P.Z. Myers, coward

What's particularly obnoxious is that he wants *consecrated* wafers. If he wanted, he could buy unconsecrated wafers. But that wouldn't be as much fun, I guess.

Your tax dollars at work.

And why is desecration of the Eucharist not a crime? You can't legally desecrate a gravesite, presumably because people have "superstitious hang-ups" about such things and are liable to get bent out of shape. Why this would be any different, I can't imagine. And no, the 1st Amendment is not implicated.

And why is desecration of the Eucharist not a crime? You can't legally desecrate a gravesite, presumably because people have "superstitious hang-ups" about such things and are liable to get bent out of shape. Why this would be any different, I can't imagine.
Posted by: junk mail man | July 12, 2008 4:02 PM

Desecrating a Consecrated Host is childish and petty, as well as being sacrilegious towards something that others hold in reverence.

That said, here is the reason why one is a secular crime and the other is not:

A gravesite is private property that does not belong to the one who desecrates it.

Once the Consecrated Host is given to an individual by the Priest, that Host then becomes (in the eyes of secular law) the property of the individual receiving the Host to do with as he wishes.

I notice that lots of people are saying PZ Myers should respect Catholics' belief that the wafers become the body of christ. Nobody seems to be in a hurry point out that the Catholics should respect his view that it is "just a cracker".

And if you bother to search the archive of PZ Myers' blog, you'll find lots of blasphemy against islam to keep you happy.

Legally you might describe it thus: When the priest hands out the Hosts, then, he is distributing a sacramental instrumentality, not a party favor, and the distributee is "licensed" (for lack of a better word) to consume it.
Posted by: junk mail man | July 12, 2008 4:36 PM

That might be true if you could show that the individual who received the Host explicitly agreed to those terms. Absent such proof, this individual simply took a wafer that was being handed out freely by the Priest.

Regarding Rod's comment along the lines of whether he'd be so brave about a Koran, a bit of searching through the blog gives us this:

---------------
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/07/how_can_you_tell_a_christian_i.php

The point of desecrating the host isn't to make people angry -- it's to demystify and desanctify nonsense. It's how we wake people up -- by showing that their beliefs are powerless.

I've already got a bunch of offers to mail me kidnapped communion wafers, so look for something in the next two weeks. As for the false argument that I am not critical of Muslims…I'm planning to have a day of sacrilege, in which I'll also piss off Mohammed.

Posted by: PZ Myers | July 9, 2008 9:41 AM
----------------

Me, I think both enterprises are fairly pointless.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/desecration_its_a_fun_hobby.php

From July of last year.

Excellent post, Mr. Dreher.

P Z Myers is a hate-filled fanatic: http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/more_fun_with_atheists/

Oh, please. Not this tired nonsense that anti-Christian bigotry is the "last acceptable bigotry," and that society is just rife with "Catholic bashing."

If it were, you wouldn't even notice Mr. Myers and his antics. I'm pretty sure you, Rod, Erin and that ridiculous Bill Donohue know this is true, but despite your conservative leanings, prefer the mantle of victimhood, just like many groups you rail against.

It takes loonies like this Myers to hold up a mirror, even if I agree that his tactics are petty and childish.

Although I don't agree with Mr. Myers' childish prank, he is right about one thing: It is just a cracker.
I say that as a believing Christian. The mumbo jumbo that a priest conjures up over a holy wafer means nothing.
I take communion with my church every week. If some idiot were to run off with a piece of the broken bread, it would mean nothing to any of us. It's what it symbolizes that means something. Christ's body was broken on the cross, and now we can partake of Him. We are now the Body of Christ, having received His life and the forgiveness of sins.
That's something no one can ever take away.

Jim,

Why do you assume that Catholics don't respect his views, or at least respect his right to differ from us? Does showing respect for his views require us to aid and abet his efforts to mock our views?

He is not simply stating his views with respect to the Eucharist, which, in a free society he has every right to do, and I support that. He is attempting to go out of his way to obtain consecrated Hosts *by subterfuge* so that he can make an active and public show of desecrating them.

I respect the fact that people don't like the same books I do. That doesn't mean I have to support someone's right to steal copies of these books from the library and publicly burn them (which is similar to what he is proposing to do).

I respect Peter Singer's right, in a free society, to advocate infanticide, even if I disagree with it. Does my respect for his right to express his views mean I would have no right to object if he asked people to get him an infant so he could kill it publicly?

I like Rod better when he's harping on Britney Spears and white trash.

The Roman Catholics are not the only church that has "consecrated hosts". All the Orthodox Churches, the Celtic Catholic, Coptic and Lutheran Churches also celebrate consecrated hosts.

What PZ Myers comments constitute is hate crime" against orthodoxy. It is possible that charges could be brought up against him but I don't thing any of these churches would do so.

As an Evangelical Christian who believes in the right of Freedom of Religion, I support his right to his opinions, I just wish he would keep them to himself rather that insult a majority of Christians in the world. Oh yes, I believe that Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Celtic Christians are in fact Christians (no matter what hagee thinks).

Myers is asking his atheist followers to infiltrate Catholic parishes a steal--yes, steal--consecrated Hosts. His argument that it's not stealing because the Priest to you is about as persuasive as arguing that, if a Rabbi hands you his synagogue's Torah you're free to run off with it. My parish has had a recent break-in and consecrated Hosts were stolen. We live in Minnesota. People are already afraid. The last thing we need is the fear of Myers's minions storming in during Communion and stealing Hosts. My biggest fear is that if he is permitted to get away with this kind of intimidation, more serious violence may follow.

An analogous action with a Koran would be to steal one from a Mosque (after the imam handed it to you, of course) and desecrate it. Just to do weird things with one you bought at B&N is no more impressive than desecrating an unconsecrated communion wafer.

I fully support PZ Myers in this. I find it rather humorous that so many people use this argument about being to afraid to offend Muslims. Sounds like fatwa envy to me. Bill Donohue is an Ayatollah Khomeini wannabe. Furthermore, you are completely ignorant, apparently, of Myers' past comments regarding the Muhammad teddy bear controversy in which he encouraged people to name inanimate objects "Muhammad" in protest. He also posted the Danish cartoons on his blog, which was the only reasonable thing to do in the face of the threats of violence and intimidation. Therefore, your accusations of intellectual cowardice and hypocrisy on the part of Myers are completely false.

Perhaps next time you should research into a topic before you post a blog entry about it.

I fully support PZ Myers in this. I find it rather humorous that so many people use this argument about being to afraid to offend Muslims. Sounds like fatwa envy to me. Bill Donohue is an Ayatollah Khomeini wannabe. Furthermore, you are completely ignorant, apparently, of Myers' past comments regarding the Muhammad teddy bear controversy in which he encouraged people to name inanimate objects "Muhammad" in protest. He also posted the Danish cartoons on his blog, which was the only reasonable thing to do in the face of the threats of violence and intimidation. Therefore, your accusations of intellectual cowardice and hypocrisy on the part of Myers are completely false.

Perhaps next time you should research into a topic before you post a blog entry about it.

As Rod writes, the bigger issue here is not the anti-Christian bigotry (which is routine), it's the pretend-courage of someone who bashes the one group who he knows will not retaliate in any way but words. As Rod says, let him say something analogous about Islam. This is why I couldn't stand all the verbiage about 'courageous' anti-Christian George Carlin. Courage -- let him bash Mohammed in the Mecca Comedy Club.

"Perhaps next time you should research into a topic before you post a blog entry about it."

Maybe Rod needs to go back and read his own blog for once.

blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/11/muhammad-teddy-teacher-to-the.html

Let's see...if Muslims get offended at the use of the name of the prophet, they should get over it. But if Catholics get offended at the use of a blessed host, well that is DIFFERENT!!

The only sh** around here is your hypocricy, Dreher.

What hogwash, ds0490. The teddy bear thing was a complete farce. The British teacher in that class apologized and explained that she meant no disrespect. It was the children in the class who named the bear, and the only crime of the teacher was permitting the muslim children to give that name to the bear. People got whipped up into a frenzy over what most Muslims claimed was not even a violation, and after the teacher had apologized.

That is a far cry from a professor who goes out of his way to seek to do the most disrespectful thing he can imagine doing in order to insult Catholics.

"No one here is saying that the law should lash or behead this guy for insulting Catholics."

Nope, but there have been calls for him to be fired because of it, even though no university resources were involved in this (the site he posts on his a privately owned blogging host).

What I find ironic is that there is near hysteria over a simple cracker, but smug, holier-than-thou attitudes over a name. The difference being that one is a symbol important to Rod, and the other isn't.

Yeah, all you guys go ahead and sneer all you want at Catholic belief.

I just got done reading part of the thread over at that jack**s's blog, and I got one thing to say: forget about fatwas. We don't need them. Any of you retards come to my parish and try to steal a consecrated host, you'll have my fists up side your asinine "freethinking" skull. A few times in quick succession.

That's a promise. Go ahead. I won't hesitate to defend the chalice in any Catholic or Orthodox church. This is one Catholic one won't simper and whimper before your insults.

Just Try Me. I'll enjoy it. And believe me, I'm not alone.

Charles Curtis, I like what you have to say here. Believe it or not, those of you who'd like to join Myers, you should know in most Catholic parishes the ushers are trained to observe people as they receive Holy Communion and will stop anyone they see attempting to leave the church without having consumed the Blessed Sacrament. This is hardly the first time in history that Catholics have been the target of this particular hate crime.

Yes, I said "hate crime." If we're going to classify certain acts as being crimes of hatred against various groups of people, well, I certainly think the insult to Catholics implied in the stealing and desecration of something we hold as the most sacred aspect of our worship qualifies. Our beliefs concerning the Eucharist are widely known, and have resulted in some of the most sublime theological writings of the Church Fathers and others, in sacred art that dates back to the earliest days of Christianity, in music that rises to the level of the great "Pange Lingua" written by St. Thomas Aquinas himself (hardly a superstitious peasant or intellectual lightweight--he who dealt so handily with the Manicheans would have wiped the floor with a dilettante poseur of the likes of Myers) and of countless other theological and cultural exemplars. No one desecrates the Eucharist in the absence of the context of hatred for Catholics and Catholicism, and if Myers carries out his action of vile and contemptible hatred he ought to be called to account for it in the same way that a bigot who attempts to set a church on fire ought to be charged with more than unlawful possession of a lighted match (and claiming that the church doors were open to all wouldn't excuse the act of hatred involved in attempting to set some of it alight, even if no property damage were actually done).

I hope, if Myers does get some goon to attempt to break into a tabernacle to steal the Sacrament, that that person will be punished to whatever degree the law allows. And if Myers convinces some nauseating idiot to steal the Sacrament during Mass, I hope this person encounters somebody like Charles on his way out of the church. Or half-a-dozen somebodies.

That not everybody accepts that a consecrated host is the Body of Christ, is irrelevant, Even if it were just a symbol, it would be wrong to treat it as if it were "just a frackin' cracker," just as the Bamyan Buddhas blown up by the Taliban were not just frackin' sandstone, a Torah taken from a Synagogue is not just frackin' woodpulp, and a gravestone is not just frackin' granite.

If a person approached a priest or other Eucharistic Minister for a consecrated Host for any purpose other than to consume the Host as an act of worship, the priest or EM would refuse to give it---PZ Myers and everyone else knows that. Therefore, obtaining the Host for another purpose constitutes a kind of fraud or deception.

This is a violation to law, and I would like to see Mr. Myers go to court and try to convince a jury that it was not. One relevant law would be 18 U.S. Code Part IChapter 13 ss 247, Damage to religious property; obstruction of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs --- and there's a bit of discussion about that here.

Note that, "(f) As used in this section, the term “religious real property” means any church, synagogue, mosque, religious cemetery, or other religious real property, including fixtures or religious objects contained within a place of religious worship."

There is a condition that the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce; this is is met because Professor Myers publicly solicited, and made manifest his intent to deface, damage, or destroy any religious real property, which includes religious objects contained within a place of religious worship of which a consecrated host certainly is one.

I would argue that the fact that a priest gave the Host to the desecrator or his accomplices does not automatically yield the conclusion that the Host was now the recipient's property do with what he wished.

An analogy might be a funeral of a soldier in which the mourners are given some personal token (say, a photograph of the soldier or a poem written by him) at the gravesite by the soldier's family. If a pretended mourner came and were given these objects, and then proceeded to burn them or smear with filth--- saying that he was given the tokens, and the soldier's family had thereby relinquished control--- he should not expect to be held harmless, even legally. This is because he had obtained it by false pretenses, knowing that if he had been honest he would not have been given the object.

It is not that God is injured by sacrilege. No, it seems to me God weeps: not in wounded pride, but in sorrow at the tiny, crooked, misshapen thing this man's soul is turning into --- a man who was created for love and joy beyond measure.

Calling a cracker a cracker is not hatred, it is fact.

Hey Humanist,

Please understand the Catholics believe the "cracker" as you call it is actually Jesus' body..It is not simply a cracker.

Another thing--do you think Christians should'nt defend their Lord?
We have every right to be angry about what Mr. Myers said. Yes we respond with defensiveness-_Even Jesus did not appreciate the temple being turned into a "den of thieves".Therefore he made sure he let people know--Pick up the bible and read it and you will see what i am talking about.

I am not a Catholic--I am a Protestant--and I DO NOT appreciate Mr.Myers statements and you shouldn't either...I would hate to be him on his final day

I don't think it's unreasonable to feel angry, but let's also keep in mind that PZ Myers is not an enemy to be hated, but a lost soul to be prayed for.

"And if Myers convinces some nauseating idiot to steal the Sacrament during Mass, I hope this person encounters somebody like Charles on his way out of the church. Or half-a-dozen somebodies."

Thank you, Erin, for demonstrating that you are no better than the radical Muslims you rant against. Anger and violence know no denominational or religious boundaries.

"Anger and violence know no denominational or religious boundaries."

Well, we're posting on a blog with its own "needed killin'" category, so we shouldn't be too surprised. By the way, and I'm glad Rod saw the light on that ridiculousness, but this is why many of us reacted negatively to it. These attitudes feed off of each other, the anger and the hatred, the casual acceptance or promotion of violence, all it does it lead to dehumanization.

That should have been "...feature the resulting conflagration in a film posted on YouTube..."

I mean, come on--it's just a *picture* of your family, right? I'd be doing even less harm than a Eucharistic desecration, at least from the Catholic perspective. And if you object that, well, at Mass the Eucharist is being handed out, I'll say, fine, then suppose I've crashed one of your beloved relatives' funerals, and have taken one of the prayer cards with his photo on it, having previously announced my intentions etc...

You're giving the picture out, right? If I set fire to it right there in the funeral home parking lot in front of the bereaved, no harm, no foul, right? If you object you're the one with the problem--you're just like a radical Muslim, caring what I do with a photo of dear Uncle Thusandsuch. And if I take it home to maltreat it, and post all the results on the Internet--well, why should you care?

Erin, right. Violence would be an inappropriate and immoral response. I think you're conflating how these things would make us FEEL with what our ACTIONS should be.

"Erin, right. Violence would be an inappropriate and immoral response. I think you're conflating how these things would make us FEEL with what our ACTIONS should be."

Below are the words from Erin. Sounds to me like a wish that someone would do violence to anyone who might assist Myers.

Erin: "And if Myers convinces some nauseating idiot to steal the Sacrament during Mass, I hope this person encounters somebody like Charles on his way out of the church. Or half-a-dozen somebodies."

What was Charles proposing?

"I just got done reading part of the thread over at that jack**s's blog, and I got one thing to say: forget about fatwas. We don't need them. Any of you retards come to my parish and try to steal a consecrated host, you'll have my fists up side your asinine "freethinking" skull. A few times in quick succession.

That's a promise. Go ahead. I won't hesitate to defend the chalice in any Catholic or Orthodox church. This is one Catholic one won't simper and whimper before your insults.

Just Try Me. I'll enjoy it. And believe me, I'm not alone."

Strong words...and according to the Bible, the words from the mouth indicate the content of the heart.

In any case, Myers has succeeded in demonstrating that Muslims and Catholics are pretty much the same when it comes to resorting to violence. Thankfully we have laws in this country to protect people from such violence. Although I have to wonder how our current Supreme Court would interpret an appeal of a death penalty conviction by a Catholic who claimed that God commanded him to protect the sanctity of the eucharist.

I'll be more than happy to donate a photograph of the pages from the Koran that we use for the doormat every September 11.

Boy, you guys really aren't getting the point.

If I, or anyone else, walked up to Myers and slugged him in the jaw, that would be an unjustified and violent response.

If I, or anyone else, saw some thug, Myers or not, try to make off with the Eucharist for presumably nefarious purposes and attempted to stop him, even resorting to force if necessary, that is not an unjustified or violent response.

By your logic, Catholic churches should just shrug if somebody comes in during Mass and walks off with the chalice--hey, anybody who wants to can come up and drink from it, so why should we object if they take it home as a souvenir?

The Eucharist is more priceless to Catholics than any chalice, though I understand your lack of knowledge of the matter, just as I hope a Hindu would forgive my pardonable ignorance of the various things their religion holds sacred. But just because I might think the notion that cows are sacred is a bit silly, I think you'd agree that I don't have the right to enter a Hindu temple for the purpose of publicly consuming a steak dinner, do I? In fact, I would think very poorly of a person who did such a thing, especially if he were to declare by his own words that the act was intended to demonstrate his hatred and contempt for the people, the religion, and the belief he finds silly.

And here's where the widespread hatred of Catholics starts to show its ugly face: we should, apparently, just put up with non-Catholics sauntering into Mass, taking the Eucharist, and breezily leaving in order to do terrible things to It, even though you'd be uncomfortable saying that Muslims, or Hindus, or Jews, or anybody else should stand back, shut up and put up with the same treatment of *their* sacred and holy things as you expect us to tolerate in regard to ours. Because we're Catholics, so it's okay to hate us and to treat our holy things with contempt.

Chris L.: "But wait ds0490, you don't believe in sin. It's all just nonsense to you. Let's put your worldview up to scrutiny. Well, you're an atheist which means you have no transcend belief. Basically the material world is all there is. Explain to me why I should listen to someone who's worldview devolves down to right makes right?"

ROTFLMAO...my, my Chris. Feeling a little conviction yourself on this? Tell me...would you condone violence to protect the Eucharist from being defiled? How about murder? How far should Catholics go to stop Myers from getting a blessed host?

Erin: "If I, or anyone else, saw some thug, Myers or not, try to make off with the Eucharist for presumably nefarious purposes and attempted to stop him, even resorting to force if necessary, that is not an unjustified or violent response."

Let's change this a bit and see how it sounds.

"If I, or anyone else, saw some thug try to make off with the Koran from the Mosque for presumably nefarious purposes and attempted to stop him, even resorting to force if necessary, that is not an unjustified or violent response."

"If I, or anyone else, saw some thug try to make off with the Pentagram from the altar for presumably nefarious purposes and attempted to stop him, even resorting to force if necessary, that is not an unjustified or violent response."

Erin, if you can justify violence to protect an aspect of your religion, can others similarly justify violence to protect an aspect of theirs? Do you support their right to do so as much as you want agreement with your assertion of a right?

I hope, if Myers does get some goon to attempt to break into a tabernacle to steal the Sacrament, that that person will be punished to whatever degree the law allows. And if Myers convinces some nauseating idiot to steal the Sacrament during Mass, I hope this person encounters somebody like Charles on his way out of the church. Or half-a-dozen somebodies.
Posted by: Erin Manning | July 12, 2008 8:45 PM

Somebody or somebodies like Charles, who will give him their fists up side his asinine skull, a few times in quick succession.
This just isn't the Jesus I have known, who incites his followers to such violence of thought and deed in order to give him protection and defense he apparently can't manage without the aggression and violence of poor humans. Even aside from the real presence debate, this is just ugly and surprising. Is this mentality and behaviour of the Catechism?

ds0490:

You ask your question on a personal basis; as one who has posted on your side of the divide here, I offer this personal answer...

I'm walking down the street right outside Erin's church.

1) A man trots out the door; a voice inside can be heard "He's stealing some host." I will restrain that man, up to and but short of striking him or wrestling him to the ground. I can be very intimidating verbally when my adrenaline is going.

2) I see a group of kids (age not relevant) spraying paint on the church walls and/or throwing rocks to break windows. I will thrash soundly every one of them I can catch.

3) I see one or more adults vandalizing the church. I will make a considered judgment whether I am capable of doing as I did in #2, or biding my time and being a good eye witness for a later police report. If the latter, I'll still chafe at not being able to stop them.

So, no, I would neither commit nor condone murder, but I would personally use violence in proportion to the situation. My commitment to my society is what motivates me, not a worry that the police will be ineffective; I consider it my duty as a citizen to express the disapprobation for behaviors my society does not accept or condone. If it's children, I'll spank them. If it's adults and I can stop them, I will, but I'll be ready to contribute towards and effective police response.

And it won't be because I like Erin (I do). I would act the same at any church whether I knew any members or not.

Erin, you won't convince them.

A better analogy would maybe be to flag burning. But even that is inadequate. Come to the funeral parlor, and destroy not the photo of the dead, but defecate on the very body.

That is more like what you pretend you are free do when you say you can come and take the consecrated Eucharistic species, which is our God himself, and steal and profane it.

Simply out of sophomoric desire to insult us, who believe. These fools imagine that they can trespass, insult, and desecrate (a word that evidently has no force for them, for those who hold nothing sacred, nothing is profane) without any protest.

I'm sorry, but that will not stand. It is unacceptable.

Just as if you came into my grandfather wake, and attempted to profane the body, I will stop you with physical force, before you could do such a thing.

Just because you do not believe, is no excuse. The Catholic Church is the oldest and largest institution in the world, and She says the Eucharist is sacred. That is enough. Your contempt for us is no excuse.

("it's only a cracker" - only a cracker? Are you sure? Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krq-eu2o16M - Or search for "Eucharistic Miracle" on Google or You Tube..)

"But even in seeing, they will not believe."

Fine. I do not promise to kill you if you attempt to desecrate the Host. No. I only promise to stop you, with force if need be. When you come to *my* church, and attack my God.

This is a simple matter of filial piety, that I owe my Lord & Saviour.

You ought not begrudge us this right, for it is what anyone would do. Unless, as I say, you hold nothing sacred, but your self.

Too many of you do not understand. And sneer. I am sorry for you.

This discussion is astonishing, really. That it is even occurring shows how far our civilization is gone. A culture where many lack piety, and lack respect for the piety of others, respect for others' non-invasive beliefs, is in trouble.

If I, or anyone else, saw some thug, Myers or not, try to make off with the Eucharist for presumably nefarious purposes and attempted to stop him, even resorting to force if necessary, that is not an unjustified or violent response.
By your logic, Catholic churches should just shrug if somebody comes in during Mass and walks off with the chalice--hey, anybody who wants to can come up and drink from it, so why should we object if they take it home as a souvenir?
Posted by: Erin Manning | July 12, 2008 10:15 PM

This sounds pretty silly. There is space between resorting to forceful violence and simply shrugging carelessly in the face of theft. There are words, verbal appeal and argument, and finally address through the laws of the land. Is this really Catholicism the position you are presenting here?

ds0490, your restatement of Erin's logic is flawed. I bring this up because this topic deserves some discipline in its conduct. I think you agree with that assessment, but if not please don't take this personally.

Pick something obvious in your examples. I followed Erin's lead by using the host in mine, or a further and obvious action of disrespect towards the church building. The Quran is not like that. Seeing someone carry it is not good enough, nor will someone run into a mosque to steal one when they are so easily obtained. You need to find something more obviously a desecration there. Do Muslims routinely keep special copies of the Quran in mosques, similar to the tradition in many synagogues of having two or more copies of Torah with elaborate, handcrafted scrolls? If yes, that would be a better example.

Just so you know, it would be a pentacle being stolen, that being an object (usually an amulet, rarely larger than that) that features a pentagram within it. Your use of it is superficially acceptable, there being neither space nor reason for me to correct you about it. As you might assume from my posts so far, modern pagans do not react to these things in quite the manner shown here... and I don't mean to be condescending about it. We are quite capable of getting just as angry over things.

Didn't any of you see The Passion? If Christ went through that without retaliating with violence, I'm pretty sure we can control ourselves from beating up someone who's burning a flag.

"This discussion is astonishing, really."

Finally some agreement. :p

There's a pastoral issue here for Roman Catholic priests in Morris, Minnesota (at least). It's likely that someone will try to take a Host for improper use; it will appeal to his or her sense of a "game" of "smuggling" something.

It would probably be appropriate for the pastor to state briefly and plainly that the Sacrament is given for the forgiveness of sins, and imparts this to the penitent believer who discerns the true Body and Blood of Christ here present. But the same Sacrament imparts condemnation to the one who receives unworthily (1 Corinthians 11).

(Such an exhortation may interrupt the flow of the liturgy a little, but probably should be delivered, even so, at least at times. In fact, just such an exhortation is included in the Sunday liturgy of my Lutheran church, not because of threats of sacrilege, but out of pastoral concern that those who are about to be communicants should be properly prepared.)

Having done so, the pastor has fulfilled his duty as a steward of the Mysteries (1 Corinthians 4:1).

"It is simple fear based on a long history that their children will be stolen from them and converted."

Or it is the fear that the missionaries are simply spies for the West. Or that they are spreading disease with their donations of clothes and blankets. Or that, once they gain sufficient converts, they will seek to overthrow the government of that nation and make it a vassal for a western power.

Much of what Rod and others fear about Islam carries weight because so many people have read about Christianity's violent past (and some of that not so recent past).

First, I'm not a Catholic nor a member of a denomination that holds the views concerning communion that Catholics do. However, I would never consider even taking communion at a Catholic ceremony or insulting their beliefs in their own house of worship.

Obviously, ds0490 is unable to distinguish different levels of moral outrage.

- Muslims - print some cartoons about Mohammed in Denmark and there is rioting and deaths in several countries.

- Catholics - steal the Eucharist and Erin hopes that someone punches the guy out as he is taking it.

Yeah, I can see they are the same. Really, is this the best "rational" thought that atheists can deliver?

Then ds0490 resorts to the tired attempt of using the Christian worldview to score points. Why don't you argue from your worldview? Mainly because your worldview has nothing to offer. You would complain or worse if someone used deceptive means to take something of yours that you thought was important. Somehow Catholics or other religions aren't allowed the same reactions.

The thing this demonstrates is that we all don't value or believe the same things. As such, it becomes important to recognize that some beliefs are able to exist peacefully and some aren't. It's obvious that militant atheists are incapable of acting civilized in a religious society.

Erin: "By your logic, Catholic churches should just shrug if somebody comes in during Mass and walks off with the chalice--hey, anybody who wants to can come up and drink from it, so why should we object if they take it home as a souvenir?"

In the few times I have been in a Catholic Church, I have not seen folks handed a chalice with the expectation that the priest would not get it back. In fact, I believe the priest holds the chalice and allows folks to drink from it.

Unlike the host, which is handed to the person with the expectation that it will NOT be returned. In the case of the chalice keeping it would clearly be theft. In the case of the host, I don't think the law would support your assertion.

Now, are you going to make the case that church doctrine should supercede civil law? Please, be my guest.

Joshua: "And none of this "you'll have my fists up side your asinine 'freethinking' skull" stuff. You're giving the pagans ideas."

No, merely confirming what many have known for some time. For all the moralizing and preaching, people are pretty much the same once you get past all the facade we put out for the world to see. Whether it's Islam, the "religion of peace" or Catholicism's modern day inquisitors, or even radical "godless" atheists, we are judged by our actions far more than our words. And rightly so.

Whether it's the angry Muslim who beats up a woman not wearing the hijab, or an angry Catholic who beats up someone palming a host, or an angry UU who beats up someone sneaking off with the last cup of coffee, we all become the ambassador for the worst fears about our faith (or lack thereof).

In my days as a conservative Christian I cannot count the number of times I heard the statement "a real Christian wouldn't behave that way." Yet when members of another religion behave badly, it was often those same Christians who would condemn the entire faith for the actions of the few.

Charles...God forbid that an unbeliever might ever be used by God to teach a believer a lesson or two, or to convict that believer of any sin. You keep thinking that and I am sure you will be fine. Your self-righteousness and arrogance will take you far in life.

Erin: "But when the words cross over into action, and people start feeling free to appropriate the Eucharist in order to turn their words into actions of hatred and defilement, it's frankly unbelievable that the consensus here seems to be that Catholics should get over it, and hand out as much of the Blessed Sacrament as is required for the convenience of the atheists who want to mock It--and us."

So you are saying that if the members of a religious group are sufficiently offended at the actions of someone outside their membership towards something they hold as being "holy", then violence is an appropriate response?

I can't believe that this is even controversial. It should be quite obvious that it's wrong for Myers to call on his followers to intimidate Catholics in this way. It would be equally wrong for him to do something like this to any other religious group.

Myers apparently claims that he's going to do something similar to a Muslim object. I doubt very much that he will actually ask his followers to steal a sacred object from a Mosque so that he can desecrate it; but if he did it would be just as wrong, and I would think it quite reasonable for Muslims to demand that Myers be disciplined.

Myers isn't just expressing his views, critiquing, mocking--he's asking people to invade Catholic parishes and steal a sacred object: the consecrated Host.

What I don't get is why atheists like him have such a Host fetish. It's easy to find others online (e.g. http://atheistblogger.com/2008/07/10/i-kidnapped-jesus/) What is it about the Host that attracts them?

Like Franklin, I am disgusted by aggressive and intrusive evangelism by Christians--of which Catholics are often the victims, by the way. In fact, Myers reminds me of some of the more out-of-control evangelicals, like this one, for example: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vNG5ILNWwik. I'm amazed that none of the parishioners in the video hauled his hayseed ass out of their Church, but they're obviously better Catholics than I am. Of course, even he didn't try to run off with a consecrated Host.

No, anonymous at 11:40, I don't think violence is an appropriate response, but I don't call physical force used to restrain somebody from stealing something from one's house of worship "violence," any more than I would consider it violence for a woman to spray her would-be rapist with mace. Is the woman supposed to submit to the rape instead of resorting to "violence" against the rapist? Is the believer supposed to submit to the theft, instead of resorting to actions up to and including physical force against the thief?

I am Orthodox. Before receiving communion we must have gone to confession within the last few months at least. We attend vespers the previous night and say a long canon of preparation for communion. We fast from all food or drink, even water, from midnight on. Some fast for the three days before communion. The morning of liturgy we read the prayers before communion, 15 pages worth (depending on the size font, etc.). In liturgy, immediately before receiving communion we recite these prayers together:

BEFORE RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION:

I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. I believe also that this is truly Thine own pure Body, and that this is truly Thine own precious Blood. Therefore I pray Thee: have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance. And make me worthy to partake without condemnation of Thy most pure Mysteries, for the remission of my sins, and unto life everlasting. Amen.

Of Thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant; for I will not speak of Thy Mystery to Thine enemies, neither like Judas will I give Thee a kiss; but like the thief will I confess Thee: Remember me, O Lord in Thy Kingdom.

May the communion of Thy Holy Mysteries be neither to my judgment, nor to my condemnation, O Lord, but to the healing of soul and body. Amen.

If as an Orthodox Christian, I am not prepared yet knowing this approach the chalice, *I* am the one in danger of condemnation. No one would know this but me and God. How much more in danger is the one who approaches with malice in mind? That person would only be hurting himself. Remember, God does not send anyone to Hell. We send ourselves.

Lord have mercy on me a sinner.

No, merely confirming what many have known for some time. For all the moralizing and preaching, people are pretty much the same once you get past all the facade we put out for the world to see.
Posted by: ds0490 | July 12, 2008 11:29 PM

All people falter and will at times fall short of their own ideals, no matter the belief system or sect.
Are you aware there are Christian groups among whom you would NOT find the hypocrisy you view in ease of resorting to violence to serve the interests of the organization? Mennonites, Brethren, Amish, Hutterites, Quakers, and Jehovah's Witnesses are some.
Best wishes to you.

So abusing a host is now like rape?

I think we can safely say this thread has reached it's high point.

First of all, ds0490, it's not self righteousness. I'm sorry you don't get the significance of what I'm defending.. But then again, Dr. Myers seems to intuit exactly how offensive he is.

I've never hit anyone in my life. But if you enter a Catholic church with malice, with the intent to profane, all bets are off.

And to compare defending the Holy of Holies from an aggressive intrusion, is not at all like attacking a woman in public for not wearing hijab. The is no Mutawwiin, or morals police here. There is no religious law in the West, and the separation of Church and state is enshrined at the heart of Christian theology ("render unto Cesar," all that.)

All your protestations that Christians are some sort of threat to your freedom is B.S. We act in accordance with secular law, through the constitutional process. In any case, you don't have to worry about us "imposing" our sexual mores, or any other mores, on you all. The tide of history and the culture is utterly with you, and if things get too extreme, we will surrender the public sphere and retreat to the catacombs. We've been there before.

There will be no violent revolt, as with John Brown and the Abolitionists, or any of that. The sap is running dry.

So you pagans can all rest easy. I'll only smack you if you try to steal one of our crackers. And then I'll probably be the one arrested, so you can all guffaw some more.

The funny thing is you all really know this. I think all the babbling due to bad conscience. You just don't like that we have faith. It's offensive.

The thing is, except for all this recent abortion and "homosexuality"
brouhaha, there is nothing that we would hope you would do differently.
And as I say, we can and will not coerce the majority.

So keep nattering on about how violent we are. As very many of us, in accordance with our faith, oppose the death penalty, the war, run schools, orphanages, hospitals and soup kitchens.

And as celebrity atheists like sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins bawl on about the Crusades and Inquisition while supporting the war in Iraq, the persecution of Palestinians, the rendition of prisoners abroad to be tortured, and the Patriot Act.

Do you see the high irony here?

Janis: "I think we can safely say this thread has reached it's high point."

No, there are two things waiting to be invoked.

1) Someone needs to compare this to what the Nazi's did, thus invoking Godwin's Law.

2) Rod needs to point out that we have, once again, demonstrated Manning's Corollary to Godwin's Law by saying that Christians are no better than _____ when it comes to _____.

#1 could happen at any time. #2 will likely happen the next time Rod checks this thread.

Then we can say that this thread has reached it's high point.

'If only they could see reason and reacted violently to cracker abuse instead of named teddy bears. When will they ever learn?'

So if someone were to break into your house and attempt to steal something particularly dear to you, it would be a 'fatwa' to try to prevent them from doing it? Atheism really does addle the mind!

Where are the clerics calling on Myers to be killed? Where the rampaging mobds burning Myers's effigy?

The only person in this situation acting like the Islamic militants is Myers himself. He's put out his atheist 'fatwa': "invade the Churches of the infidels and steal what is sacred to them so that I can pierce it with my sword of dogmatic atheism!"

I wonder if Christians here instead of feeling such offense and outrage at the hate or ridicule and double standards they face, might instead consider the New Testament example of how one responds to persecution. The book is not an example of rage and aggression towards opposers but recognition of the natural state of persecution and of gratitude to God that they might suffer for being called His. Surely Catholocism has not nullified this so people instead pursue something other than peace. I don't know.

The Eucharist is a difference case. It is a tangible object, which means that it can be stolen, etc. And, more importantly, it exists solely within the context of the religious ritual. There is no such thing as a Eucharist which is not the property of a Christian Church because the object only exists as a product of the Church. There is nothing secular about it.

It's not tangible, because there's nothing to differentiate it from a cracker that hasn't been blessed. Could you pick out which one was or wasn't the Eucharist? The difference is merely semantic.

Unless you want to claim you'd be equally upset about all the unblessed crackers being stolen, too.

"Muslims *murdered* people in response to the cartoons and the Pope's Regensburg speech. Some guy ds doesn't know (*much less can establish the religious credentials of*) responds to juvenile provocations from another internet boor/a**hole (whom ds wholeheartedly adores) by threatening a *hypothetical* punchout via the internet and ds finds the situations "pretty much the same.""

The guy's already received four "substantial" death threats that included person identifying information, and who knows how many threats of violence.

But wait, he's only picking on Catholics because they're so meek and harmless, right?

By tangible, I just meant it has physical properties in a way that a name doesn't, and therfore is an object that can be stolen and a person could possibly be charged with some sort of crime for stealing/destroying it without the owners' (the Church's) permission.

I allow that the social context is what gives the host its value, but there are plenty of objects (the referenced Hope Diamond, or perhaps an early manuscript of a famous literary work) that have additional value due social context.

Again, these are just half-formed ideas in the manner of seeking a middle ground here.

My last comment before I turn in for the night--see, not being a materialist, I believe I need sleep, though there's no tangible physical proof such a state really even exists (because I can only rely on the testimony of others, and how do I know that they're either not lying or that they're not figments of my imagination who disappear whenever I enter into that elusive and mysterious state known as sleep? I can't prove that what I observe as sleep in others has anything to do with the state as I experience it, and all the vast literature about dreams or science studies about the firing of synapses might just be a product of my own imagination, as I can prove that nothing, including myself, actually does exist using only material criteria--all of which makes me think it must be *really* tiring to be a materialist, especially one on the verge of sleep...)

But anyway, what I wanted to say, ds0490, is that it's perfectly admirable to let someone steal more from one personally than was the thief's intent, but hardly admirable to allow the stealing of that which doesn't belong to one. As a Catholic, I participate in the Eucharist, but I certainly don't own Him. Even atheists, however derisively, talk of "kidnapping" and "holding hostage" the Sacrament when they play this extremely stupid little game of theirs, which is rather interesting, and though Christ did indeed tell us to love our enemies He didn't say we should stand around while kidnappings are going on, and offer no resistance.

And for those like Janis who dislike such analogies as much as I dislike her misuse of the contraction "it is" for the possessive pronoun, let's return to the theft idea: Christ, in that passage you cite, mentions somebody suing one out of one's coat, not stealing it; He also speaks, I believe, of the soldier's custom of compelling a civilian to walk with him one mile as the law allowed to help carry some of his belongings. In neither case is He condoning theft; He could hardly do so, given that His Father's thoughts on the matter were literally, if you'll forgive me for pointing it out, carved in stone.

So I tend to think He wouldn't mind His followers not wimping out while churches get pillaged, whether He Himself is the object of the theft, or the various vessels, statues, etc. which may be found inside a church. In fact, I think He'd rather expect us to try to stop it--while forgiving in our hearts, of course, the misguided uncouth barely-literate malcontent perpetrating the juvenile act in the first place.

As to the substance of Mr. Myers' ego-trip.

(1) What does this have to do with, er, science? I know some atheists who find this kind of fratboy s--t appalling. None with the good grace to post here, apparently, but rest assured Christians, you aren't alone.

(2) There's nothing I can do to stop him or his herdmind of fellow freethinkers who have somehow convinced themselves that this is fresh and funny. I don't know exactly what drives this, but I'm reminded of the British TV reviewer who blasted a Richard Dawkins special with the following:

Scientists all over the nation must hold their heads and groan whenever Richard Dawkins appears on television, as he did in The Root of All Evil? (Monday, C4). He is such a terrible advertisement, such an awful embarrassment, the Billy Graham of the senior common room. His splenetic, small-minded, viciously vindictive falsetto rant at all belief that isn’t completely rooted in the natural sciences is laughable. Dawkins is a born-again Darwinist, an atheist, so why is he devoting so much blood pressure and time to arguing with something he knows doesn’t exist? If it’s not there, Richard, why do you keep shouting at it? He looks like a scientific bag lady screaming at the traffic, and watching him argue with a fundamentalist Christian, you realise they were cut from identical cloth, separated at birth. Dawkins is, of course, the archetype of a man who protests too much, and I’d say he’s well on his way to, if not a Pauline, then at least a Muggeridgian conversion. Any day now, he’ll be back on telly quoting CS Lewis.

Ditto for Mr. Myers. Well-adjusted people of any kind of belief or none don't feel the need to do this sort of thing.

I genuinely hope he doesn't desecrate a Koran, either. The Koran is to Muslims what the Eucharist is to me, so I wouldn't care to see someone else on the receiving end of a jerk's publicity stunt, even if I don't care much for Islam as a belief system.

The positive sign that he won't is that he's been threatening it for a year now, yet has done bupkis. Given Minnesota's burgeoning and traditionalist Muslim population, the proper pragmatic response (since he lacks even minimal manners) is to stay the course and just rant.

Again, emuna, I refer yo9u to the clearing of the Temple.

And remind you that Catholics, unlike Mennonites, are not in general, pacifists.

And just for the record, to retort to the fellow up there who assumes I have an animus against Muslims- I am a vociferous opponent of the war, and oppose almost all violence against Muslims. Unlike Rod and some others (whose opinions I respect, but usually disagree with on this topic) I have lived in the Middle East and have Muslim in- laws. My point of view on Islam (which is usually caricatured by the worse acts Muslims commit, ignoring the 100's of millions of quite ordinary and honorable Muslims- most especially in my mind the many Sufis of my acquaintance whom I admire very much..) is informed by my tutelage under Arab teachers, and time spent living in Turkey & Egypt, and travels else where in the region.

Most Muslims of my acquaintance oppose the sorts of extremist violence most of you are bringing up. Again, just for the record.

The funny thing is you all really know this. I think all the babbling due to bad conscience. You just don't like that we have faith. It's offensive.
Posted by: Charles Curtis | July 13, 2008 12:22 AM

Maybe so. I have known a lot of atheists, and in some of them is a craving for a big God, the True God, without all the weaknesses and contradictions that religions can unintentionally imply. A God who gives out pieces of his body that his followers must posture and threaten and even resort to force and violence to guard and protect, they may see as weak, and false. They WANT the God who smites and rains down fire and stone from the heavens; they WANT to see a God to prove himself omnipotent, true. To some of these, it is not the faith of believers they find offensive, it is what rather appears like faithlessness in followers who must squabble and coerce and threaten in order to uphold the honour of their supposed God. It rings hollow to those whose souls are craving Life. All creation still groans and awaits the restoration when no longer will any of us labour in confusion. Many atheists will yet turn on a dime and take the first places. If we love our fellow humans, wanting the best for them, I don't know what else there is but prayer for them, including this Myers and his thieves. :)

Dale Price: "Dawkins is a born-again Darwinist, an atheist, so why is he devoting so much blood pressure and time to arguing with something he knows doesn’t exist? If it’s not there, Richard, why do you keep shouting at it? He looks like a scientific bag lady screaming at the traffic, and watching him argue with a fundamentalist Christian, you realise they were cut from identical cloth, separated at birth. Dawkins is, of course, the archetype of a man who protests too much, and I’d say he’s well on his way to, if not a Pauline, then at least a Muggeridgian conversion. Any day now, he’ll be back on telly quoting CS Lewis.

Ditto for Mr. Myers. Well-adjusted people of any kind of belief or none don't feel the need to do this sort of thing."

Unless they are professional Christian apologists. Then they get book contracts from Zondervan (another Murdoch subsidiary like BeliefNet).

"I'm glad that you put "substantial" in scare-quotes because they accurately express the degree of substantiality of the alleged threats."

I did that because I'm quoting his words, and it implies that he may not be counting the sillier death threats he's received, or ones that don't include ways people could actually find him or his family.

Nice try, though.

"If someone takes Catholic Eucharistic theology seriously enough to be offended by Myers's threats, he or she should also take seriously other aspects of Catholic teaching, which would prohibit such terrorist acts."

You do realize that people who profess the Catholic faith commit murder all the time, yes?

"I hope very much that Myers presents all the information that he has about these anonymous threats to the police. If he doesn't, one has to wonder whether he suspects that one of his own minions might be behind them--maybe they wanted to fill the embarassing silence of Catholics not rioting and killing."

I haven't asked the man, so I wouldn't know, but that aside...

Beautiful. The denial is so deep that you really can't imagine members of your own church behaving like ruffians... after all, they're members of a virtuous faith, not savages like those Mohammadians!

I seriously doubt anyone would risk criminal prosecution just to embarrass Catholics in a relatively unpublicized snarking match. It's very easy to trace messages left on the internet, you know.

Your persecution complex is very impressive, though.

And remind you that Catholics, unlike Mennonites, are not in general, pacifists.
Posted by: Charles Curtis | July 13, 2008 12:50 AM

I understand. I just think of the love of God and for the scriptures as being a unity of sincere Christians more than specifics whether of a Magisterium or Anabaptist Nonresistance.

Joshua: "In one instance, we have a name, Mohammed, which is an intangible object that exists in both secular and religious spheres. Muslims might attribute it with a religious significance, as Muslims and Christians both might attribute the name Jesus with religious significance, but the fact remains that the the names/use of the names themselves are intangible and not the sole property of religion."

I have a question for you, Joshua. It is sincere, and I think it strikes to the heart of the matter.

Who gets to define the tenets of a religious belief? Do the adherents of that faith get to define them, or do "non-believers" get to set the definitions?

To me the host is just a cracker, but to a Catholic once it is consecrated it becomes the body of Christ, and is therefore holy.

To me the name Mohammed is just an Arab name, but to Muslims it is the name of their Prophet, and has special significance.

In each case which one is right? If the Catholics get to define what is holy in their religion, shouldn't the Muslims (or any other religion, for that matter)?

This is where some of the arrogance of Christians comes into play. To you the name Mohammed is just a name, and therefore there is no reason for Muslims to be offended at its misuse. Clearly some Muslims take offense at this, but you do not seem willing to admit that their belief regarding the name is theirs to define, not yours.

On the other hand, you seem comfortable allowing Catholics to define the nature of the host.

Why is the preference given by you to one faith and not another?

Let's take it down to less explosive comparisons. Instead of Muslims, let's talk about UUs and their coffee. In the UU tradition, coffee hour is about the closest thing we have to communion. It is a sacred time in that it is a time when our community unites and shares each other's burdens, encourages each other, and shares news of importance. In short, it could be defined as sacred and holy (and has been by some UUs...mostly with tongue in cheek).

Do you feel you have the right to define for us what that time should mean to us?

If I read your statements correctly, you seem to be defining for Muslims how they should believe and feel about the name of their prophet.

"Mohammadians"

Is that a troupe of Mohammedan comedians? But seriously...Catholic teaching prohibits such acts; Muslim teaching: not so much. So while there might be some Catholics out there making these anonymous threats, they're not being motivated by Catholic teaching.

All the same, I'm breathlessly waiting for the results of the police investigation into the "substantial" threats against Myers.

"I wonder if the "real Muslims wouldn't bomb innocent civilians" has a chance of being equally accepted in this crowd."

Why would it be if so many real Muslims say that it's ok to bomb innocent civilians?

"This is no longer an intellectual issue with you, it's psychological. You *don't want* to understand. That would leave you with a lot of anger with no place to call home.

Poor thing."

Translation = I can't come up with any counterarguments, so it's time to resurrect my old buddy argumentum ad hominem!

"Is that a troupe of Mohammedan comedians?"

I guess that flew right over your head. Type it into google and see what comes up. I think you'll see what I mean. Then try "terrist".

"Why would it be if so many real Muslims say that it's ok to bomb innocent civilians?"

Oh, you really should have been living in West Belfast when O'Connor ripped up a picture of the pope.

"Why would it be if so many real Muslims say that it's ok to bomb innocent civilians?"

Hmm. Perhaps you're right. Since this attitude is shared by much of the American public, it might just be an American problem, not a Catholic one.

"Entirely predictable."

Oh really? Well I can tell you, sir, that I predicted this response before you even made your second last post.

See? Two can play at this fame.

"Read the comments and tell me what someone well adjusted would think of you right now."

Since you're asking me, I'll take this an admission you can't take on the mindset of a well-adjusted person long enough to determine the answer yourself.

Now, do you have anything to actually contribute to the topic at hand?

"The point is that when push comes to shove some Christians are as prone to violent reactions as are some Muslims. I would suspect that the proportions are roughly equivalent...that as many Christians have this zealous tendency as do Muslims."

There's a difference between having a zealous tendency and having it affirmed by your faith. Of course, Catholics are flawed human beings and they can act violently; but so many more violent acts in the name of religion are committed by Muslims because their faith appears to permit it, and even require it.

Of course, atheists win the violence and mass murder competition hands down. You've got your Nazis, your Stalinists, your Trotskyites, and your Maoists, just to name a few.

trp: "Of course, atheists win the violence and mass murder competition hands down. You've got your Nazis, your Stalinists, your Trotskyites, and your Maoists, just to name a few."

Again, the defense of violence by Catholics is made by saying "hey, the Athiests were worse."

I thought the standard for Christian behavior was Christ, not Atheists.

Well I asked and you answered very thoroughly so I'll credit your reply. Not the substance mind you.

Your belief that Christians and Muslims respond with the same degree of force/violence is just not worth taking seriously. I'm not even sorry to be that blunt.

You really need to think long and hard about what sources you consider credible when you allow this notion to become a very animating force of your personality.

You seem to like conflating actual violence with "possible threats to PZ Myers that haven't been substantiated." Who reacted violently during this episode? This is what makes your claim seem absurd.

You seemed all resplendent in glory when Charles threatened to box your ears in if you stole a host. Well if someone tried taking a picture of your child in bed (or something sacred to you) you'd get mighty defensive about it. The church is home. We get defensive and respond in force during the commission of the act DS; not during the *discussion* of the act.

There's been zero violence is what makes this so hilarious. How reputable is your historical knowledge if you can't get the basic contemporary 5 minute ago stuff right?

I mean this is just so silly and I'm going to bed.

Good night

Seriously, people. How is it not obvious that civilized people ought to treat each other's holy objects with respect? As a Lutheran Christian, I don't attach any sacred value to a Torah scroll or to a Koran (heck, maybe I shouldn't even attach it to a Catholic communion wafer, even though I do), but I know perfectly well that flushing one down a toilet to prove to a Jew or a Muslim that their holy book is just paper is crossing a very serious line. To me, it's just paper, but it's more than that to them, and I ought to respect that. To you, the bread at Communion is just a cracker, but it's more than that to me, and you ought to respect that.
Here we have an atheist who knows perfectly well what significance the Eucharist has to Catholics and other Christians who believe in the Real Presence,* who is not content to mock the sacrament but says he wants to acquire a consecrated Host for himself in order to desecrate it. Naturally, Catholics (and other Christians, like yours truly) are angry; the Host belongs to God, or, legally, to the Catholic Church, and Myers should recognize that even if he could legally get ahold of a consecrated host he's still a thief in a moral sense. He's not Catholic; were he to enter a Catholic church, he would do so as a guest. For a guest to steal from his host is pretty low. Since he's not Catholic, something sacred to Catholics can never properly belong to him. I could go to a store and buy a Koran, and then I would have a legal right to do as I please with it--including urinating on it and flushing it down the toilet. But I would not have a moral right to do so--because I am not Muslim, and good manners (if nothing else!) or a sense of decency ought to tell me that I don't have the right to flout Muslim conventions about their holy book just because I don't personally share their beliefs about it. Just as Erin doesn't have a right to piss all over ds0490's family portrait just because it doesn't have any significance to her.
And these ridiculous equivalencies being drawn--a teacher, unknowingly and without intention of offense, allows her Muslim schoolchildren to name a teddy bear Muhammad. Rather than simply explaining her mistake, the Islamist government arrests and imprisons her. This is the same as Christians being angry that an atheist is knowingly inciting his readers to steal the Body of their Lord Jesus Christ to commit blasphemies against it? Intention doesn't matter?
A Danish cartoonist draws a cartoon--admittedly a tasteless and offensive one--depicting Mohammed. Angry Muslims start firebombing Danish embassies and boycotting Danish products in an attempt to force the Danish government to overturn its commitment to freedom of the press and prosecute this cartoonist. Again, where is the equivalence to this situation? The Catholic response here is not merely different in degree--although the difference in degree is pretty huge. There is a difference in kind between both the offense and the response. No one (a vanishingly small number of people, at any rate) is attempting to deny that Myers has the right to say, write, and publish whatever he wants. If he wants to draw a fifty-page comic book depicting some fantastical adventure in which he heroically sneaks in to a Catholic church, escapes with one of their precious crackers, and exacts his terrible revenge on it, fine, that's his right. The principle--upheld consistently between the Danish cartoon controversy and this one--is that freedom of the press is sacrosanct. But when Myers threatens to use subterfuge to actually take a sacred object from a Catholic church and desecrate it, that's a different thing altogether, just as my peeing on a Koran (whether I claimed I was making some kind of point by doing so, or admittedly was simply trying to offend Muslims) is a different thing than my depicting Muhammad in a cartoon offensively.
I know there's no legal recourse for a Muslim who wishes to prevent a Christian or an atheist from desecrating a Koran that the Christian or atheist owns, as Catholics have (or ought to have) to prevent someone from taking a Host who shouldn't be, or for purposes other than the one for which it has been distributed. But I think there's a clear moral principle that holds true in both cases.

*On a completely different topic, if anyone's still reading who knows and is willing to answer--I feel like there ought to be a single word or term for all the Christian groups who share liturgically-oriented worship and some form of belief in the Real Presence (I guess that'd be Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans (?), and Lutherans). Is there one?

Transubstantiation is in the eye of the believer. Myers doesn't believe so why does he make a distinction between a consecrated and unconsecrated host? Merely to offend. But he has achieved that with the suggestion alone. Another tenured damn fool.

The proper Catholic response to this baiting is the one Jesus Himself made when He was desecrated on the cross: "Father, forgive him for he knows not what he does."

I don't know this for a fact, but I have read that the excess hosts from the Mass in NYC said by JP2 were dumped into the Hudson. This may or may not be an acceptable method of discarding them according to canon law. Still, I am suspicious. The East River I could understand.

I don't know about the rest of you, but from now on, whenever I see Bill Donohue waxing wroth on Fox, I will not be able to erase the image of him in an act of papal testilingus.

I'm using sarcasm to make a point about the selective bigotry of P.Z. Myers.

Looks like you used sarcasm to start a bar fight. What a ratings booster!

Everybody, with regard to ds0490, it should be perfectly clear that he is a troll who has no intention of an honest exchange of ideas. Please stop feeding him.

"....a desire to insult others because I can and because they deserve it for threatening a college kid with - what was it again - oh, yeah, DEATH."

There, Max S., fixed it for ya. Yer welcome.

Thomas R. :"However I think if Myers did this it'd be perfectly permissible for Catholics to cut-off all funds to Myers's University until he is fired. Just as I found it perfectly acceptable for Muslims to boycott Danish products or for American Indians to boycott Universities that disrespect their ancestor's bones."

But you see, Thomas, you are more generous than some who post here regularly. Erin, Rod and others seem to take umbrage when Muslims (or any other non-Christian religious group) becomes offended when one of their sacred practices or items is denigrated. They don't understand the anger of Muslims over a teddy bear being named Mohammed.

Yet when it is one of their religious items being threatened with desecration, they have proven that violence is a tool they will use to protect it. The main difference is the degree of violence they will resort to, and with the anger that has been expressed here in the past 24 hours I think some might well go beyond just giving Myers a thrashing.

No doubt in a few weeks some Muslim will commit an act of violence claiming that something in his view has been desecrated. And no doubt Erin, Rod and the usual crew will jump on their high horse and talk about how the Muslim religion endorses violence. This thread will stand witness that Christians can resort to violence when pushed far enough, and that in spite of their claims that Christianity does not endorse such violence.

But, I am used to Chrisitians pleading a special case for their religious practices and ignoring the blatant hypocrisy of their actions.

"But when Myers threatens to use subterfuge to actually take a sacred object from a Catholic church and desecrate it, that's a different thing altogether, just as my peeing on a Koran (whether I claimed I was making some kind of point by doing so, or admittedly was simply trying to offend Muslims) is a different thing than my depicting Muhammad in a cartoon offensively."

So the mere act of threatening to desecrate the Host is more serious than a cartoonist actually violating Muslim sensibilities with regards to the depiction of Mohammed.

I think I understand it now.

Erin Manning: you should know in most Catholic parishes the ushers are trained to observe people as they receive Holy Communion and will stop anyone they see attempting to leave the church without having consumed the Blessed Sacrament.

I think this is highly unlikely. Deputizing the ushers as the ecclesiastical equivalent of mall cops? Why not just a couple of burly bouncers (new minor order to replace subdeacons?) to turn away those who are in a state of mortal sin or haven't observed the fasting rules (what is the rule now, about thirty or forty seconds?)? That medieval penitential garb did have a purpose.

With the Novus Ordo practice of communion in the hand, it is supremely easy to pretend to eat the host and keep it concealed. In the traditional rite (being slowly restored by Papa Ratzinger), the communicant receives the host kneeling on the tongue. (The dangling participle is the fault of the vernacular, a argument for the use of Latin when discussing liturgy and the putting of atheist professors to the faggots.) Retrieving the host from one's mouth and keeping it from disintegrating is not easy but probably doable for the determined sacrilegist.

Sacrilege involves desecration of something regarded as sacred. It is a sin, not a crime. If I destroy a coran, it is not sacrilege, since it is not sacred, merely a manifesto full of error. (BTW, for those titillated by overt acts of desecration, you can download the coran from many sites on the web and then .... DELETE it! This reportedly works for the Rig Veda too, if you wake up feeling virulently anti-Hindu of a morning.) If a Mohammedan (or atheist) destroys a host, it is not sacrilege to him: what penalty can the Church apply? Indeed, should the perp be contrite, it is not even possible to absolve him, unless he converts. He's essentially cooked (not a de iure term in canon law.)

It is argued by some Traditional Catholics that the Novus Ordo itself is sacrilege. The Words of Institution have been changed; the "priest" (presbyter!) no longer holds his thumb and forefinger together after the Lavabo; the host is handled by "eucharistic ministers" and the communicant; it is passed out with a brusque "boddya Chris'" (in the local dialect) rather than the traditional exhortation, which reads, "Corpus Domini nostri Iesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen." (May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life eternal. Amen.)

Nevertheless, Erin usually knows whereof she speaks. From now on I will be much more timorous when eyeing those eighty-something ushers brandishing the collection baskets like Crusaders' lances.

Faustus5: "Only an Orwellian twisting of the facts can possibly make Myers into the villain. But the religious, alas, specialize in Orwellian twisting of facts."

Couple that with the delight with which some are saying that Myers should be fired, and you have the strange scenario that the mere speaking of a threat to desecrate a religious object is met with a calls for punishment. "He should be fired for saying that," is a statement that is echoing on numerous message boards this morning.

www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/11/113956/297

Of course, if any other religion or group called for a similar punishment for the mere expression of words, they would be lambasted for being PC beyond all belief, as a search of this blog would show.

"....imagine a Quaker digging up the body of an atheist soldier and burning the US flag he was buried with to rob it of "nationalistic power." Or a conservative Catholic attending a same-sex marriage so he can post a video of himself peeing on the piece of wedding cake he received...."

Bill Donohoe: "It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ. We look to those who have oversight responsibility to act quickly and decisively."

Apparently the mere suggestion of doing so merits punishment. I wonder, would the above mentioned Quaker be similarly vilified for merely suggesting that a flag be dug up (I didn't realize we buried them with corpses these days) or a Catholic for merely suggesting that someone should urinate on a piece of wedding cake at a same-sex wedding.

Catholics apparently can be as good at being PC as any other group. The mere thought, coupled with the verbalization of it, is enough to merit punishment.

Ann Coulter must be shaking in her boots.

Given time there will be violence against Myers. Tires will be slashed, a window broken, maybe even a gun fired at his house. The pattern of violence is there, and has enough historical precedence that I can safely predict it will happen, in some form, especially if he is successful in his quest for a consecrated host. With the anger generated by a simple exchange of words in this forum tonight, I am confident that the video of him desecrating a host will inspire some Christian to take it to the next level.
Posted by: ds0490 | July 13, 2008 2:19 AM

I don't know. Maybe. Maybe the world will yet again see a rise of zealous violence from followers of Christianity. But I think that day is past, not to return. I think Christians overall don't care enough anymore to descend to that...and anyway they can satisfy that urge to "fight the other" and "bring justice to eviodoers" through fighting on behalf of their nations instead. I really think it's Islam's turn to rise and grow and oppress. And remember, it is not this religion or that which causes the violence, but this is a quality of our human nature so susceptible to latching onto any group or ideology and committing hatred and violence in its defense.

You keep trying to find equivalents, but you can't really, to the act, so the only recourse is to the level of your hurt feelings.

The picture of my family? If he broke into my house and stole it, the issue would be with the breaking and entering, and the theft. Neither of which would apply here. And a photo, no matter of whom, is a photo. Other than privacy issues (posting my child's picture on the internet with our address and an invitation to molesters, which threatens my CHILD, not the photo of my child), well, I don't care what they do with a picture I GAVE them.

In the case of the Quaker, he'd have to invade and tamper with property that wasn't his (unless someone gave him the body.. the flag is fair game as long as he bought it) and that is probably unlikely. If it is not, then the person who did so is unlikely to object, since he probably was consenting to the display.

As for the wedding cake.. I might not invite him back to my first anniversary party, but I wouldn't 'go upside his head', much less try to get him fired for doing so. I wouldn't even physically prevent him from leaving the wedding with the cake I gave him in the serving line if he announced that was what he intended to do with it.

Everybody, with regard to ds0490, it should be perfectly clear that he is a troll who has no intention of an honest exchange of ideas. Please stop feeding him.
Posted by: Rod Dreher | July 13, 2008 9:22 AM

I commented again before I saw this, sorry.
Do you really think he is just a troll? Because Mr. Dreher I would easily be classified closely with you when it comes to religious adherence and conservativism, yet I see this person as sincere and with valid questions for Christians.

But I too always laugh at the atheists who act up to get reactions amongst Christians much more readily than they will direct themselves at Muslims to commit offenses against Islam.

"Erin, Rod and others seem to take umbrage when Muslims (or any other non-Christian religious group) becomes offended when one of their sacred practices or items is denigrated."

If that is so they are wrong. Someone who suggests going to a mosque to obtain a prayer rug so they can shag on it later should be seen as an obnoxious person. They should be asked to apologize or even be boycotted.

However Radical Muslims, not general Muslims, have a habit of making themselves wrong when they might have a point. They don't merely say "let's ask for an apology" or even boycott. They start rioting or threatening people. That Catholics are making death threats is similarly sad, although the Eucharist does hold a place in our religion unlike the Qur'an or a prayer rug.

"Okay. I've imagined it. I've also referred to the First Amendment where I find some very clear words about no law abridging freedom of speech." weemaryanne

I'm not talking legalism, don't be thickheaded.

Although you're right they're not buried with flags, make it whatever ribbon or decoration they're buried with then. Maybe I can think of even better example though. You ask a friend to go to someone's house and take inexpensive, yet personal, items so you can publicly burn them. You then state it's a statement against commercialism or whatever. You really think there'd be no reprecussions?

Granted you might. Perhaps you can't understand how people can be emotionally attached to anything at all. However you should at least recognize that in the real world most people do have things that matter to them. Things they feel an emotional attachment toward. Not you of course, but most people.

Sorry Rod. I don't find this cowardly. You're response to it is kind of like, "Come over here and say that!" Or "if my big brother was here you wouldn't do that!"

Franklin Evans: pagans are quite capable of coming up with their ideas without outside inspirations.

Bravo, Preacher Franklin! If everyone were as enlightened as we of the Church of the Bridge, what a beautiful world it would be. May Plato bless your cave!

BTW, I saw you with your hand in the collection plate during last week's feast of St. Carneades. That is not only sacrilege, it's my gambling money. Give it back or we will burn you in effigy at Holy Hour of Humour at the next solstice.

Devotedly yours in Zeus, Apollo and Golden Aphrodite,

+++ Roland, Pontiff of the Church of the Bridge

Charles Curtis, I'm delighted to hear that you and your co-religionists will not attempt to impose your sexual mores on others.

I'll be expecting to see Plan B pills available over-the-counter in every drugstore in the land, no questions asked, to all females aged 15 and older, come Monday morning. And the very next challenge to Roe v Wade that appears in the Supreme Court's mailbox will be summarily dismissed.

Yeah. And strangers in Nigeria have small mountains of cash just waiting for me to collect it.

FTR, when Jesus DOES come back, he's gonna be pissed at those who called Him a Crazy Cracker! (After all, we all know He isn't a white guy.)

Seriously though, with detractors such as these, I'm glad to be where I am.

Roland, that's some darn funny stuff about the gambling money! Thanks for that.

Sorry Rod. I don't find this cowardly. You're response to it is kind of like, "Come over here and say that!" Or "if my big brother was here you wouldn't do that!"

Actually, there are two things that make this cowardly. The first is the distinction that PZ Myers made between his proclaimed willingness to desecrate a Catholic Eucharist on film, whereas he stated that he would only be willing to desecrate a Koran in the privacy of his own home, off camera.

The second and far more important thing is that PZ Myers will not desecrate a Eucharist nor will he desecrate a Koran on film or in public. He's nothing but talk.

If Mr. Myers decided to desecrate a Koran in certain parts of Detroit, or maybe Holland, Paris, or better yet, Gaza, then I'll mark him down as courageous. Suicidal, but courageous.

Again, violence towards him by Christians would be very un-Christian.

Violence towards him by Muslims would be very Islamic.

"Actually, there are two things that make this cowardly. The first is the distinction that PZ Myers made between his proclaimed willingness to desecrate a Catholic Eucharist on film, whereas he stated that he would only be willing to desecrate a Koran in the privacy of his own home, off camera."

Hmm. Could this be because the Muslims in this country aren't trying to impose their religious beliefs on the entire nation via government? Maybe because they aren't fighting tooth and nail to retain a privileged position?

I'm amazed at how many Christian immediately start urging the desecration of the Koran in situations like these. How kind.

"Violence towards him by Muslims would be very Islamic."

You know, after reading this thread I realize how much Christians really NEED Muslims. I mean, without them to point to, you'd be the most violent world religion. But they're currently saving you from the shame of being the absolute worst, which you guys point out at every conceivable opportunity.

Well, in the modern world anyway. You've already got the gold medal for the most religious violence in history.

Interesting to see Catholics being charged for hypocrisy. On the one hand, the nastier comments are accusing us of being violent and then point to biblical quotes about how we're supposed to take those words seriously and love our enemies and turn the other cheek.

But when we take the biblical words of Jesus seriously: My flesh is real meat and my blood is real drink, we're mocked.

We can love our enemies at the same time we are kicking over furniture and literally whipping people when they desecrate that which we hold sacred.

He taught us well."

Odd, because I don't recall, when the actual Jesus was about to be taken away to be whipped, mocked and executed, that he told his followers to whip people and kick over their furniture.

The people he was whipping and kicking the furniture of in the Temple? They were actually working FOR the people running the temple, and making money off of it. It wasn't about sacrilege, it was about making 'The House of my Father into a Den of Thieves'.

So, show this much umbrage over the marketing of religion, the selling of religious paraphanalia by and to the faithful? The buying and selling of faith?

"You know, after reading this thread I realize how much Christians really NEED Muslims. I mean, without them to point to, you'd be the most violent world religion. But they're currently saving you from the shame of being the absolute worst, which you guys point out at every conceivable opportunity.

Well, in the modern world anyway. You've already got the gold medal for the most religious violence in history."

The most religious violence in history? Hardly.

In any event, we really don't need them for that. We could always point to certain secularists like Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, the Fidel & Che Show, etc.

The religiously violent have been, historically, mere wannabes compared to that lot.

Hey, maybe it's a HUMAN failing? Yeah, who'd a thunk it? Violence is a human failing.

I just came back from Mass and on reflection I feel I was too emotionally guarded to the point of being emotionally dishonest.

First if Myers succeeded in what he threatened I would be deeply hurt. It doesn't matter if you understand it, the feeling is real. It is an act that deeply hurts many who have never done anything to him.

Second we shouldn't be too uncharitable or intolerant. On reflection I can see why some just can't understand why it would mean more than "just a cracker." Now personally I don't feel like I have to understand someone's feelings to respect them. If a Hindu told me some tree was his reincarnated grandmother I might find that weird, but I would know it's wrong to hurt him by hurting it. Still this might be harder for some to get.

Third it is true Christians are called to love those who hate them and forgive those who mistreat them. I fear maybe I did harden my heart to Mr. Myers, which was wrong. I still feel there are consequences to his actions. (And by "did this" I didn't mean say things, I meant if he goes through with desecration) I think the passivity of the Amish, in some cases, encourages wrongdoing. Still I think you can discourage bad actions without having a spirit of hatred or malice, which the boycotting may have sounded like. I think if he does the desecration there should be some kind of censure, but it should not have the spirit of "ruining him" I may have suggested.

I think if things have really gotten this bad it might be time we have a real dialogue and not shouting at each other. So atheists understand that we do have these feelings about things and they're not going to go away just because they find our feelings silly. I think this is something many atheists just don't understand. Most of us are not going to be like you just because you laugh at us and tell us we're irrational. (Like being rational 24-7 is even worthwhile) Likewise Catholics should learn to understand that some people won't understand us and that even when they hurt us we shouldn't be violent to them. That even Myers probably has good in him and has people he loves. That it's terribly hurtful to want to take him from them.

We are not Radical Muslims. Because of that we will be offended more, but I think it's worth it. I think if we really have a spirit of compassion and love we will be far more respected than the Radicals.

Note: I do have to say though I'm disappointed atheists seem to have declined like this. I really don't think Asimov or Sagan would've pulled these kind of shennanigans.

My humblest apoplelogies, O Iffy Pont! I saw a supply of Sacred Whoopie Cushions of Momus on sale on EeBray, and just couldn't resist bidding on them. You know how mulish I can get when I see a bargain. We now have enough for all of the p'yew seats in the Church. Deacon Pepe promises to have them ready for my next scheduled sermon. The topic will be Standing Up Against Bad Odors.

;-D

Where is Nicolas of Kues (Cusanus) when we need him?

Steve

Thomas R, if I thought the man was sick then I'd indulge him. If I thought he was sane but talking complete rot then I'd say so. You believers claim to be sane. I'm treating you that way.

"I have a prized collection of tacky Elvis souvenirs; also, 30+ years later, I believe The King is still alive.

If someone swipes my tacky Elvis souvenirs, can I complain and expect to see them arrested?"
--------------------------

OF COURSE! That's the whole point. I have a right to consider your Elvis dolls to be tacky and worthless - and to say so. But I do not have the right to steal them from you. If I stole them from you, I should be arrested and punished for it. It doesn't matter if you're crazy or deluded about Elvis; they're YOUR dolls, not mine.

How hard is that to understand?

Cracker's Corollary to Godwin's Law:

"In any online conversation about an incident of violence perpetrated by Christians, the conversation will inevitably devolve into claims that Muslims commit the same type violent acts and worse, regardless of how irrelevant this claim is to the matter at hand; further, if the trigger for the violent action involves in the desecration of Christian religious artifacts or blasphemy, the conversation will immediately segue into discussion of taking similar action to offend Muslim sensibilities."

John E:

Sorry, but I did miss that. I noticed this thread when it was at around 100 comments, which guarantees that I missed more than yours.

Much appreciated, BTW.

Now that I've had a chance to digest this thread I think PZ Myers is wrong. There are two ways I arrived at this conclusion:

The first is that PZ Myers is suggesting that someone go out of their way and misrepresent their intentions in order to obtain a communion wafer. There is an implied social contract in receiving the wafer which he's asking you to break. It takes a sociopath to do something like that with a clear conscience.

The second is that to a non-believers this is like introducing a spider into the room with someone with a arachnophobia. Obviously the non-believer considers the emotional reaction of the phobic person irrational, but it seems very rational to them and they have real emotional distress. I think it is wrong to inflict unneeded suffering and take pleasure in it. Since introducing the spider is the active role, then it would be wrong to do it.

I have to say I have never heard of host desecration before and didn't even know about the historical context so I learned something from this thread.

"But if I *give away* my Elvis dolls to anyone who asks for one, I can't complain if they subsequently tear them apart."

-----------------------

That's the problem: the Church doesn't "give away" the Eucharist like I might "give away" free firewood on my front lawn. It's not a party favor. The hosts are distributed at the Mass under the publicly known condition that it is to be consumed immediately, and only by sacramentally prepared Catholics. All other uses are prohibited for obvious reasons.

If Professor Myers wants to use the host for other purposes, then he has to resort to artifice (or to soliciting others to use artifice) to "score" it (in his own words). That's a crime. It's called theft in Minnesota.

If you showed up at an Academy Awards party with an Angelina Jolie mask on (and whatever other fake appendages you'd need to pull off the illusion), for the purpose of taking home one of those 80-thousand-dollar "gift bags" the stars receive at the door, you'd be a criminal. The gift bags are indeed distributed without any remuneration expected, but the known conditions on the distribution are flouted at the thief's risk. You may not believe that Angelina Jolie is more entitled to the gift bag than you (maybe you think she looks like a fish, like I do); but you'd be wrong about your rights to the gift bag versus hers, because the party sponsors get to decide that question. Myers' proposal is legally no different. It's stealing.

Myers and his accomplices should be prosecuted.

Al -- yeah, maybe that's why Myers' blog is still hosted by Scienceblogs, even though it's hardly ever about science. Anti-religious screeds sell so much better. Cha-ching, cha-ching!

There's just no better blog hit revenue generator than taunting Catholics with desecration of their Host.

Posted by: Al | July 13, 2008 3:23 PM

-------------

Actually, I would argue that challenging "bright" amorality, as Rod has done here, is perhaps an even better traffic draw.

You can always count on "brights" to crawl out from beneath their rocks to post hateful screeds.

But Junk Mail Man, nobody is calling young Mr. Cook a thief -- they're accusing him of a hate crime. And nobody is asking for PZ Myers to lose his job on charges of conspiracy to commit larceny -- they want him fired for pointing-and-laughing at a wafer. The bawlers aren't interested in the legal issues; rather, they want somebody to pay for their hurt feelings.

Because they reelly reelly beeleeve in transubstantiation.

Really

They do.

"....Most of us are not going to be like you just because you laugh at us and tell us we're irrational...."

I assure you, Thomas R, I don't expect you to be like me.

I expect you to be ashamed to associate with idiots and to refuse to be an idiot yourself.

"But Junk Mail Man, nobody is calling young Mr. Cook a thief -- they're accusing him of a hate crime. And nobody is asking for PZ Myers to lose his job on charges of conspiracy to commit larceny -- they want him fired for pointing-and-laughing at a wafer. The bawlers aren't interested in the legal issues; rather, they want somebody to pay for their hurt feelings.

Because they reelly reelly beeleeve in transubstantiation.

Really

They do."
-----------------------------------

1) Nobody is calling young Mr. Cook a thief? Well I am. Um, see above.
2) I don't care if PZ Myers loses his job. I'm saying he should be prosecuted for soliciting the commission of a crime. Other people have other angles of interest.
3) Yeah, they really really do believe in transubstantiation. So do I, in my better moments. And why you give a damn about it is beyond me. The Eucharist is a ritual celebrated by adherents to one religion that in no way causes you harm or generates a nuisance. Why do you mock it so meanly? What's to be gained? The satisfaction of watching people react when provoked?

Rod maybe you should shut this one down. Not that I don't want to hear your reply, weemaryanne.

"For one thing, I didn't write "atheism" I wrote "secularism". That atheist tend to be secularist is a point the contemplation of which I leave to the reader."

Even so, the poster's point remains that secularism wasn't the reason or mechanism by which those dictators got into power and stayed there. What got them there was the appeal of the Communist socioeconomic structure.

Also, plenty of secular governments have existed without the sorts of major abuse that occurred under those men. Doesn't this suggest to you that, I don't know, it might might be COMMUNISM that was to blame for the horrific human rights abuses, not secularism?

Meanwhile, the same can't be said for Christian churches that were in a similar position of power.

"Secondly, atheism is a belief in as much as one has yet to prove that the material realm is everything. Please note that I didn't phrase that such that one is left with proving a negative. Atheist must take on faith that the God the don't see or hear, yet others speak of, does not exist."

Wow, this is absurd. To lack a belief in something unproven requires no faith whatsoever.

Let's run with this line of reasoning. Anything I can dream up, including invisible pieces of cheese orbiting your head as we speak, COULD exist. I can't prove that they aren't there absolutely, true, but what possible reason would anyone have to assume that they're there? Why would I just shrug my shoulders and believe anyone who claims that there's really an invisible piece of cheese orbiting their head right now?

Expecting proof or evidence before excepting the existence of something isn't belief. It isn't faith, either.

"Those guys didn't necessarily believe in the cartoon God lampooned by Monty Python and weemarywhateverhernameis, but they did believe in an immaterial, uncreated creator of the physical realm. But they were all dolts according to some of the more enlightened ones around here, because, well, they were "believers"."

Plenty of smart people believe absurd things. It doesn't make those beliefs less absurd, nor their valuable contributions to society less so.

ds0490 wrote:

So the mere act of threatening to desecrate the Host is more serious than a cartoonist actually violating Muslim sensibilities with regards to the depiction of Mohammed.

I think I understand it now.

~~~

Thanks for pointing that out; I should have proofread my post better. (Although, to be honest, I still think the point I was trying to make ought to have been clear enough even if I didn't distinguish very well between threat and action.) Look, the concern here is not "violating sensibilities." Myers can say and/or print all sorts of stuff that "violates the sensibilities" of whomever he pleases. I have the right to have sensibilities, and I have the right to be offended when they are violated. I don't have the right to demand he cease-and-desist from exercising his freedom of expression. As long as we're still in the realm of words, pictures, and ideas--whatever. Freedom of the press must be maintained. If any depiction of Muhammad is more insulting to a Muslim than the most insulting possible depiction of Jesus Christ is to a Christian--well, I'm sorry, but the press must be free. I would rather people didn't depict Muhammad (or Jesus, or Buddha, etc, etc) offensively, but if they do, there's not a thing anyone can or should do about it, other than ask for a little more respect all around: the press must be free.

When Myers threatens to desecrate what I believe to be the body of Christ, I say he's stepping over a line, morally though not legally. If he actually goes through with this desecration, God forbid, he's stepped over another line (and I don't think it's wrong to say that someone's committed larceny to enable him to do so, although I don't think anything could come out of prosecuting that larceny, either). Threatening to desecrate a consecrated Host is not the same as simply verbally mocking or abusing Sacramental Christian belief about it. It's illegal to threaten people with physical harm; shouldn't it be outside the bounds of civilized discourse to threaten desecration of what other people hold to be sacred?

You may believe that the Host is just a cracker; that the Koran is just a book; that the tree your Hindu neighbor thinks is his reincarnated mother is a tree. Use your freedom of speech and your freedom of the press to broadcast your beliefs, and point out how ridiculous the beliefs of religious people are. But seriously, have a little common courtesy, if nothing else, and treat the objects themselves with respect.

Not that it matters greatly to this discussion, and I could be wrong, but I don't actually think Hindus believe you can be reincarnated as a plant.

PS--Thanks, Major; your responses were interesting and informative. I'll start using "Sacramental Christians" when I have occasion; maybe it'll even catch on.

If a communion wafer does in fact become the body of Christ, then a lot of you guys here are guilty of cannibalism. Which seems to be a worse thing than hate speech.

In my experience, atheists like Meyers seem to have a spiritual dead zone, and I don't mean a lack of sensitivity to God; I mean that they seem to have little feeling for the more noble qualities of human beings.
Posted by: Major Wootton | July 13, 2008 6:53 PM

Then may I suggest that you examine the works of Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and Steven J Gould?

The fact that Buddhists were not offended by the destruction of the Bamyan Buddhas does not mean Catholics and other Christians should not be offended by the desecration, threatened or real, of the Body of Christ. A good many people who have posted here no doubt wish and pray for Myers to be "release[d] from [his] drive toward such behavior." Buddhists were not offended in the same way because they did not attach the same significance to these statues, not because of some admirable forbearance that we Christians should strive to emulate. If Christians regarded the Host the way Buddhists regard the statues, they wouldn't be offended by what Myers is doing, and if Buddhists regarded the statues the way Christians regard the Host, I sure hope they'd be offended by what the Taliban did! Buddhists, you say, "do not contemplate forms or images"--well, for us, this is not about forms or images, but about something that we believe to be truly the Body of Christ.
Could a few of the responses here use a little more charity? Yes. Hello--we're human! Of course we don't always live up to our ideals. None of this disproves that what Myers is doing/threatening to do is, basically, sociopathic, as several earlier commenters have described it.

Elizabeth, I'm not sure how one could read the blog Pharyngula and claim that Myers is not a hater.

It is nice to hear that Buddhists do not worry about forms or images, but the few Buddhists I know personally do worry about -- or shall we say, they take care to acknowledge and observe -- common courtesies. Apparently Myers thinks he is excused from that.

He may be different in the classroom or in person, but on his blog, Myers makes no secret of his contempt for religion or for religious people and has now proposed to do something precisely calculated to hurt and offend others. Furthermore (assuming the post earlier on this thread can be believed to be from P.Z. Myers), he comes to a religion blog to assure religious people that he will indeed carry out that action. A class act all around, no? What a role model.

There is a difference between challenging students' beliefs and assumptions and employing critical thinking in the classroom (which is necessary and important), and being a hate-spewing public bigot. Myers is the latter. He is not educating anyone by calling religious people rude names and threatening to destroy things they value. This is not a demonstration of critical thinking or of analysis. This is a demonstration of acting like a five-year-old. Except that he is not one.

Which makes me wonder: Does enlightenment -- whether the rational or the spiritual kind -- mean one need no longer 'worry about' kindness?

penguinflying - I wrote: "Someone mentioned the Bamyan Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan. That does not belong in this conversation." My whole point was that the poster who listed the Buddha statues should not have, for the very reason that the statues are not regarded by Buddhists as sacred.

H.S.: It is possible to find theistic beliefs in general and particular silly and damaging to society without being a "hater." This professor took on fundamentalists (no "haters" there, are there?) for trying to drive evolution education out of the classroom in favor of "creation science" - a contradiction in terms. Now he is challenging the fact that a college student is threatened with a hate crime (should be called thought crime), and has received death threats from purported Christians, over a wafer. He didn't threaten or hurt actual living human beings.

The professor is threatening a childish and rude behavior, to be sure, to call out the real haters - people who will threaten death to a college kid over something like that. Every time religious people go ballistic like this they confirm the beliefs of those who think religion should go the way of the dinosaur and the sooner the better. Rod didn't even bother to check out the guy's blog to see if he has been equally critical of Muslims! (He has.)

Was it Chesterton who pointed out that it is awfully hard to blaspheme what you do not consider sacred - and suggest by way of example that one try as hard as possible to have blasphemous thoughts about... Thor?

Does thinking that ancient Norse mythology is untrue, and its practice of human sacrifice appalling, make you a "hater?"

The professor does not consider the wafer sacred so he can not blaspheme it. That leaves him being childish and rude, which is bad enough, really, for someone in his position and I wish he would not. But not worthy of death threats and calls for his job, nor the level of offense so many on this combox seemed to enjoy reveling in.

The professor in question does not hate religion per se, or any particular religion or group of religious persons. He challenges beliefs that are not provable and the violent, irrational and bullying behavior of people who adhere to such beliefs."

Nonsense. Really, that's all I can say. There is no way to read his behavior *other* than in terms of irrational hatred.

He could "challenge beliefs" without being a first class asshole. His proposed stunt is certainly irrational and bullying, not to mention needless. It's impossible to picture Voltaire resorting to this, and yet he remained a harsh and effective critic of Christianity to the end. Myers will never be able to hold a candle to him, intellectually or dignity-wise.

He's a very small man with a very big mouth, doing his best to coarsen the public discourse and pollute the public square with sideshow antics like this. To suggest that his behavior and motives are ultimately noble is...depressing.

Oh, and the Buddhist world was not one sanguine bloc on Bamiyan:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/1202432.stm

http://www.aloha.net/~horaku/BamiyanBuddha.htm

Elizabeth before placing any importance on the college student's *claims* of death threats please keep in mind they are claims.

As of earlier today he had not furnished any evidence to the reporter covering the story in Florida.

If these claims were exaggerated surely that would change how you view this sequence of events since you place such importance on those threats no?

Likewise Myers. His claim to receive threats is also a claim, which if received by email could have been sent literally by anyone. Furthermore he *sympathized* with the Danish cartoon rioters and did *not* threaten to publicly release a videotape of Koran desecration. I know what Myers values when I know what he's willing to sacrifice. And as it turns out he doesn't want to part with anything.

Either you respect what people hold sacred or you don't. If you think Myers was using his rights responsibly to help religion go the way of the dinosaur then you're holding on to a pipe dream. People who love God aren't going anywhere. And what exactly does that mean anyway? By choice or by force?

Wow, this thread "like a wounded snake, drags its slow length along."

Jim above asked the question:

"A serious question: how is it "publicly known"? I've never attended a catholic service, but I've attended protestant services, and all they do there is invite people to come forward and take communion. Unless they explicitly announce that condition, or have a sign on the wall to that effect, I don't think there's a legal basis for a prosecution. You might respond "ignorance of the law is no defense", but that applies to U.S. or state law, not to private rules."

The following are the "Guidelines for the Reception of Communion," issued by the USCCB and printed on the inside front cover of many Catholic missals and hymnbooks and also featured prominently on the front page of many if not most Catholic bulletins handed out at Mass. In addition to these presentations, many priests will make a brief announcement reminding people of these guidelines should there be an occasion, such as a wedding or funeral Mass, where large numbers of non-Catholic Christians or non-Christians will be present. I've copied these from the USCCB website, where they are also quite easy to find:

For Catholics

As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (canon 916). A frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance is encouraged for all.

For our fellow Christians

We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21).

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3).

For those not receiving Holy Communion

All who are not receiving Holy Communion are encouraged to express in their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one another.

For non-Christians

We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.

Jim - you are right - I presumed the story on the prof's web site was accurate. Perhaps Myers jumped the gun on that too. So, is the kid really going to face charges of a hate crime?

Someone in this combox thread says that Myers published the Danish cartoons. You say he sympathized with the rioters? I'll have to spend more time on his blog to sort that out.

I did not say I hope religion goes the way of the dinosaur. I pointed out that knee-jerk reactions by religious persons gives confirmation to people who do hold such views - also that the professor's threatened actions are childish and rude, if you missed that.

That said, no one can be required to respect the content of someone else's beliefs. We must respect people and respect the right to religious liberty.

I feel threatened when I hear evangelicals carry on about how this is a Christian nation. What would they like to do to me, I wonder, if I can't swallow their dogma (not for lack of trying). I practice a faith that is older than Christianity, one many people here do not consider a faith because it does not involve a supernatural being.

Elizabeth, I never said Buddhists "ran amok threatening to kill anyone." In fact, I rather admired the restraint of the essayist in the link you quoted from.

However, the links rather eloquently argue against your assertion that "Buddhists were not offended" by the Bamiyan destruction.

Dude, I hate to break it to you, but you're a little late to the game with you challenge to PZ:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/desecration_its_a_fun_hobby.php

I am asking you to realize that Myers's wicked solicitation strikes us as worse than if Myers had asked someone to kidnap a child so that he could molest her on video to show his contempt for the child's family.

I hope not. I.e., I hope Catholics, given a Sophie's Choice between these two options that Myers theoretically could choose, would not prefer that he solicit the kidnapping and molestation of a child.

Er, the ashes analogy was by me. Neglected to sign. Oops.

A few people have really hit the nail on the head here. Myers is basically guilty of being a real asshole. His desire it to offend christians deeply, to hurt them in the worst way possible. It's sad that one person would go to such great lengths to hurt other people. This is America, we're supposed to stand up for each other. Doing something intentionally to hurt someone else isn't profound or academic, it's evil.

It seems that the biggest error Myers makes is that he forgets the wise adage "what goes around comes around."

Note to Elizabeth:

It's good for people to remember that the US is a nation founded with a particular christian character. It's part of who we are. And people of all religions need to respect that. There are nations in the East that have elements of eastern religions in their culture, we need to respect them as well. We can practice religious liberty and still hold a deep respect for the influence of a particular religion on a culture.

I am asking you to realize that Myers's wicked solicitation strikes us as worse than if Myers had asked someone to kidnap a child so that he could molest her on video to show his contempt for the child's family. Posted by: Rod Dreher | July 14, 2008 8:02 AM

Which is I guess the mindset that enabled the church to work its flock up into a murderous anti-Semitic lather whenever it was rumored that some Jews had desecrated the host (see my earlier post of July 13, 2008 9:55 AM).

All these posts, and I've only seen one charging cannablilism.

Now sig may run to her dictionary to contradict this, but generally cannablilism is a human eating DEAD human flesh.

Partaking of the Eucharist is the eating of eternally LIVING flesh of the LIVING God; body, soul, and divinity.

So, to borrow from Carl Spakler of Caddyshack, I got that going for me.

emuna,

Well, shouldn't he respect the viewpoints of others? Why is it his job to correct christian ignorance and delusion? No, this isn't him attempting to correct others, it's him attempting to cause pain.

Perhaps someone should publically invite someone to offer to walk Myers dog, then take the dog, torture it, kill it and put it on the internet. You know, just to show Myers that his dog isn't human. Not to hurt him or anything, just to correct his ignorance.

Perhaps Karen, but the flesh in question NEVER dies. So I got that going for me.

Doesn't change it from being cannibalism. (There's nothing in there about the flesh being dead at all. Before, during or after.. Though that's probably due to the fact that most of the time its a given, but still not part of the definition.)

So, still cannibalism.

Perhaps Karen, but the flesh in question NEVER dies. So I got that going for me.
Posted by: Max Schadenfreude | July 14, 2008 11:52 AM

Sure Max, eternally living flesh, whatever you say. Or whatever you say Jesus meant. Or whatever the Church says Jesus meant - eternally living Flesh and Blood.

Still, I really don't care. If being a Catholic makes me a cannibal in the eyes of some, so what?
Posted by: Max Schadenfreude | July 14, 2008 12:05 PM

So absolutely nothing, Max. Life becomes a lot simpler when you stop caring what other people think and live life as seems best for you and your family.

Seriously - go on with your Flesh of the Eternally Living God eating self.

I'm not sure I get the "It's cannibalism, so there" argument as some sort of trump card.

What about those soccer players who crashed in the Andes and ended up eating their deceased teammates to survive? Were they wrong? They ate so that they may live.

I eat the body of Christ so that I may live. He told me to. He said that unless I do, I have no life in me.

"I'm not sure I get the "It's cannibalism, so there" argument as some sort of trump card."

Scrappy, that's not what I wrote. I don't consider myself a cannibal, but many obviously do. I can't help that, so I'm not going to worry about it. I'll offer (did offer) my side of it, but if that doesn't help (it didn't), then I simply have little else to offer. It is what it is.

"Jesus said to do it in His Remembrance."

He also said, "This is my body, this is my blood." I didn't become a Catholic for the symbol. I had plenty of symbols in my youth as a Baptist (no offense meant to Baptists intended).

I've noticed something interesting here though.

There are those who reject Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. Nothing new there. But they are happy to accept part of the doctrine (the Real Presence) to charge cannibalism, but reject the greater import of what that Real Presence means. They will accept, for conversation, just enough of the faith to ridicule it and it's followers.

Oh well. Have at it, I guess.

Random thought or two, and expecting this thread to vanish soon like other threads under the new Beliefnet way of displaying blogs...

As I recall (meaning: I can't find my citations, but I trust my memory) the early Christians were accused of ritual cannibalism (amongst other heinous things) by their Roman oppressors. It's called scapegoating and fear mongering. It doesn't have to be true to cause harm. It never was nor ever will be true. It remains as ridiculous an "argument" as it ever was, and is just as heinous a canard if it's used to harm Christians today as it was 2000- years ago.

Does Myers qualify as a dead horse yet? I know Rod has renewed the display with another thread about him, so I may be premature in asking, but this entire discussion has begun to closely resemble the perennially renewed canard that modern pagans are Satan worshippers. Some people simply will not be convinced that it is a lie, and beating the topic around ad nauseum is not going to change that. This flap over Myers just seems, well, equally intransigent.

Franklin,

Please correct me here if I'm mistaken.

But I always thought that pagens worshipped, or at least venerated in some way, nature. While Satan worshippers worshipped, ah, Satan.

Also, who's buried in Grants Tomb?

I can't speak for Christian logic (ahem), Max, but there seems to be a direct connection between worshipping -- or, as is more common nowadays and you correctly point out, venerating -- nature, and Satan. Something about the world being his dominion, materialism, things like that; but mainly pagans are deluded by Satan in his attempt to prevent us from being saved (or something like that). I think part of the problem is that the first popular design of Tarot cards (A.E. Waite/Rider deck, art by Pamela Coleman Smith) uses the Christian image of Satan on the trump card "The Devil".

Which Grant's Tomb are you asking about? Aren't there a dozen or so?

A "realer" presence would be the fact that the bread and wine actually become the flesh and blood (and soul and divinity) of Jesus. The Last Supper ("This is my Body.") and all that. - Scrappy

"The Last Supper and all that" is not what you think it was - and all that.

"I should underscore here that I am not advocating intentional desecration of anybody's religion. I'm using sarcasm to make a point ..."

Um, seems pretty clear to me that so was Myers.

And Max, I wasn't charging anyone with anything.

Heck, far as I know YOU brought up the cannibalism bit, not me. I was just pointing out the error in your argument from the definition of cannibalism.

Sheesh.

Brought up cannibalism? I think it was "burningbush".

But there is this:

***
Doesn't change it from being cannibalism. (There's nothing in there about the flesh being dead at all. Before, during or after.. Though that's probably due to the fact that most of the time its a given, but still not part of the definition.)

So, still cannibalism.

Posted by: Karen Brown | July 14, 2008 11:57 AM
***

Okay.

I am asking you to realize that Myers's wicked solicitation strikes us as worse than if Myers had asked someone to kidnap a child so that he could molest her on video to show his contempt for the child's family

Posted by: Rod Dreher | July 14, 2008 8:02 AM

So, disrespect of your religious symbol is worse than kidnapping and molestation of a child?

How it is different from our Muslim friends who are ready to kill for displaying Mohammed cartoon?

Are you people insane?

You give Christians bad name.

Mr. Dreher, your emotions totally negate your thinking.

Max was trying to find a definition of cannibalism that made it not apply to eating someone who was still alive.

I'll support Max by saying that this is rather a unique case of "alive" since we're talking about the flesh of someone who is fully human and fully divine and resurrected from the dead besides. And obviously what appears to be bread and wine shares the substance of Jesus' flesh and blood in a much different way that chopping off part of his arm, which would also share the appearance of flesh and blood.

So with those unique and extraordinary factors in mind (divine personhood, resurrected glorified body), the common definition of cannibalism may indeed not apply.

Apologies for inferring that you were making an emotional appeal ("Cannibalism! Yikes! Yech!") if you weren't.

I've read some quantum physics, but I didn't think it eliminated cause and effect relationships. I haven't finished the one book I had on it though so I'm no expert.

Max,

The 'its still cannibalism' is about eating HUMAN FLESH, whether DEAD or ALIVE.

That /was/ the argument, after all. Even flesh that somehow remained alive after consumption. However that would occur. I even noted that the scenario wasn't part of the definition because, well, under any natural condition.. it wasn't an option.

So, I was saying, according to the definition of cannibalism, it is the consumption of human flesh. So, the only requirements is that the flesh is human, and it is consumed. Whether or not it is alive before, during or after the consumption is moot.

Has NOTHING to do with some old charge of cannibalism and Catholics. Its only about the definition of cannibalism, ok?

Yeah, they really really do believe in transubstantiation. So do I, in my better moments. And why you give a damn about it is beyond me. The Eucharist is a ritual celebrated by adherents to one religion that in no way causes you harm or generates a nuisance. Why do you mock it so meanly? What's to be gained? The satisfaction of watching people react when provoked?

Rod maybe you should shut this one down. Not that I don't want to hear your reply, weemaryanne.

Posted by: junk mail man | July 13, 2008 4:34 PM

-------------------
In that case, junk mail man, I'll give you a reply, with apologies for the delay.

I don't care what you or anybody believes. But the Catholic nutters crossed a line when they sent death threats to young Mr. Cook -- over a cracker. (Can't emphasize that enough.) People who believe such ridiculous things and are prepared to act upon their beliefs to the detriment of others, deserve everything they get.

Please note, you're not objecting to the words "this is a stupid belief." You're objecting to the "meanness."

You didn't say it was wrong. You said it makes you feel bad.

Freedom of speech means you don't have the right to not be mocked.

Sorry, but not very.

Rod Dreher, Poor Researcher

Love him or hate him, PZ is no coward. He's already written about his interest in desecrating a Koran - in 2007. I'm not thrilled with his writing about these subjects, but at least he is consistent in his contempt for all things "sacred".

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/desecration_its_a_fun_hobby.php

"I am asking you to realize that Myers's wicked solicitation strikes us as worse than if Myers had asked someone to kidnap a child so that he could molest her on video to show his contempt for the child's family."

So Rod, theoretically, if you could offer up one of your own children to be molested on video to placate Myers, in place of desecrating the Eucharist, would you do it?

Would most Catholics do it?

"Yet the parallels in the reactions to it are interesting. In one instance a law is used to punish the teacher. In another instance people wish there was a law that could punish Myers. The terms 'larceny' and 'theft' are bounced around in hopes that someone, somewhere could come up with a law by which to punish this rascal.

"All for what...desecrating a cracker."

You just don't get the concept of morality, do you?

It's not the desecration that is so outrageous; it is the fact that the desecration is done with the intention of causing maximum injury to others. This is an act of malicious aggression. It is wrong. Myers deserves punishment.

For all of those folks who have posted a comment making light of/mocking the Eucharist and the Divine Presence Which it is, I refer you to the below thrice-defined dogma of the Catholic Church, the same and ONLY Church established by Our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ. Make of it what you will, but it remains as valid today as it has always been -regardless of whether the leaders of the Church are too embarrassed by political correctness to any longer proclaim it. Perhaps, by your thoughtful pondering of it, you might yet save your soul! Nulla Salus ex Cathedra (Outside of the Catholic Church there is no Salvation) “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Eucharistic Body , that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” - Posted by: Catholic Crusader! | July 15, 2008 5:06 PM

Hey, Torquemada: This is a joke, right? I mean, you have heard of the [Eastern] Orthodox Church, have you not? You have also, I assume, read enough of church history to know that the Roman Catholic Church's claims and pronouncements re: Papal infallibility and Petrine supremacy have a dubious and challengeable history, correct? And even if you continue to belong to Rome, you do realize that some of the RCC's pronouncements of recent memory temper and tone down and even retract some of what you quoted, don't you?

*rolleyes*

"That seems to be the case. Whether it is statements that he should lose his job or threats to 'have my fists up side your asinine "freethinking" skull. A few times in quick succession,' it's basically the same thing as the Muslims threatening to kill the teacher who was involved in the Mohammed Teddy Bear debacle."

No. It bears no resemblance to that whatsoever. In that case, the teacher had no mens rea. Nor was there an actus reus. The teacher didn't know much about Islam, and the teacher wasn't the one who named the bear.

In this case, Myers knows the significance of what he's doing, is doing it intentionally, and is doing it to hurt Christians.

Really, ds0490, are you that dense?

To Eric and Thomas R. regarding their modernist comments regarding my reference to the thrice-defined Dogma of "Nulla Salus ex Cathedra", you both so interestingly reference some of the recent pronouncements regarding this Dogma from prelates today, and you, Thomas R reference a connection to Father Feeney.

However, my friends, while the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of the sacraments of the Orthodox, the dogma of "No Salvation Outside The Catholic Church" refers specifically to schismatics, i.e., The Orthodox, as being outside the pale of Salvation.

For you, Eric, I suggest that you do some further checking and realize that Vatican II and the items that emanated from that Council were NOT dogmatic documents but rather "teaching" documents. NO COUNCIL OR POPE could ever change the infallible doctrine of "Nulla Salus Ex Cathedra". What you hear from the so-called ecumenists of today is apostasy that has taken hold from the top down, as predicted by The Third Secret of Fatima. However, we have Our Lord's Assurance that the gates of hell will never prevail against Her - the Roman Catholic Church, regardless of the ongoing rampant apostasy running free reign!

Also, if The Orthodox religion is also a path to salvation, Our Blessed Mother at Fatima would not have demanded the conversion of Russia from the Orthodox to the Catholic Faith! There is ONLY ONE TRUTH, and that is The Truth of the Roman Catholic Church. Pretty sobering to think that outside of Her there is no possible salvation. This is not a Feeneyite belief but an infallible Catholic Doctrine.

Again, if this dogma gets one or two of you thinking then it will be a very good thing indeed. Our Lord Wills that all men be saved but He also tells us that it is only through Him and The Church that He established upon Peter, the Rock, that man can be saved. Eric, please re-read your Bible! The world is full os sincerity but lacks Truth above all!

There is no "catholic" in "Nulla Salus ex Cathedra."

Blessed lady of fatima/shmatima, whatever.

Thomas R, wow that last post had some pretty fancy foot work using Catholic Crusader's own point of view.

"Those who simply did not believe are described more as living in a dark place of regret"

That sounds like the MBTA, particularly the red line this summer.

Maybe a few muslim websites should know that he is going to desecrate the Koran too. Added to his insults to Catholics, he's really taking his life/job in his hands now.

The latest Catholic League email/posting has all the details. This Myers guy is completely off his trucks. Wow.

Actually, PZ Myers, in the same rhetorical vein DID threaten to desecrate a Koran, in response to someone being arrested for a "hate crime" over flushing a Koran down the toilet. Check out his column of July 29 2007. I tried posting the link, but I kept getting an error msg, so here's an excerpt from it.

I am appalled. A man in New York was arrested for throwing a copy of the Quran in a public toilet. He deserved arrest—everyone knows it is vandalism and criminal mischief to clog a public toilet with debris.

Oh, hang on — the guy was arrested for a hate crime? Are toilets now on the list of victims targeted by fringe fanatics? What's their slogan: "Bring Back the Open Trench!"? It is a shame to see innocent and useful toilets persecuted in this ghastly way …

Wait, never mind. He was arrested for being mean to Muslims, which also makes no sense. He destroyed a book and clogged a toilet. If some local nut started setting fire to copies of The God Delusion, I wouldn't feel personally victimized — let her burn all the copies she can buy, it's just more money in Richard Dawkins' pocket."

Try googling something from the above excerpt, and go directly to the article itself, to see what kind of horrific Koran abuse he fantasizes about in his column.

Funny thing, I don't think THAT column resulted in any death threats against Myers or an orchestrated effort to have him fired from his job.

I don't think you get it:
PZ is not a Christian-Hater. He just hates stupid superstition. And believing that a man made cracker (or what ever you want to call it) is actually a piece of the body of Jesus.... Well, that does qualify as a superstition, doesn't it.
And threatening some one life, for not eating a cracker given to him, but rather taking it home. And then calling taking the cracker a "hate crime". Thats Hate and bigotry for you.

PZ was one of the sane ones in this whole thing....

Shame on you for calling him a Christian-Hater for that.

Myers is a Christian-hater, a bigot, and an insensitive, despicable human being. It is not enough for him (or many modern atheists) to not believe...oh no...they have to do everything in their power to bring the rest of the world down the their level of misery. I guess that's what happens when you condemn your soul to hell and have no hope....as they say, misery loves company.

Myers didn't invent extreme sarcasm. He is using it. I haven't heard many Christians denouncing the bumper sticker that lists "National Atheist Day" as April 1st.

It's something insulting, offensive and juvenile. They do seem to be overreacting to Myers attempt to be insulting, offenive and juvenile.

The fact is, those insulting bumper stickers aren't illegal and you have every right to put one on your car in order to insult and mock us with them. You have every right outside of libel or outlawed hate speach to insult and mock us as you see fit.

However, it works BOTH ways. Our immature compatriots have as much right to mock and insult you guys as your immature compatriots have to mock us.

Now quantitatively, is Myer's work more insulting than those (or other) insulting bumperstickers? Probably. But Quantativity is a measure of efficiency, not intent.

Unless Myers or those responding to his request actually break a genuine law of the land in the process of a) getting the wafer(s) to him and/or b) showing disrespect to the wafer you people are S*** out of luck here.

Reacting against him won't stop him from doing what he's planning on doing. Ceasing to be his audience, stopping yoursleves from being his defacto promoters, will do more to hurt his cause than anything else you can do.

And taking more forceful actions against him will surely backfire. Christians should know how effective martyrdom can be.

"Myers is asking his atheist followers to infiltrate Catholic parishes a steal--yes, steal--consecrated Hosts. "

No, he's kidding. I know your devoid of humor because of your "faith" but this is just the stupidest thing I've heard all week! Are the evil atheists' trying to destroy you again, you poor paranoid dimwit?

Rob wrote: "If P.Z. Myers had any guts, he would put out a call for someone to send him a Koran so he could blow his nose and wrap fish in it."

He had guts and *did* defile the Koran. So I guess you owe him an apology. So what's stopping you, BIG MAN?

"I think we all know if a professor at a major American university had issued a public call for people to send him a Koran or a Torah for the purpose of desecrating them, it would be front page news. Does anybody doubt that?"

Well, that's a bit of a stretch. Why would he need to call for a Koran or Torah when he could get one himself at Barnes and Noble? He did, however, desecrate a Koran along with the wafers:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/24/desecrated_lg.jpg
... and yet, somehow, the Muslims managed not to make a scene. The only "front page news" is the crazy responses from Catholic organizations and Christian individuals (present company included).

It must be hard to breathe with all that foot in your mouth.

Sorry, but calling PZ a coward could hardly be considered accurate.

I mean, considering the dozens of death threats and hundreds of threats of violence he has received from "Christians" about this, and still he continued. In fact, I was probably more worried about his safety than he apparently was.

He DID trash a Quran, and a copy of Dawkins' "God delusion", as well. It is telling that you go on such a diatribe so devoid of facts.

He received not one single death threat from a Muslim, however.

It's funny, you sit there and call PZ a coward, yet I bet you haven't emailed this story to him.

You neglect to mention the reason for the whole to-do, The disproportionate abuse directed at a college student who, walked away with a wafer without ant evident intent to desecrate it

PZ Myers' stated reason, per Wikipedia, was to "demonstrate" (if that is the right word) that "nothing is sacred."

Most unlikely. Or at least most unlikely he actually thinks such.

If his daughter came home with an award (no doubt a "pro science" awared at that), would he rip it up just to show the youngling the hard realities of this life and show that nothing is "sacred?"

Doubtful. ahhh----No cheating here.

Let's say there is only one copy of PZ's phD and other certificates hanging on the wall. Will he burn them in "effigy". Of course not. That is one challenge he'll not do. Will he burn his family photos if there are only a few copies available? No cheating! No digital remakes.

No. More likely he means to say that he hates religion--if in fact a "message" or symolism can be gleaned from his dishonest procurement of the eucharist. Some things are sacred to all people. Some things are therefore sacredly held. He knows this.

More likely, this is some puerile attempt at humoring his sychophantic participants in mental massaging that goes on over in the witless box called Pharyngula, and no doubt most people simply do not engage in this kind of oddball behavior. Now having said this, we should ask Nick Berg and some other individuals if, in close proximity, the Muslims might take offense to certain kinds of desecration. They will, I promise you. PZ is not bold enough to, say, rip the hajib off some Muslim girl in public or make faux videos of him wizzing on the Koran or other major disses. His action did not raise ire because his clownishness is the safe variety. And picking on Catholics brings cricket chirps, for the most part.

Sorry about the death threats, PZ. Though this is most likely vastly overstated and exaggerated. It always is.

But goading people is never a good idea. If someone wants a High Noon episode---they'll find it. Ask for a fight and ye shall receive, buster. It won't matter if you feel like duking it out with the Avon lady or the author of Dear Prudence over on Slate.

Though more likely for true heroism you'll have to do what the Danish newspapers did. Showing a photo to your buds of torn paper is probably not enough to actually lose teeth over, no matter how obnoxious a frat prank you seem inclined to...

Doing some hippy-dippy, spaced out Vaudeville trick with a trash can that harkens back to the day of avant-garde art where some pothead says that a melting candle "represents" or "symbolizes" some statement about society is not the trick either.

Now I'm not suggesting we do what the multi-culti morons at club gitmo are doing. Which is far from goading people, but like Mark Steyn said is akin to handling the Koran with white, kid gloves akin to some butler handing his Lordship a copy of the London Times, etc. Extremes are on both ends of this spectrum. No doubt we give in too much to Muslim paranoia, true. And this justifies, not moderates, their hatred of the "infidel" as inferior.

But such "symbolism" purporting to "show" that nothing is sacred--just because a purchased or borrowed copy of Dawkin's scribblings get tossed in the can too? Please.

PZ needs to prove his muster. Having said that, rational people don't act like this clown. I remain, respectfully, always wary of what some cruddy flag burning, effigy burning, paper crumbling, messy dog pile mash of mush "means" to the rest of us. Reminds me of an "art" display years ago in Piedmont Park here in Hotlanta. The artist said the ropes and trash cans and spilled paper "meant" something like "lines of descent and history through life."

The city sanitation department thought otherwise. They hauled it off.

Yeah maybe.

But when it comes to Oz, I pay no mind to the funny little man behind the curtain throwing fireballs! He ain't the wizard.

Check it out, flyin' monkeys, munchkins, and scarecrows.

And also, well......we've already addressed the Cowardly Lion.

"pz myers is a coward, a creepy coward at that. he is not satisfied with being free to believe whatever it is he wishes to believe,no sir. He spends his free time bashing, attacking, mocking, and calling for the desecration of beliefs and religions that differ from his."

Actually your a creepy coward! The belief in magical jesus bread is stupid. Threatening to kill people because you mock the "sanctity" of magical jesus bread is criminal. I'm tired of thin skin, religious believer who view mocking their" sacred " beliefs as an attack on them! Grow up!

i think you need to read why he did it. do some research on the story, and not just blog some crap, after one of you friends tells you have the story. do some fact checking. the cracker was with pages of the koran, and with pages of dawkings book.

PZ Myers is NOT a coward. He is a brave and intelligent man. If our country were any more backwards than it already is, someone might have made good on the death threats against him. He is most definitely NOT a coward.

The true cowards are those who hide behind the insanity of "mob rule". i.e. what is correct is what the most people happen to agree on at the moment. These same cowards are the same ones who 50 years ago agreed that blacks and whites should be kept separate because "that's what everybody wants" and "that's how its always been".

First of all, who ever said that the University of Minnesota-Morris is a major university?

Secondly, the sad part is that unless this man accepts God's free gift of salvation he will just be another soul burning in hell.

Why would anyone be upset if people call Myers names? Without God this Myers is just an ape who can talk, right?

pz myers will be happy to know that there is no God in hell either.

"And why is desecration of the Eucharist not a crime? You can't legally desecrate a gravesite, presumably because people have "superstitious hang-ups" about such things and are liable to get bent out of shape. Why this would be any different, I can't imagine. And no, the 1st Amendment is not implicated."

Wow. Please say you're not a judge...

Pz myers is the man!!! I don't think he's to worried about going to hell. Just a hunch.

Clearly the author of this post does not understand what PZ Myers is trying to say.

There is a major difference between the Koran and a communion cracker regarding whether Mr. Myers would abuse them.

For one...since the author and the rest of his religion (assuming he is Catholic-- if not, and is merely being respectful, then he clearly should know better, as the following belief of theirs does not deserve respect) believe that a consecrated wafer is actually the body of Christ, and that the wine is his blood, that he is merely trying to show that the purported meaning and significance behind a wafer does not actually exist. A Quran (as is spelled in Arabic) has more significance, as text contains information that can be used (unlike a wafer) and he would therefore almost certainly not make this claim.

In case you didn't notice, P Z Myers actually included pages ripped out of the Koran in his demonstration, as well as pages from the God Delusion. His point was that we shouldn't get worked up over such silliness. They're only words on a page (and a piece of tasteless bread) after all. Perhaps this is a lesson you in particular need to learn..........