they haven't bothered to think about it beyond cultural defaults. Obviously, Christian-as-cultural-default doesn't hold for many recent immigrants, which DO make up a significant part of the population.
Quote from: Agujjim on July 17, 2008, 02:50:07 AM
Quote from: Griffin NoName on July 17, 2008, 12:29:31 AM
I may be wrong, but I see a cultural difference in this debate, possibly due to the lack of centrality and threat to the state and the scientists here in the UK by religion (at present).
Was mulling this topic, and I'll plead guilty to cultural differences. Us small town British Columbians is godless hippy pinkos, and overly religious types out there are in the minority and looked at with suspicion (seriously). It's not that we have a strong atheist culture; rather, the majority of people are probably best described as apatheists and/or CPC*s.
Certainly makes sense. We have the reverse situation and as an atheist, I tend to be treated with suspicion like your fundies up North. It's why I'm not going to call my local Fundies fuckwits (they'll not listen and most likely go preacher--sonorous voice and all--on me and there's nothing more annoying or difficult to speak around than that).
Quote from: Griffin NoName on July 17, 2008, 12:29:31 AM
I may be wrong, but I see a cultural difference in this debate, possibly due to the lack of centrality and threat to the state and the scientists here in the UK by religion (at present).
True IMHO. Until the advent of their home chemistry experiments the religious here were regarded as amusing eccentrics, left over from John Major's vision of spinsters cycling to evensong, whereas American atheists are unpatriots (dispatriots, whatever the word is...).
If you saw Miller's programs one of the striking things was how atheistic America's founders and early presidents were. Presumably religion was seen as a core part of the dogma supporting the imperial hierarchy. Later presidents seem to have rediscovered why the kings found religion so useful.
Miller quoted Aristotle.
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider godfearing and pious. On the other hand they do less easily move against him believing that he has the gods on his side."
Quote
I fear that until Atheism becomes an organised religion progress will be slow.
Too much like hard work. All those arguments about who's not allowed to do what because they're female/unbaptised/divorced/gay/Welsh*.
(* OK, I sneaked that one in myself).
Quote from: beagle on July 17, 2008, 07:49:08 AM
Welsh*.
(* OK, I sneaked that one in myself).
Well I did say that there should be more profanity but frankly there is no call for that kind of foul language.
That's totally Belgium, man...
Quote from: Griffin NoName on July 17, 2008, 12:29:31 AM
I fear that until Atheism becomes an organised religion progress will be slow.
As soon as it does, I'm converting to Something Else.... :P ::) ;D
Quote from: Pachyderm on July 17, 2008, 01:04:41 PM
That's totally Belgium, man...
What's the point of getting to lay down the rules of our irreligion if one can't enshrine a personal vendetta based on one bad night in Swansea? Look at the Bible and that stuff about not eating shellfish and not mixing different types of thread. Are you seriously telling me that's God talking, and not some grumpy old prophet who got food poisoning and a shrunken bandana? ;)
If you want to base this irrelgion on what happened in Swansea you are going to have to tell someone what happened and get it written up, preferably in an obscure language with several varying translations. Otherwise we'll just think it's rumour-mongering.
Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on July 17, 2008, 09:02:47 PM
Quote from: Griffin NoName on July 17, 2008, 12:29:31 AM
I fear that until Atheism becomes an organised religion progress will be slow.
As soon as it does, I'm converting to Something Else.... :P ::) ;D
But not to US$. They are quite fishy and faith-based these days :mrgreen: