P.Z. Myers desecrates the Eucharist

Agreed.

"P.Z. Myers has provided quite a witness for what militant atheism is capable of. Let's provide a counterwitness for what faithful Christianity is capable of. God may work a miracle in that man's life yet (consider the example of Saul). Let's not get in the way of the work of redemption in this lost man's life. As much as we can, let's answer hate with love."

Right...I'll believe this when pigs fly. This coming from the same person who said:

"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. After all, it's nothing but frackin' ink on paper, right? So what's stopping you, Big Man? It's easy to shit on what Catholics regard as sacred. But just try doing the same thing to what Muslims regard as sacred. Let's see what you're made of."

How about you take the freakin' log from your own eye, Dreher, and quit worrying about the splinter you say you see in others' eyes? Based on your words, you sound like you will be the first one to cheer if some Muslim kills Myers for tearing up a Koran.

Hypocrite.

Hypocrite, It would seem that Rod acknowledged the log in his own eyeand, having converted to Orthodoxy has undertaken a lifelong process of repentence with the hope of curing said accular intrusion (this being the nature of the faith). How about you? Care to join him in the adventure or are you happy simply to remain a hyporcrit?

How about you take the freakin' log from your own eye, Dreher, and quit worrying about the splinter you say you see in others' eyes? Based on your words, you sound like you will be the first one to cheer if some Muslim kills Myers for tearing up a Koran.

Of course I won't, and you may read my post above as a sign of repentance.

Now look, ds0490, if you can't conduct yourself with more civility in this forum, you will be shown the door. This is your last warning.

P.Z. Myers reminds me of that guy everyone knew in high school who would tell you how movies end, or just generally be against anything everyone else was for. In other words, a complete and utter tool. Oh, and Myers, I hope you learn something from The Dark Knight, about justice, mercy, sacrifice (you know things your secular humanism have a difficult time explaining).

A Prayer for Unbelievers
O God, the everlasting Creator of all things, remember that the souls of unbelievers were made by Thee and formed in Thine own image and likeness. Remember that Jesus, Thy Son, endured a most bitter death for their salvation. Permit not, I beseech Thee, O Lord, that Thy Son should be any longer despised by unbelievers, but do Thou graciously accept the prayers of holy men and of the Church, the Spouse of Thy most holy Son, and be mindful of Thy mercy. Forget their idolatry and unbelief, and grant that they too may some day know Him whom Thou hast sent, even the Lord Jesus Christ, who is our Salvation, our Life and Resurrection, by whom we have been saved and delivered, to whom be glory for endless ages. Amen.

Paul Zachary Myers seems a man sundered between love and hatred. Raised Lutheran, he abandonned his faith before confirmation plagued by doubt and disbelief. This is a not uncommon phenomenon among the scientifically inclined. The apostle Thomas demanded empirical proof in order to believe: intellegit qui credat (he understands that he may believe). But Myers' impassioned emotion reveals the dichotomy in his tortured soul. As the Russian proverb has it: от любви до ненависти один шаг (it is one step from love to hatred).

But ironically, his own Christian names reflect the precursor and successor of Christ. Zachariah, father of the forerunner and Baptist of the Lord, whose paean of thanksgiving is recorded in the Gospel of Luke. And Paul, persecutor of Christians, until an epiphany on the road to Damascus.

Christ Himself was desecrated by Jews and Romans with far greater malice and violence than any sham defilement devised by the deceitful Myers. But many other Jews and Romans of that time believed. In our own times, the Jews produced a Lustiger, the Romans a Pacelli. God's Will cannot be thwarted.

Myers is a tormented man, consumed at present with hatred. Hatred stirreth up strifes, but love covereth all sins. God willing, he will take that one step back from the precipice of hatred and yet be consumed with love.

Three weeks ago, NOBODY (except a handful or marine biologists) knew or cared who P.Z. Myers was. Today, everyone seems to take him very seriously indeed.

Why?

At this point, even if he CLAIMS to have flushed a host down the toilet, I'm not sure I'd believe him. He's having so much fun jerking our chains, he doesn't HAVE to do anything. Even if he's NEVER touched a consecrated host in his life, he can claim to have done so and get a rise out of us. Why take the bait?

He's one of thousands of dweebs running a web site. He's just not that important. Relax.

What I find fascinating about Myers is his casual dismissal of Catholics as "stupid." It's really proof of how profoundly insulated he must be. Hasn't he at least heard of Graham Greene, Marshall McLuhan, Alec Guiness, Evelyn Waugh Richard John Neuhaus or Thomas Merton? These are all adult converts to Catholicism. Does he believe they are stupid? I'll pray for him.

Amen, Rod.

astorian - Sure, but the Body of Christ *is* that important.

I feel somewhat sorry for Myers - he does more damage to himself than he realizes.

Well written post Rod and totally appropriate for the situation.

The man has imperiled his soul and it makes no sense to mindlessly castigate him.

I didn't know about PZ's act until your post and it reads to me like watching a man run into a building on fire; I just sort of paused.

Yes I will definitely pray for this man and his terribly misguided acts of skepticism.

For the 500th time, hosts are not just "handed out" willy nilly. There's an honor system at work, for both Catholics and non-Catholics, which presumes that people will act in good faith. Myers and his minions might not know "good faith" if it bit them on the arse, but that doesn't mean there aren't rules in place which governs who is and is not to receive.

Oh, and BTW, wondering about what would or would not be done "if doofus X did Y to Z" is really counterproductive. Yes, there are double standards at work, but that's life.

When Christians act like Christians we are at our strongest, and most likely to successfully spread the Word. Myers was completely playing the role of the troll. He got exactly the response one would expect if you watch how Christians behave now. He got anger, death threats, lawsuit threats and people claiming he should be jailed or at least fired. Christians have so politicized themselves, that they do not react like Christians. I can hardly fault ds for claiming that he would be surprised if Christians actually behaved like believers.

Suppose Christians had called his school and asked if in response they could have hosted some teaching sessions on campus about Christianity and their particular beliefs about Communion. Invite people of several faiths, not being afraid to show that there are slightly different beliefs. Offer prayers for those who do not believe and offer support for those who are unsure. Maybe do at other campuses. Why don't people trust in the power of the Good News? The Message backed up with Christian behaviors is very powerful. Lots more than any lawsuit or jail time.

If Myers, or someone like Myers, does not accept, then if you are a Christian you ought to believe that God will be the final arbiter of his actions.

Steve

Question for Rod, or any other Orthodox: does this really matter to you? My understanding of Orthodox doctrine is that the Roman Catholics do not have valid Eucharist, and some Orthodox go so far as to say even Roman baptism is invalid. Prof. Meyers is acting out of severe hostility out of hatred for all Christians. That's certainly a concern for us. But, to be precise, is he really desecrating the Eucharist from the Orthodox viewpoint? Be assured, I ask out of curiosity and not snark, as I have heard that the Roman sacraments are invalid from an Orthodox convert friend (I realize "invalidity" isn't REALLY a category for Orthodox theology, I'm referring to whatever the parallel would be)

If Professor Myers wanted to desecrate a Torah Scroll, all he'd have to do would be to purchase one (for instance from torahscrolls.net), there's no need to steal one. And the wafers in question can hardly be said to be "stolen" anyway, considering that they are freely given away during the service, and I think that you'll have a hard time arguing that not eating a gift right away constitutes theft.

Whenever or not the desecration (or even non-eating) of a communion wafer is unacceptable is one question, but it hardly helps the issue to introduce questionable legal assertions.

I can't believe you would suggest this, Rod. The university has nothing to do with it. Happy to disrupt the education so many kids are working hard to get in order to fulfill a fantasy- some a big splashy show of Christian "forgiveness?"

Have you already forgotten about the Amish and the shootings? They did not go out of their way to get attention.

If you descend en masse on teensy Morris, be sure to haul porta-potties.

Question for Rod, or any other Orthodox: does this really matter to you?

I can only answer for myself. My understanding of Orthodox Christian spirituality is that what I think of as "me" is a deception, that "I" do not *truly* exist except in and through Jesus Christ. Therefore what "I" think of someone else's Eucharist is just an ego trip.

From the just-released Orthodox Study Bible's comment on the parable of the wheat and the tares: "This parable...explains why the Church neither condemns nominal members, nor judges those outside the Church. (1 Cor. 5:12,13). Just as wheat would be destroyed in weeding out the tares, so also, many people who might ultimately find salvation would otherwise be lost if condemned before Christ's judgment."

P Z Myers is just trying to show that the cracker is just a cracker. No "embodiment of christ", no blood being spilled out of it.
Just a plain cracker, with nothing special about it besides what people think of it.

And Stefanie, if you don't "get" the militant atheist, you just need to look to the militant theist. We just want to make the world a better place. A world that people believe only in the truth.

Praying for Prof. Myers is certainly a step up from hoping the Muslims will kill him, or offering to beat him within an inch of his life yourself, so good job, Rod, as far as that goes. However, I don't think standing solemnly outside his apartment building staring up, like pod creatures from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," while praying for him, is the very best way to show love for him.

Maybe some Christians could write to the dean of his college and say that, while they disagree with his words, they don't want him fired or disciplined for expressing his personal views in his personal blog, as is his constitutional right. That would be loving as well as fair.

Or you could write him a civil, properly spelled e-mail to let him know that, as a Christian, you strongly disagree with other Christians who have threatened and insulted him, and you regret their unfortunate behavior. That would be loving as well as fair. Or you could ask if you might buy him coffee or dinner someday and hear more about why he chose to do this. Promise not to argue or get upset--just tell him you don't understand, but would like to. That would be loving.

Forcing him to contemplate a brooding, silent mass of Christians who've decided he's a special kind of cosmic loser, but are grimly IMPLORING the ALMIGHTY GOD not to BURN HIM IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY as he so richly DESERVES . . . ehhhh, maybe not so much.

Myers certainly needs prayer. But I'd wager that his actions and the comments of his fellow atheists on his blog have done more harm than good to atheism.
When I was a university student, there were these fundamentalist preachers who from time to time would come to campus and preach at people and debate out on a lawn between several buildings where classes were held. They seemed to revel in controversy and pissing people off, and debated with both non-Christians and Christians who disagreed with them. These guys made some outrageous comments, for example, accusing young ladies who walked by of being "whores" because they were wearing blue jeans instead of long skirts.
One time when these guys were on campus causing a stir (as usual) I overhear a student beside me point to the preachers and tell her friend "I don't go to church because of freaks like that." Of course, the vast majority of churches don't have preachers that yell at people and call women "whores" for wearing blue jeans. I've never seen anything that crazy in any church. But I can see why these guys give churches a bad name. If I was a non-Christian they wouldn't exactly make me interested in going to church.
Myers and others like him are the atheist version of these fundamentalist lawn preachers. I have little doubt that there are people who have read about his antics and have said to themselves "that's why I'm not an atheist." As deplorable as Myers' behavior is, he is probably doing Christianity a favor.

rr

Rod- I don't know that Myers' is the most popular science blog on the internet, but I'll assume that's true.

Fact remains, three weeks ago, I'd never heard of him, and chances are, neither had 98% of your readers.

Now, as I understand it, he's a marine biologist and an expert on the zebrafish. You think ANYBODY would be looking at his web site if he wrote primarily on the subjects in which he's a genuine expert? I doubt it! There's no way to call attention to yourself by writing about fish.

How much actual science gets discussed on his blog, anyway? Before the "cracker incident," was his just a simple, noncontroversial web site for science geeks? If it really is the most popular science site of the web, the answer is, almost certainly not.

Regardless, I srongly suspect he hasn't really done anyy of the things he claims. He doesn't have to! He can go online, CLAIM to have used the Bible for toilet paper, and get the same reaction as he would if he'd actually done it. He can make any outlandish, bullbleep claim he wants, and get Christians screaming about it.

Again, he's nobody. He meant nothing to any of us a month ago. Why give him the reaction he wants? Treat him as you would ANY troll.

"P Z Myers is just trying to show that the cracker is just a cracker. No "embodiment of christ", no blood being spilled out of it."

AFAIK the Catholic Church does not claim that desecrated hosts will bleed, nor that desecrators will be struck dead. His act will have no effect on the beliefs of Catholics, and non-Catholics are not likely to believe the host is sacred in the first place. He has done nothing to change people's beliefs.

Yea to your discussion of the importance of prayer for all sinners, Rod. But this dude Myers is an utter pig and his behavior need not be tolerated by society. I commented at length a couple of weeks ago about the criminality of the act. I'll spare you a retread of that. But in all Christian charity, the last thing anyone should be doing is taking this guy out for coffee and asking him to "share" with us the reasons why he's such a pig.

The Church excommunicates people to encourage penitential reflection and civil society may do the same. Myers does not value any association with religious believers, but he presumably does value whatever esteem and association with his colleagues and in normal decent society that he has enjoyed. If those people were to ostracize him (as they should) then maybe he'd stand a chance at realizing what an absolute swine he is.

quote:" rr, or any name you may have, atheism is a belief in truth, in reason and in logic."

Well, I don't think atheism is remotely true, nor do I find it especially logical. For example, the Positivism that undergirds much of modern atheism is self-refuting.

quote: "The way a people acts in no way affects the truth. As such, the believers may do all they want, proclaim any number of good deeds, but it will not change the truth."

Of course the way people act doesn't change whether something is true or not. That goes for any belief system, Christian, atheist, or otherwise. But the way people act often DOES play a role in either attracting or repelling people from a particular belief system. While some would like to pretend that it is otherwise, people (and this includes "logical" atheists) aren't swayed one way or the other solely on the basis of intellectual claims. After all, secularist in general and atheists specifically love to cite things like the Inquisition, the Crusades, the hypocritical behavior of t.v. preachers, or the antics of the fundamentalists I described earlier to discredit Christianity. Of course, in more recent times Christians have been able to cite the atrocities of Communists (Communism was officially atheistic and claimed to be "scientific") as well as the behavior of militant atheists such as Myers. If you don't think the behavior of folks like the fundamentalist lawn preachers and Myers turn people off, you're really fooling yourself.

quote: "Logic tells us that if a desecrated cracker do not bleed, it must not be made of flesh. And that if a lightning does not fall from the sky and hit Myers in the head, god must either be non existent, or not give a horse ass about a cracker..."

Or perhaps he is slow to anger and is merciful to a fool like Myers. Or perhaps God doesn't want to play Myers' silly game anymore than he wanted to do the same with Mussolini, a militant atheist who once got up on a chair in front of a bunch of people and dared God to strike him dead.

rr

The Consecration of the Eucharist at the Mass is a participation across all time with the Crucifixion of Christ. Perhaps one may participate in the Crucifixion today in two ways: as one of the faithful with veneration and worship, and as one of those who tortured and killed our Lord.

Calling our Lord a cracker and flushing Him down a toilet resembles ripping His flesh from His body with a whip, beating Him, crowing Him with thorns and ridicule.

Two prayers come to mind.

Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.

Oh my Jesus, forgive us of our sin, save us from the fires of Hell, and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy Mercy.

Roland de Chanson, I love your suggestion:

"If I were at that school, I would get a bunch of friends together, have a few beers, and dress up in Torquemada-type cassocks and burst into his office like in the Monty Python skit. He'd probably take a heart attack even before he heard the words "Spanish Inquisition.""

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition." (My personal favorite Monty Python bit is the discussion "What's Rome ever done for us?" in "Life of Brian.")

Uh, no one was eviscerated by angry believers. Eviscerated means having all the internal organs taken out.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson | July 24, 2008 1:54 PM

"Eviscerated" was used as a figurative expression Susan, and not meant to be taken literally.
The second definition below is what I was getting at.

eviscerate |iˈvisəˌrāt|
verb [ trans. ] formal
1) disembowel (a person or animal) : the goat had been skinned and neatly eviscerated.
2) figurative deprive (something) of its essential content : myriad little concessions that would eviscerate the project.

You are much closer to the point though when you state that "...someone who loves truth as he sees it and hates falsehood and deception, feels that the truth is of benefit to anyone and therefore wants to undeceive the deceived." But you lose me when bring "God" back into it. God is not necessary to oppose deception.

Poor PZ Myers. When he dies, the magical, invisible part of himself will not go to the magical, invisible place that is nice, and live forever with your magical, invisible friend in the sky; rather, the magical, invisible part of Mr. Myers will instead go to the magical, invisible place that is bad, and be tortured forever by your magical, invisible enemy.
Hey, here's an idea: Why don't you grow up? Why don't you just face the fact that death is not pretend, but that it is the permanent end of all experience?

The debate is highly interesting in the sense that it seems that from either side the same type of arguing is used and that that is also considered proof that 'we' are right and 'they' are wrong. Wrongs of ones own camp are ignored, wrongs from the other side are put on display. For good measure, unrelated subjects are brought in (creationism and evolution).

To me it seems to proof that whether you consider yourself an atheist or Christian, or any other (non-)religion (in my case, buddhism, the atheist kind - that's ), it says little to nothing about you, besides maybe a certain book you might have on your shelf. Everyone molds ones believes to one's persona.

Be that as it may, I like to offer an alternative. For those inclined to destroy objects, choose buddhist statues (like the Taliban - I had no problem with that, rather blowing up statues than people) and books. For those considering anyone outside his (non-)religion to be, at the very least, misguided, take on buddhists. We are, after all, self-centered lazy bums that offer no other help than telling others to do it themselves (I'm sure there are people out there that can do much better, don't hold back).

Since Dr. Myers desecrated a copy of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion along with the cracker, why don't you contact Dr. Dawkins? Surely Professor Dawkins and his followers would be willing to help you pray for the soul of Dr. Myers?

The whole "cracker caper" was in response to the person who took a communion wafer without eating it and was attacked and eviscerated by angry believers.

Wrong. Not even close. Not only was Mr. Webster Cook not "attacked," his complaint about the incident was dismissed and he is now being impeached by UCF's Student Senate, of which he is a member. I suspect Myers leapt to Cook's aid because he recognized a fellow jerk.

http://nickmilne.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/prof-meyers-webster-cook-and-the-eucharist/

http://nickmilne.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/webster-cook-impeached/

Not only was Mr. Webster Cook not "attacked,"
Posted by: Dale Price | July 24, 2008 3:32 PM

Another "literalist" trips over his own inanity.

Just as "eviscerate" was used figuratively, so was "attacked". Cook was verbally attacked and threatened repeatedly since the incident took place.

Myers has posted a new comment on his blog.

He concludes with this-

"I didn't want to single out just the cracker, so I nailed it to a few ripped-out pages from the Qur'an and The God Delusion. They are just paper. Nothing must be held sacred. Question everything. God is not great, Jesus is not your lord, you are not disciples of any charismatic prophet. You are all human beings who must make your way through your life by thinking and learning, and you have the job of advancing humanities' knowledge by winnowing out the errors of past generations and finding deeper understanding of reality. You will not find wisdom in rituals and sacraments and dogma, which build only self-satisfied ignorance, but you can find truth by looking at your world with fresh eyes and a questioning mind.

So anyway, if PZ really did put a nail through God, how come nothing happened?

Also, apparently one of the eucharists he got was several years old. How come no one noticed that God was missing all this time?

The translated Myers:

"Question everything--*except* when I tell you about what a load of hokum religion is. *That's* not open to debate."

"Question everything--*except* when I tell you about what a load of hokum religion is. *That's* not open to debate."

I take it you didn't notice the copy of The God Delusion that PZ threw in the trash along with the God-biscuit?

Except you said: "Why don't you just face the fact that death is not pretend, but that it is the permanent end of all experience?"

What we observe about corpses says nothing about the afterlife and whether or not death is "the end of all experience" or whether there is indeed life after death. So again, you have no evidence for your claims.

rr

"P.Z. Myers has provided quite a witness for what militant atheism is capable of."

HE DESTROYED A CRACKER. Come on! Some sanity and perspective please!

"I didn't want to single out just the cracker, so I nailed it to a few ripped-out pages from the Qur'an and The God Delusion. They are just paper. Nothing must be held sacred. Question everything. God is not great, Jesus is not your lord, you are not disciples of any charismatic prophet. You are all human beings who must make your way through your life by thinking and learning, and you have the job of advancing humanities' knowledge by winnowing out the errors of past generations and finding deeper understanding of reality. You will not find wisdom in rituals and sacraments and dogma, which build only self-satisfied ignorance, but you can find truth by looking at your world with fresh eyes and a questioning mind.”

Myers’ quote above shows that as with Dawkins and Hitchens, he is a superstitious, sentimentalist atheist. If God does not exist, then human beings aren’t made in God’s image and don't have any intrinsic dignity or worth. They aren’t any more valuable than any other species such as ants. So there is no point in doing something for “humanity” such as having ones "job" as “advancing humanities’ knowledge” or some such idealistic drivel. Morality also is non-existent at worst, or at best merely a social construct. So no reason to get all worked about things such as helping the poor or even genocide either. If there is no God, then the “humanistic” aspect of “secular humanism” is a load of sentimentalist rubbish. The logical course of action in a world with no God is to pursue a hedonistic lifestyle. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. That these “new atheists” are interested in humanity in the first place and make moral claims just illustrates how illogical they are and how unwilling they are to follow atheism to its only logical conclusion, namely nihilistic hedonism.

rr

Why do you confuse hate with making fun of? PZ has never said that he hates Christians, god, crackers, etc... He just thinks (like many of us) that this is an irrational belief that merits no respect. So don't put words into peoples mouths because this can lead to people who read your blog to misinterpret the whole message PZ is trying to get across (Which I'm afraid is your real intention).

"What would he do if Catholics and other Christians, and even sympathetic members of other faiths, turned up en masse on his campus simply to pray quietly for him?"
Of course, that won't happen. Many Christians will continue to use hateful language in response to Myers, thus proving his point that labeling oneself as belong to a class of morally enlightened people does not make it so. They will continue to bray on crassly, threatening their atheist opponents will eternal pain via a magical, omnipotent proxy, clearly aware that they have to resort to coercive tactics to make up for their lack of persuasive arguments.
Well done, believers!

Hey, Juan--I love to make fun of the innumerable stupid customs of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Cubans, Venezuelans--pretty much every Spanish speaking culture in the Western Hemisphere. I do it all the time. Especially since Hispanics are becoming more influential as they immigrate to this country and try to change it.

But rest assured I have no hate in my heart for Latinos. Whereever did you get that idea?

"As much as we can, let's answer hate with love.
I confess that this is hard for me to say,..."
Why is that hard for a Christian to say? Isn't that the most basic, most fundamental, thing that Christ preaches in the New Testament?
Posted by: --bill | July 24, 2008 3:44 PM

Yeah, I've often wondered why so few Christians behave as Christ commanded them to do.

If there is no God, then the “humanistic” aspect of “secular humanism” is a load of sentimentalist rubbish. The logical course of action in a world with no God is to pursue a hedonistic lifestyle. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. That these “new atheists” are interested in humanity in the first place and make moral claims just illustrates how illogical they are and how unwilling they are to follow atheism to its only logical conclusion, namely nihilistic hedonism.
rr
Posted by: rr | July 24, 2008 4:28 PM

I do not agree that nihilistic hedonism is the only logical response to the absence of God, or even a logical response.

In the absence of a True Ultimate, a person's reason for being is simply a matter of personal preference. Many will prefer hedonism, but some will prefer a more sedate, dare I say stoic, way of life.

A classic error in thinking from a believer:
"Myers’ quote... shows that as with Dawkins and Hitchens, he is a superstitious, sentimentalist atheist. If God does not exist, then human beings aren’t made in God’s image and don't have any intrinsic dignity or worth. They aren’t any more valuable than any other species such as ants. So there is no point in doing something for 'humanity' such as having ones 'job' as 'advancing humanities’ knowledge' or some such idealistic drivel."
Their reasoning was perfect until the last sentence, where they make it clear that they do not know what a "conscience" is or how it works.
Just because I know the difference between "an absolute dignity or worth" of humanity and "my personal sense of dignity or worth" of our species, does not cripple my moral judgement. Rather, it enhances my sense of right and wrong.
Believers who express such ideas clearly do not trust their own sense of justice to depend on it -- or even know it exists. How sad.

Again, you ignore the question of personal taste. Perhaps it simply pleases atheistic humanists to advance humanity or to help the poor.
Posted by: John E. - the agnostic stoic one, not the finance teaching one | July 24, 2008 5:05 PM

Except Prof. Myers posits that working for the advancement of humanity is a greater good that requires the abandonment of what he considers to be harmful superstitions. I stand with rr on this one... on what basis does Prof. Myers claim that the good of humanity is something worth improving? Note that Myers doesn't simply offer it as an alternative or matter of preference - he says it's our job.

I have to agree with something Susan Petersen suggested above. There is a difference amongst desecraters who do it with fanfare such as Myers (if he really did it), and juvenile mentalities of any age who sneak the consecrated host out of the church to stomp on it with laughter for peer group approval, and the lone and mentally imbalanced individual who quietly takes the consecrated host and quietly desecrates it--whether by dumping it on the street or flushing it at home or disposing of it in many another imaginable way. And then the truly diabolical if any such exist. What faith the truly diabolical must have even to be bothered!

Surely Our Lord knew that the consecrated host would be abused and why it would be abused and how He would handle it.

I like to think that once I was called on to handle it. And not by "eviscerating" anyone although some friends have suggested I might have been eviscerating myself.

A true story. In my city, notwithstanding the "Harvey Milk Law", a wise person visually scans the sidewalk as one walks on it. About ten years ago I was walking home one Sunday afternoon from a little grocery shopping along a side street and scanning the sidewalk as usual. I saw a round, whitish object in front of my next natural footfall. Too off-white to be the inside of a bottle cap although of the right diameter my brain quickly registered. And then it hit me and I bent down for closer examination and indeed it was a host with the cross stamped on it. I have no idea how it got there or if it was consecrated. I picked it up, blew off the dust, and consumed it on the spot.

I think my "reward" was that not long thereafter a friend recruited me for hospital eucharistic ministry which I have been doing ever since.

The only outrage in this situation is that PZ was so uncreative in his treatment of this cracker. Me? I probably would have put it in a sandwich bag and kept in the freezer for a long time.

If Jesus Christ means nothing to Meyers and his supporters, why bother taking and desecrating the simple, humble host in which he comes to us for no other reason than to give us life? Our Eucharists do not harm you, why do you wish to hurt us? Just let us worship in peace.

If Jesus Christ means nothing to Meyers and his supporters, why bother taking and desecrating the simple, humble host in which he comes to us for no other reason than to give us life? Our Eucharists do not harm you, why do you wish to hurt us? Just let us worship in peace.

There may be late-comers, so I think it's appropriate to bring them up to date. PZ Myers' original blog entry was an expression of disgust at death threats directed at a University of Central Florida student, Webster Cook, who had taken a consecrated host out of his mouth and subsequently taken it home in a ziplock bag.

Whatever you think of Professor Myers, death threats are unacceptable. Christians shouldn't condone such behavior, and I'm sure nobody involved in this blog thread would condone such threats.

PZ Myers has "desecrated" the eucharist, a copy of the Koran and (for extra study points) a copy of the Richard Dawkins bestseller, The God Delusion. He stuck a rusty nail into a piece of consecrated bread dough, ripped pages from the books, and tossed them into his household rubbish bin.

He has threatened no lives, he has not interfered with anybody's practice of religion, and he has done no harm. He has received countless death threats but does not treat them too seriously. He is somebody who disagrees with the idea that a consecrated wafer is different from any other wafer, and he's also opposed to the intimidation of people who happen to take food out of their mouths.

And he has expressed disrespect for a practice the he does not respect, and that in his defensible view has led to the intimidation of another person who, though he may have disrupted a church service, clearly did not deserve to be threatened with death.

Our Eucharists do not harm you, why do you wish to hurt us? Just let us worship in peace.

Well, that's not how people reacted in previous threads on the topic.

Saint Boniface chopped down the majestic Oak of Donar in Fritzlar to demonstrate to the local pagans that their idolatry and magical claims were mistaken. He even constructed a chapel hut from the timbers iirc.

I suspect the pagans also began chanting their holy songs and credos and curses and dogmatic rationalizations to deal with the cognitive dissonance when Donar didn't cast lightening bolts and kill Boniface.

When it's your Holy Oak being chopped down, that Makes It All Different, of course.

>why bother taking and desecrating the simple, humble host in which he >comes to us for no other reason than to give us life?

You're confusing symbolism for reality.
The Eucharist is theater, used to make Catholics feel that they're closer to their god. Nothing was actually harmed by Dr. Myers skewering of a prop. There are still many more available, and you are free to continue your rituals.

I'm not really against mistaking ritual for reality if it makes you feel better and you don't get any oppressive laws passed, but lashing out at someone for pointing out the truth about your rituals is just wrong.

"Except Prof. Myers posits that working for the advancement of humanity is a greater good that requires the abandonment of what he considers to be harmful superstitions."

TR: I suppose that's not entirely wrong, except my view of "harmful superstition" wouldn't be his. In parts of Africa there is a harmful superstition about albinos. Maybe Christians could form some kind of albino support group that initializes as PZ. Something that would actually help people.

Judging by his followers my hope for a dialogue was a bit naive. Still hopefully there are enough fair-minded atheists and Christians in the world to develop some level of mutual peace and compassion. We should probably also be doing more to prevent desecration of American Indian sites, taking this as a kind of warning about disrespect and insensitivity.

"Death threats against a student who innocently wanted to show a host to his roommate who was curious about Catholicism. (That's why started the whole thing - Myers didn't just wake up one day and decide to desecrate a host.) Actual violence against said student and efforts to get him expelled from his university."

Wrong. And again, wrong. Repeating Cook's lies about what happened and Myers' uncritical acceptance of bullshit doesn't make it any more true.

There was no "actual violence" (unless you count a woman half his weight touching his arm "actual violence) and the only "evidence" for death threats came from the proven liar Webster Cook. You and Myers have a lot of...faith...in Mr. Cook.

http://nickmilne.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/prof-meyers-webster-cook-and-the-eucharist/

For freethinkers, you sure parrot each other a lot.

And Thomas R, rest assured that there are plenty of non-Christians who think Myers is a horse's ass. An atheist friend of mine went so far as to say he wouldn't be even slightly upset if a group of Catholics beat the crap out of him. I didn't agree, but there you go.

"I live pretty close to a major city, so the Catholics I know are educated enough to understand communion is not literal."

Actually, your it's your Catholic friends who are as dumb as stumps, theologically speaking. They wouldn't even be good Lutherans, as far as the Sacrament is concerned. From the Catechism:

1356 If from the beginning Christians have celebrated the Eucharist and in a form whose substance has not changed despite the great diversity of times and liturgies, it is because we know ourselves to be bound by the command the Lord gave on the eve of his Passion: "Do this in remembrance of me."183

1357 We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#V

Oh, dawkins, an atheist fundy.

Yes, J, you *can* be as dumb as a stump theologically, even from your crabbed "reality"-based perspective. If you assert that Muslims really worship Muhammad in your Comparative Religion class, you are stupid and aren't going to get an "A."

In short, nonbelievers (not the hopelessly lethargic and self-satisfied such as yourself, natch) study theological concepts they don't believe in all the time. There are objectively wrong answers about religion irrespective, and your supposed Catholic friends are wrong about what they are supposed to believe about the Mass. They might believe as you say, but it's not Catholic belief. It's also not surprising, given what's passed for Catholic education over the past 40 years.

If you truly have Catholic friends, please remain the pleasant two-faced hypocrite that you have to be in real life and don't display the fanged superiority complex you show here. Not, at least, if you want to keep them.

I teach English at one of Asia's premier science and technology universities, working with its graduate school of life science. There are many Christians in the department, both among the faculty and students.

And even among the non-Christians and atheists, such a juvenile act as was performed by Myers would never be considered. In Confucian societies, the title "professor" presupposes a certain level of maturity.

Also, the professors and students here in South Korea tend to stay in their labs until midnight or after everyday of the week, studying protein interactions and such things that might someday lead to cures for cancers and other diseaseas.

Myers has got too much time on his hands and thus does the Devil's work to cover up the fact that he's not a very good scientist.

quote: "Their reasoning was perfect until the last sentence, where they make it clear that they do not know what a "conscience" is or how it works.
Just because I know the difference between "an absolute dignity or worth" of humanity and "my personal sense of dignity or worth" of our species, does not cripple my moral judgement. Rather, it enhances my sense of right and wrong.
Believers who express such ideas clearly do not trust their own sense of justice to depend on it -- or even know it exists. How sad."

Wrong again. It's not that I don't trust my own sense of justice. It's that I don't any logical reason to believe in concepts such as "justice" or "right" or "wrong" in a world without God. If there is no God, you're superstitious to hold to outdated religious ideas such as "right" and "wrong." An atheist who believes in "right" and "wrong" is as illogical as an atheist who prays every day.

rr

quote: "Again, you ignore the question of personal taste. Perhaps it simply pleases atheistic humanists to advance humanity or to help the poor."

Well, I don't doubt that it pleases some atheistic humanists to advance humanity or help the poor. But my overall point still stands. Ethics, what is right or wrong, is by nature universal. Saying that one shouldn't kill, steal, or lie, for example, isn't about personal preferences. If it is, then an atheistic humanist has no more reason to condemn a person who steals from the poor or even kills them than they do to condemn someone who prefers eating apple pie to chocolate cake. After all, while it might please an atheistic humanists to help the poor, there are people out there who likewise derive pleasure from stealing from them and killing them.

rr

"Myers's point is precisely about how dodgy the whole Eucharist theology is."

That gives Myers waaaaay too much credit. He couldn't explain Eucharistic theology if you spotted him an $8 catechism and another 50 IQ points.

His "point" was to extend a middle finger to Catholics in response to a story about an abused "freethinker" he never bothered to investigate and which ultimately proved to be false. Ready. Fire! Aim.

The good thing for the general publich is that he works with beakers and not firearms.

Saying that one shouldn't kill, steal, or lie, for example, isn't about personal preferences. If it is, then an atheistic humanist has no more reason to condemn a person who steals from the poor or even kills them than they do to condemn someone who prefers eating apple pie to chocolate cake. After all, while it might please an atheistic humanists to help the poor, there are people out there who likewise derive pleasure from stealing from them and killing them.
rr
Posted by: rr | July 24, 2008 10:37 PM

Well then you get into the whole question of what makes for a stable society. A society in which murder, theft and falsehoods are approved will be an inherently less stable society than one in which these actions are condemned.

And, yes, that does simply move the question back a step to why should one prefer a stable society.

I suggest that stable societies have a 'survival' advantage over unstable ones and that stable societies that promote ethical behavior have a survival advantage over those that do not.

In Confucian societies, the title "professor" presupposes a certain level of maturity.

Yes, South Korea's biology academia has certainly avoided international and scientific embarrassment recently.

Also, the professors and students here in South Korea tend to stay in their labs until midnight or after everyday of the week, studying protein interactions and such things that might someday lead to cures for cancers and other diseases.

Oh, so have I and my peers during grad school, often before that, and certainly long after. So did our advisers, so will our students.

And without getting into specifics, let's just say that curing cancer has gone from from "might" to "will" on this side of the Pacific among people in the know. Not a Christian in the bunch as far as I know.

Myers has got too much time on his hands and thus does the Devil's work to cover up the fact that he's not a very good scientist.

Can't say his work looks bad to me on cursory inspection, and I'm in the biz. But you're a specialist and can certainly point out some errors he's making, I'm sure.

He couldn't explain Eucharistic theology if you spotted him an $8 catechism and another 50 IQ points.

Of course not. It doesn't make any sense in the first place.

You don't need to be a chicken to know what an egg is. And you don't need a pile of catechisms and years in a seminary to know that Eucharist theology is sectarian assertions that contradict with no sufficient Biblical basis to decide between them.

"Of course not. It doesn't make any sense in the first place."

Indeed. Hence the convenient dodge of it being simply a "mystery."

And you know the entire cancer research community in the Pacific? And they'd tell you their religious preference because...?

Those particular people have probably drowned by now, unfortunately.

It would nice of you to read what I actually wrote, btw, and recognize that the implied reference was to "people in the know".

"But what would he do if the response to his hideous blasphemy is ... love? What would he do if Catholics and other Christians, and even sympathetic members of other faiths, turned up en masse on his campus simply to pray quietly for him?"

Sadness would be my guess.
Surprise, of course... then sadness.

Once again, the Catholics-as-baby-seals meme shows up: they're so nice, so good, so reverent, wanting only to be allowed to worship Jesus in the form of a flat, white piece of non-bread. Why would PZ Myers or anyone be so meeean as to affront their sacramentals?

Well, possibly because the supernatural specialness of the eucharistic wafer has been used in the past as an excuse for mass lynchings of Jews in which men, women and children were burned alive and their property expropriated. Check out the history of "host desecration." A sacrament that is used as a pretext to murder people loses some of its credibility as an object of blameless veneration.

Maybe some of the learned church historians here who know more than I do could explain why it was okay with Jesus that his own people, Jews, were murdered by Christians in pretended defense of the purity of the wafer. It was Christians who concluded that those human lives were of no value. Perhaps these learned people could also explain why it was okay for the Catholic Church to promulgate punitive doctrines to tax and expropriate Jews in a dhimmi-like fashion, and to force them to dress in a special manner and wear a badge that predated the Nazi stigma by centuries. The long history of murderous anti-Semitism in the Christian/Catholic church cannot be popped down the oubliette by JPII's tightly-constrained non-apology. There are reasons why Catholics and their symbols are held in disdain by some. They've done some bad, bad things, and as long as they react to reminders of that fact by threats and bluster, those things will still be held against them.

I suggest that stable societies have a 'survival' advantage over unstable ones and that stable societies that promote ethical behavior have a survival advantage over those that do not.
Posted by: John E. - agn stoic | July 24, 2008 11:17 PM

You've just succeeded in moving the question back again. Why should I care whether "stable societies that promote ethical behavior have a survival advantage," and what's ethical behavior if it's merely defined by personal preference?

Without eternal transcendence it would seem that we do not exist as persons at all, in fact. For if we cease to exist at all when we die, and only exist in time, then it would seem that our personhood is merely illusory. So that in the most essential sense we do not really exist at all. We would be merely organized energy under the passing delusion of personhood.
Posted by: Charles Curtis | July 25, 2008 4:33 AM

Cogito, ergo sum.

Your statement seems to imply that things that only exist temporarily are essentially illusionary. That doesn't make any sense.

Organized energy under the passing delusion of personhood?

My Dear Sir - that organized energy is our personhood.

When we die, the energy (and matter) disorganizes. This is known as Death.

Le sigh . . . it appears I've blown on the embers of a dying thread and once again the same indignation blazes up. Naughty me.

Rod, you're missing two points here. First of all, you're still spelling my name wrong. Sob. We've known each other so long now, dear Ron Dryer, and yet you don't really know me after all . . . .

Secondly, and far more important, you're missing the point that this whole kerfuffle would never have occurred had Catholics responded temperately, reasonably, and kindly to what they considered the misappropriation of a consecrated wafer. Had they distanced themselves by word and deed from the vile past behavior of their church, they would not now be held accountable for it. Unfortunately, many of them have shown themselves still to be in the grip of a set of beliefs that rates human life as contemptible, compared to the well-being of a form of Jesus that looks to the rest of the world like a cracker, even though the eyes of belief proclaim it as something of supreme value. As proponents of the same kinds of belief that caused murder in an earlier era, they are perceived as dangerous and in need of opposition.

And yes, I think they should "suck it up," as you put it so elegantly, because the founder of their religion--he whom they believe to be still visibly present among them in the form of this disputed wafer--ordered them to do so. If they don't respect their own divine leader, how do they expect that anyone else should? By turning belief in Jesus into an excuse to make war on your fellow humans, you completely nullify any claims that your form of tribalism has transcendent value over other tribalisms.

Ideas have consequences, yes indeed they do. And one of the consequences of the fetishization of the Host has been murder. Until Catholics decisively distance themselves from the bad idea that they have to right to make others suffer, then they will suffer the consequences of their own bad ideas--as they have made others suffer, much more severely, in the past.

You've just succeeded in moving the question back again. Why should I care whether "stable societies that promote ethical behavior have a survival advantage," and what's ethical behavior if it's merely defined by personal preference?
Posted by: djrakowski | July 25, 2008 8:23 AM

Well, yes, I believe I mentioned in my post that it just pushes the question back.

Why should you care? No reason at all, Good Sir, none at all.

However, if you engage in unethical behavior - as defined by your society that you find yourself in - you will suffer unpleasant sanctions of various sorts. Enlightened self-interest should guide your actions.

sigaliris: Perhaps these learned people could also explain why it was okay for the Catholic Church to promulgate punitive doctrines to tax and expropriate Jews in a dhimmi-like fashion, and to force them to dress in a special manner and wear a badge that predated the Nazi stigma by centuries. The long history of murderous anti-Semitism in the Christian/Catholic church cannot be popped down the oubliette by JPII's tightly-constrained non-apology. There are reasons why Catholics and their symbols are held in disdain by some.

I pass over your feckless broad-brushing of two millenia of history; so blinkered a view reveals either invincible ignorance or malign tendentiousness. Were you to take the same heavy hand to expunging the anti-Christian scurrilities that pervade the Talmud, you would obliterate much sublime wisdom as well.

The religious and tribal violence of Semites long antedates the Incarnation. Today long after it still bloodies the Semitic heartland. Christians there are the victims caught in the crossfire.

Nihil nimis is good counsel for historians as well.

However, if you engage in unethical behavior - as defined by your society that you find yourself in - you will suffer unpleasant sanctions of various sorts. Enlightened self-interest should guide your actions.
Posted by: John E. - Agn Stoic | July 25, 2008 9:23 AM

In other words, standards are set by democracy, and the only reason to comply is to avoid "unpleasant sanctions." Sounds a bit like "might makes right" to me.

Define "enlightened self-interest." To me, it seems like you're saying that aggrieved minorities - ALL of them - ought to suck it up and allow those with more money, power and influence to determine how they're to behave. Either that, or they deserve whatever they get.

I wonder how you might react if that aggrieved minority were homosexuals.

Gosh, Rod, I'm flattered that you take the trouble to engage with me so energetically at this hour of the morning. I don't think you are helping your argument by dragging the Muslims into it at every opportunity, though. You've already established that you feel quite justified in mocking and disrespecting the bad ideas in Islam. When your beliefs are mocked, it's "contempt." When you mock others, it's just "criticism." Potatoes, potahtoes . . . . Point is, Islam doesn't call for turning the other cheek. Your religion does. This is a problem you are going to have to deal with.

must suffer gross indignities, insult and offense without complaint Naughty, naughty. I'm afraid you can't slip words into my mouth before I've had my second cup of coffee. "Complaint" is not the issue here, as I'm sure you're well aware. It's still a free country--at least, as long as the Attorney General doesn't decide I'm a terrorist--so anyone who wants to is entitled to complain at length. "Waah, you have desecrated my sacraments, and I am outraged. That was very wrong of you! Why would you do such a mean thing?" No problem. However, threatening to beat someone up, or exerting pressure to get him fired, involves much more than complaining. This shows will and action to do him harm, and that is what I'm objecting to. If you want to bring the Muslims into it, tell me if you think it's okay for them to threaten you and try to take your job away. I know they have done this, in response to your "criticism," but my impression was that you didn't like it and thought it was unfair.

I'm only giving Catholics the same advice that any good confessor would: take responsibility for your own part in any dispute. Humbly admit your fault, resolve to change, and do your best to make reparation for it. Stop trying to play the victim and gloss over your own misdeeds. Abandon self-justification, injured dignity, and minimizing the pain you have caused.

True, "Admonish the sinner" and "Instruct the ignorant" are on the list of spiritual works of mercy. So admonish and instruct all you like. Just remember that numbers 5 and 6 on that list are "Bear wrongs patiently" and "Forgive all injuries." That's ALL injuries, not just the ones that don't really hurt very much. I'm not the one who made this stuff up, you know.

Bravo, Rob G at 7:30am:

"After reading this entire thread it becomes gobsmackingly obvious that most of the atheists here not only don't understand religion, but they don't have enough accurate knowledge of it to offer anything like an informed critique. They are like Slayer fans attempting to analyze Bruckner's 9th."

I trust you won't mind if I quote that on my blog.

And, sigaliris, the gist of what you're saying here is inescapable: Catholics have it coming, and you're not at all displeased to see them getting it. Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that the instinct that holds it fitting to punish the present members of a group for the sins of past members is precisely the sort of historical scapegoating that you deplore. In the words of T-Bone Burnett, "Watch out for / The trap door."

Sig: You've already established that you feel quite justified in mocking and disrespecting the bad ideas in Islam. When your beliefs are mocked, it's "contempt." When you mock others, it's just "criticism." Potatoes, potahtoes

Wrong. I don't have any serious problem with Myers saying he thinks Christianity is bunkum for morons, and that the Eucharist is a "sad little cracker." I don't have a serious problem with anyone saying he thinks Islam is barbaric and wrong and insane. What I do have a big problem with is obtaining a Eucharist and engaging in a public act of desecration as a provocation. I do have a big problem with obtaining a Koran and doing same. We see this in wartime: it's why Serbs desecrated mosques in Bosnia and Kosovo, and why Muslims desecrated churches and monasteries in same. To shit on what anybody holds sacred is categorically different from criticism. It is an act. A pure materialist like Myers does not recognize this distinction, but it is a social and psychological reality, at the very least.

We are talking, in secular terms, about the difference between saying, "That's a bad book and people shouldn't read it," and throwing the book on a bonfire. Not a perfect analogy, but you see what I'm getting at.

I have already said elsewhere on this blog that I am against anyone trying to get P.Z. Myers fired from his job because of his cretinous behavior. But that doesn't mean he gets a pass. I will repeat: your outrage, Sig, is selective. You wouldn't stand for this kind of treatment for any other religion or group, and you shouldn't. But Catholics, well, they're special to you, it seems.

"Or are Catholics uniquely wicked in Sig world?"

No, Sig is bullish on men too.

Now, Catholic Men must certainly be double-plus wicked in Sig World.

I tremble to think what Sig thinks I have coming to me.

Rob G, your assertion proves my point that anti-Semitism is a deep and ugly current within Christianity, one that has not yet been extirpated. Keep digging; that hole gets deeper with every comment.

Max, you're not as sharp as usual this morning. Bull markets, according to the Forbes Investopedia, "are characterized by optimism, investor confidence and expectations that strong results will continue." I do not feel optimism or investor confidence in either the Catholic Church or men as a general group. I do not expect what I would consider strong results from either. I hope for this--but I would not bet money on it. Sorry, you don't qualify for a bullish investment recommendation.

As to what you do qualify for, I leave that up to the Goddess in all Her Mighty and Merciful Omnipotence to determine. Be assured that She knows your every thought. . . .

Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.
Posted by: John E. - Agn Stoic | July 25, 2008 10:26 AM

One could then make the argument that Hitler was acting out of enlightened self-interest, for the greater good of German society, by attempting to wipe Jews off the planet. He was acting on behalf of the betterment of German society, after all.

Doesn't that pretty much cover how aggrieved minorities have been treated under conservative rules? Women: suck it up and shut up. Blacks: suck it up and shut up. Jews: suck it up and shut up. Immigrants: suck it up and shut up. Poor people: suck it up and shut up. Gays and lesbians: suck it up and shut up.
Posted by: sigaliris | July 25, 2008 11:05 AM

sig, this is pretty much how it operates in any society where the majority determines morality by means of the democratic process, not just conservative rules (see how it's playing itself out in Canada, for example, when Christian ministers dare to publicly state their religious teachings on homosexuality, regardless of calls to arms). John E's chosen philosophy of enlightened self-interest extends this principle to every minority - including those with conservative (especially religiously conservative) views, not just women, blacks, Jews, immigrants and homosexuals.

'Anonymous' at 12:07 PM was me - sorry about that

Oh sig, there are OTHER definitions. I would think that with your proclivity of rushing to your dictionary you would know that.

And then there are the punny possibilities...

However, I'd not like to engage in the endless game of paybacks, which is why I take exception to your apparent attempts to justify the actions of Prof. Myers on the basis of past persecution of Jews.

Agreed, djrakowski, and since you're not playing "gotcha" with me, I'll answer in the same spirit. You've assumed, like Rod and others, that I'm engaged in an attempt to "justify" PZ Myers. Not really . . . what I intended to engage in was an attempt to call Christians to account for their own behavior, before they attack others from a position of injured innocence. I just think it is disingenuous to behave as if things Christians hold sacred are now and have always been pure and unsullied symbols, never used for any contemptible purpose. I believe you're right, that it's time for the payback to end--something Jesus pointed out long ago.

I think the best way for Christians to initiate that process would be to refrain from desecrating their own sacraments by revengeful and angry words and acts. Jesus said, "If your brother has something against you, leave your offering at the altar and go make things right with him first." Not "if you have something against HIM," mind you, but "if he has something against YOU." Even if he is the angry one, it is your job to go seek him out before you can enter into communion with God.

I venerated the Eucharist myself for over fifty years, and I wouldn't stick a nail through it. But it just baffles me how eager some Christians are to ditch their own God and his teachings for the sake of a little immediate gratification. Jesus also said "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me." So, if a Christian punches an atheist in the face, he's punching Jesus. And as a Christian, he's doing so in full awareness of the act, unlike an atheist puncturing a cracker-like object that holds no meaning for him. If Christians will strike their own God in anger, how can they complain that others don't respect their teachings?

You've assumed, like Rod and others, that I'm engaged in an attempt to "justify" PZ Myers. Not really . . . what I intended to engage in was an attempt to call Christians to account for their own behavior, before they attack others from a position of injured innocence.
Posted by: sigaliris | July 25, 2008 12:36 PM

I'll accept this comment in good faith, though I don't recall any time at which you've called Prof. Myers to account for his actions (and I humbly request that you prove me wrong if you have). It almost seemed (and again, please correct any mistaken impressions) as though you were saying he was justified in acting in a deliberately provocative manner because Christians have done really, really horrible things in the past (which is something I suspect every Christian of good faith would freely admit).

I don't care what Prof. Myers thinks about my faith. It's what he's done that's so infuriating, especially when you consider that no Christian had actually done anything to him prior to his public pledge to desecrate that which we hold most dear (at least, nothing that I can discern from having briefly visited his blog). So he's acting like a jerk now because of what Christians have done to other people in the past.

If Christians will strike their own God in anger, how can they complain that others don't respect their teachings?
Posted by: sigaliris | July 25, 2008 12:36 PM

With this, I can agree wholeheartedly. However, I'd like to extend the same expectation to Prof. Myers.

Teena H. Blackburn, that's an excellent post, with an insight greatly appreciated.

But nobody can top Rob G, who sums up this brouhaha flawlessly:

After reading this entire thread it becomes gobsmackingly obvious that most of the atheists here not only don't understand religion, but they don't have enough accurate knowledge of it to offer anything like an informed critique. They are like Slayer fans attempting to analyze Bruckner's 9th.

One could then make the argument that Hitler was acting out of enlightened self-interest, for the greater good of German society, by attempting to wipe Jews off the planet. He was acting on behalf of the betterment of German society, after all.

One could make that argument, but it is refuted by what I think is the rather powerful argument that his persecution of the Jews harmed German society, especially their war effort.

Imagine, if you will how WWII would have turned out had Hitler incorporated Jewish scientists and engineers into his war effort. Take a look at the history of the Manhattan Project and see how many of those physicists were refugees from Nazi Germany.

John E's chosen philosophy of enlightened self-interest extends this principle to every minority - including those with conservative (especially religiously conservative) views, not just women, blacks, Jews, immigrants and homosexuals.

I'm not sure if you meant this, but I wouldn't want folks to think that I believe that enlightened self-interest requires all minorities to suck it up and shut up.

Sometimes to further the interests of society a person can legitimately work to change social norms through peaceful protest.

Heck, they sound just like people. Who knew?
Posted by: Max Schadenfreude | July 25, 2008 12:53 PM

Well, I think that is the point.

You guys claim to follow a superior morality and that you are New Creatures, sanctified by the Blood of Jesus - but your actions aren't different from those of the rest of us.

You guys claim to follow a superior morality and that you are New Creatures, sanctified by the Blood of Jesus - but your actions aren't different from those of the rest of us.
Posted by: John E. - Agn Stoic | July 25, 2008 1:09 PM

John, that's why Our Lord instituted the sacrament of confession. I went last night and said the following: "O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins ... I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace to sin no more, to do penance, and to amend my life." Believe it or not, I meant every word.

We do claim to follow a superior morality. I know of no Christian who claims to follow it perfectly. Those Christians who threatened Prof. Myers with physical violence are of course guilty of sin, and those Christians who perpetrated horrible acts against Jews and others in centuries past are likewise guilty of sin. But you know that already.

"Emotions do tend to cloud reason."

Thank you for so plainly putting the essence of religions.
Posted by: Darwin's Rottweiler | July 25, 2008 1:18 PM

Of course, DR, atheists are devoid of emotion and always and everywhere act out of purely logical, thoroughly reasoned motives. How silly of us to think otherwise.

Max, your post of 1:26 is disingenuous. There is no holy book of atheism that claims they have superior morality or are New Creatures.

However, there is one for Christianity.

Again, the "I reject Christianity, but I reject you too because you're a bad Christian" angle is ironic.

Max, I have no idea what you mean by "I reject you". What would that even mean in this context? I reject the claim that your practice of Christianity makes you a better person than me because I don't see any evidence of that, but I don't reject you.

I reject the claim that your practice of Christianity makes you a better person than me
Posted by: John E. - Agn Stoic | July 25, 2008 1:57 PM

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm a Christian precisely because I know I'm not better than anyone else.

But I do claim that athiesm is a faith of sorts. At least for those athiests who claim conclusively that there is no God

Yes, that sort of atheism - one that states there is no God - is a faith of sorts in that it is an assertion that cannot be proved.

I don't fall into that category - and I choose the appellation 'agnostic' because of that. I don't claim there is no God, I claim that I don't believe in the God that you claim exists.

Also, btw, I understand the doctrine of the Eucharist - I just don't believe it is true.

It would be great if Christian professors prayed for this pathetic individual - but not in public - in their own homes when they would normally be in classrooms.

"In the United States of America Mr. Myers has the right to throw his cracker in his trash."

HIS? This professor went out of his way to ask people to make a mockery of another religion by attending its sacred services for the express purpose of stealing a host. How can this be considered his right? There is nothing to be done for this poor sick man but to pray for him, but to the leaders of the Catholic Church: PLEASE stop giving holy communion in the hand!

John E.
I'd bet money that you are a better person than Charles Manson.

That is where your thinking is off from a Christian worldview. It doesn't matter if I, or anyone else is better than Charles Manson. What matters is that we have all fallen short of the morality expected by God. Once you start playing the "I'm better than x% of people," your morality is worthless.

Sig
I do not feel optimism or investor confidence in either the Catholic Church or men as a general group. I do not expect what I would consider strong results from either. I hope for this--but I would not bet money on it.

Your misandry is appalling. If someone here had substituted Islam for the Catholic Church and Muslim for men in that first sentence you would be stomping in here on your moral high-horse. I guess what is good for thee isn't acceptable for the rest of us.

Tony Sidaway:

It gets exhausting reading the defenders of Webster Cook, Saint and Martyr, repeat the same discredited garbage over and over and over again.

I get it--to paraphrase Eisenhower, he's *your* SOB, so that makes it better.

For the third time on this thread, the substantial evidence that Cook is a liar, fraud, poseur and soon to be removed from office by his fellow students at Central Florida:

http://nickmilne.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/prof-meyers-webster-cook-and-the-eucharist/

If you guys won't read, that's your choice, but it speaks ill of your claim to dispassionate rationality. Cook is a *proven* liar, so I discount his claims as to death threats accordingly. He hasn't been harmed by anyone except himself. But keep defending your jerk if it makes you happy.

The threats to Myers are abominable and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If they are Catholics, they should be subject to canonical penalties, including excommunication. I'm far from convinced they all are, though. Mr. Myers has ruffled all sorts of feathers during his time on this planet, and there are plenty of disgruntled students and just plain oddballs who gravitate to controversy like moths to light. In short, it's far from proven that they are all coming from Catholics.

And his poisonous stunt was far from harmless--your beloved "PZ" has done a lot to make the public square a nastier, more contentious and corrosive place. The notion of respect and live and let live are fraying a little more every day. Not that it matters when you are right, of course.

It's easy to put a "sad history" behind you when you are uncritically cheering your guys as heroes. I won't, thanks.

"My view of men in general is exactly as high as they allow it to be."

LOL! I guess we haven't allowed for much have we?

But true, just because one's hobby horse is bashing bad Christians it doesn't follow that one approves of Islam. One can only have so many vocations in life.

Well, at least now we know how a man allows sig view of him to become elevated: Be a wimpy victim of an arm grabbing girl half your size!

Max
But true, just because one's hobby horse is bashing bad Christians it doesn't follow that one approves of Islam. One can only have so many vocations in life.

If Sig had never commented on the Islam discussions, she would have a point. However, she tends to pop up in those discussion and spend her time spouting about how Christians are just as bad or worse and so we should just shut up about Islam. And since I didn't say she would defend Islam, I just said she would come riding in on her moral high-horse, I believe my statement to be accurate if maybe not descriptive enough.

Sig
My view of men in general is exactly as high as they allow it to be.

Yeah, I've seen that view. If basically devolves down to if they disagree with what you believe they are misogynists.

Why, pray tell, would you assume I love Islam, simply because I criticize the behavior of Christians?

All you do is criticize Christians and men. We aren't allowed to say anything until will reach some level of perfection as defined by you.

This is a logical error, reinforced by a baseless slander.

As explained to Max above, it's not baseless slander because I've watched you post on this board enough to get a pretty good idea of what you believe and my further explanation I stand by. You assumed I meant that you loved Islam. Actually you couldn't support any religion that actually involves men.

Alas, no cookie for you.

I didn't figure you baked cookies since that would be a sign of the oppression of womyn.

Here's the thing, sig. I didn't post that for taunt value, or to yank your chain. I did so out of dismay.

I've respected your convictions even where I can't agree with them. Apparently you haven't noted that I'm not a regular foil of yours, someone who reacts to your posts like a moth to a bug zapper.

There's a reason for that--namely, because I thought you were a person whose heart was in the right place.

Until this thread.

Take care of yourself, sigilaris.

I don't think you all understand: PZ is expressing his (and our) anger. Non-religious Americans, and scientific Americans (who overlap each other pretty strongly), have many good reasons to be very angry with organized Christianity. The continuous bombardment of the wall of separation between Church and State (which includes the ongoing effort by organized Christianity to take over the military and religious prosletyzing to captive audiences in prisons) that's one. The ongoing effort to pollute science classes with a theory of the supernatural is at least as meaningful a desecration to scientists and science educators as driving a nail through the Eucharist is to Catholics, and it is being carried out not by a single person on a single occasion but systematically and continuously by a well-organized overfunded gang. I know the Catholic Church does not deny evolution but She uses egregious abuses of science to promote bad laws and policies motivated entirely by religious doctrine. For example,

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/

Dale, I appreciate your last post and your sincerity. Believe me, I'm as dismayed as you are by this whole situation, though perhaps from a different angle. Hence my flip reply to a cluster of assorted goadings. When I've done my best, repeatedly, to get people to understand why I'm dismayed, and the result is more childish insults, it is better to bow out with a little gentle mockery than to rage, I think. I apologize if I unfairly included you in the ranks of the sophomoric.

I criticize Christians--Catholics, specifically--because they are the people I know best. And when I see them betraying the deepest and most important things about the tradition I was raised in, that hurts me the most. Anything I would say to Muslims or members of another religious tradition would be only observations from outside. What I say to Christians comes from the heart.

Perhaps you don't recall my saying earlier in the history of this blog that I had to stop receiving communion in the wake of the sex abuse scandal. HAD to. I don't expect you to agree or understand, but it seemed a necessity to me. I doubt that I'll ever receive the Catholic sacraments again. If Jesus is bleeding today, I don't think it's because of an atheist putting a nail through a host. I think it's because his own supposed followers have stabbed him in the heart again and again by their betrayal of the love he extended to all, by their willingness to use the legacy of the Prince of Peace as a war-flag and as a bludgeon for the skulls of their enemies.

I'm not blind to your pain and your offense. You, in turn, are greatly mistaken if you think the heartache and suffering is all on your side of the fence.

An atheist is entitled to freedom of belief, too.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | July 26, 2008 11:28 AM

And everyone else has the right to call him an ass for having acted like one (though none of us have the right to threaten him, as apparently some misguided souls have done).

Comparing Myers to Rosa Parks and the Olympic athletes is a mighty stretch, as it's rather clear what they were protesting. I'm not sure what injustice has been done to Myers that he would deliberately choose to assault the most important of Catholic sacraments, and I'm not sure exactly what point he made, aside from the fact that there are some adults who never seem to have matured past early adolescence.

It's almost scary that you could justify death threats with throwing a piece of tasteless dough in the garbage.

Thank you for your call to great action: loving as Christ did.

Has Prof. Myers been apprised of the proposed gang-pray?

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?

Myers' only mistake is being an absolutist when it's inappropriate like the people he opposes. Nothing should be sacred? Never, in so circumstance? I don't agree, and I'm an atheist. That said, I don't care whether he's fired or not. But I don't see how his actions were illegal.

"While I certainly hope that Christian and other leaders will insist on the media and university officials treating this in the same way that they would if a professor had obtained a stolen Torah scroll and desecrated it."

(1) Why would he? It's not nearly the same thing
(2) I expect that the response from the university officials would be "not a thing"
(3) His colleagues are probably giving him high fives; biologists aren't known for their sympathy for religion.