P.Z. Myers' fans: Intellectual autists

Cultural restraints and traditions of mutual respect and common decency that allowed us to debate civilly among ourselves, despite our diversity, are fast disappearing. On both the left and right, our culture is increasingly an adversarial one, in which individuals are encouraged to elevate themselves by debasing The Other.

This coming from a fellow who uses the term "Democratic bedwetters"?

Honestly Rod, how can you decry the disappearance of traditions of mutual respect and common decency when you excuse your own behavior as 'colorful writing'?

For what it's worth, Rod, don't let them get you down. You have plenty of support from us fellow "Christianists."

I don't know if you are aware of it, but Mr. Myers has followed-up on your column here:
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/so_this_is_what_a_witchunt_loo.php#more

I was going to post something in the comment thread there, but after reading the other comments I realized it wasn't worth it. These people are truly dark and hate-filled.

For some reason it reminds me of what I once heard about Pharoah in the book of Exodus. Why does it say that he hardened his own heart, yet it also says that God hardened his heart? The answer I heard from a pastor: If you harden your heart enough towards God, then He will also harden it for you.

I don't understand the logic of your email critics. They say because the UCF kid was treated wrongly by some Catholic kids, therefore, all Catholics "had it coming to them." So, do we actually have atheists now with a theology of negative indulgences? The bad deeds of Catholics in Florida get metaphysically transferred to Catholics everywhere because they are all part of the mystical body of Christ?

Amazing.

They say because the UCF kid was treated wrongly by some Catholic kids, therefore, all Catholics "had it coming to them."
Posted by: Francis Beckwith | August 4, 2008 1:17 PM

Sorry, FB, but what exactly is it that you are claiming was done to 'all Catholics'?

The Posted by: | August 4, 2008 1:27 PM was mine.

Loudon, I would suggest that the "hyperbolic polemics and witty ad hominems" are part and parcel of the reasons why "Cultural restraints and traditions of mutual respect and common decency that allowed us to debate civilly among ourselves, despite our diversity, are fast disappearing."

I again say that it is disingenuous of Rod to decry that behavior what engaging is his own. The difference is one of degree, not of kind.

"I again say that it is disingenuous of Rod to decry that behavior what engaging is his own. The difference is one of degree, not of kind."

But degrees matter. The difference between a genius and a retard is roughly 70 IQ points. A difference in degree, to be sure. But an important difference, nonetheless. The difference between a human being and a chimp is a difference in kind.

"Sorry, FB, but what exactly is it that you are claiming was done to 'all Catholics'?"

I didn't. I'm citing RD's citation of his email.

The difference between a genius and a retard is roughly 70 IQ points.
Posted by: Francis Beckwith | August 4, 2008 1:50 PM

You know what Francis? I think your posts speaks for itself more eloquently than I ever could.

Nice.

I am not sure how this could be true given that political histrionics are as old as politics. Either there is no tradition of cultural respect and common decency, or there is more delicate line drawing required.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | August 4, 2008 1:51 PM

All right then, perhaps it is the case that, claims to the contrary, the wafer incident is a sign that common decency and civil debate is in immediate danger.

Perhaps it is merely the escapade of one guy and the reactions of a tiny percent of the population, no matter how much mileage Rod is trying to milk out of the incident.

All right then, perhaps it is the case that, claims to the contrary, the wafer incident is a sign that common decency and civil debate is in immediate danger.
Posted by: John E. - Agn Stoic | August 4, 2008 2:05 PM

Should read:

All right then, perhaps it is the case that, claims to the contrary, the wafer incident is not a sign that common decency and civil debate is in immediate danger.

If the P.Z. Myers Brigades were in a position of political power in this country, I would fear for my freedom.

Does anyone have any doubts about which candidate they support?

Rod,

I don't know how we square this circle. You say:

> What's interesting is the complete and utter lack of
> empathy these people have for anybody who doesn't
> see the world exactly as they do.

You are a stand up guy and a good father, introspective, and alot of other things I like. My religious perspective is probably best described as agnostic personally and atheist politically, and I'm definitely a liberal, and I usually have respect for what you post, and look forward to whatever you write. I don't read your articles looking for a reason to get mad at another conservative, but to get another reasoned point of view, and an interesting one at that, because I don't approach the world from a Christian point of view because I trust you write with intelligence and offer arguments in good faith...

That said, when I do come away frustrated from what you write, it's for the same reason you wrote about the PZ Meyer defenders. Whether it be about abortion or decrying as "barbarians" adults who, in a monogamous relationship, decide to have sex without a condom outside of marriage, you exhibit a similar level of prejudiced thinking that judges otherwise good people who don't share your point of view.

The ONLY reason P.Z. Myers has been taunting Catholics is that some of them made death threats against the guy in Florida who tried to make off with a Communion wafer? REALLY? That's the ONLY reason?

You mean, if I'd gone to his web site a few months ago, before that incident, Myers' tone toward Catholics would have been civil and respectful? It was ONLY the death threats toward that unfortunate Floridian that turned an otherwise clam, placid scholar into a raving, angry blasphemer?

Gimme a frackin' (we Catholics watch "Battlestar Galactica," too) break! Myers was undoubtedly a bitter, obscene troll AGES before this incident. It just so happens that, until six weeks ago, 99% of us neither knew nor cared who he was.

For what VERY little it's worth, I've yet to witness or hear another Catholic calling for anyone's death. Heck, I haven't even read a threatening anonymous post on any of my favorite right wing, Catholic blogs. Oh, I've read a lot of posts like "Myers is a troll, don't feed him." I've seen many variations on "He's a dweeb at a third rate jerkwater college, ignore him." I've read countless requests to pray for him. But I have yet to see or hear any of these supposedly omnipresent death threats.

Regardless, it goes without saying that if I knew of anyone who'd made a death threat, to Myers or anybody else, I'd tell the police and the FBI immediately.

Your changing views are confusing me. I take it now that you really were never offended by Rod's polemics, and, hence, he should not be offended by the Fat Nerdy One's sacrilege. I think the offense threshold in civil discourse is pretty high. But once it's crossed things get ugly fast.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | August 4, 2008 2:20 PM

No Loudon, I was rhetorically arguing the counter-example to examine the question of if 'Democratic bedwetters' is okay then so is Myers' demonstration. And while neither is going to lead to the collapse of civil discourse, neither helps it either.

Something is sacred, after all.? Too bad you don't think the same about "dem spruastishous Catliks."
Posted by: | August 4, 2008 2:39 PM

There is no reason why you should have been paying attention to my thoughts on the PZ case as it unfolded, but if you had, you would have noted that when it was first brought up, I said that what PZ did was childish and pointless. Much like Rod's use of the term 'Democratic bedwetters' and your use of the word 'retard'.

None of those facilitate civil discourse.

Meyers' hatred of Christianity and the Eucharist isn't a medical condition, as far as any of us can possibly know. So please. Just stop.
Posted by: elmo | August 4, 2008 2:25 PM

Thank you, elmo

"If the P.Z. Myers Brigades were in a position of political power in this country, I would fear for my freedom."

Just imagine if you were an atheist and the Jerry Falwell brigade were in a position of political power in this country.

I tried making a few replies to Myers' response on his blog, and it's definitely true that most of the posters their are like rabid dogs. I should have known, since I've dealt with the militant atheist type before, but they're more dangerous in numgers. Intelligent, respectful discussion is impossible in a place like that. But I am firmly convinced that intelligent, respectful discussion is the last thing that Myers and his crowd want. My guess is that they're all a bunch of geeks and nerds who want nothing more than to have their chance to be the bullies for once.

You would fear for your freedom because of something Myers did in the privacy of his own home, to a wafer?

Cast your mind back to your time in Turkey, to the genuine oppression Christians there told you about. It made you ashamed of your whining.

Since then you have been hysterical about an anatomically-correct chocolate Jesus and now about a wafer.

No one is suggesting that Catholics be rounded up, harmed, forbidden from practicing their faith or made to wear a yellow cross.

Myers was crude, rude and frankly, stupid. But he is not leading a pogrom. Atheists mostly want religious folks to leave them alone, but in the charged atmosphere of the day, many are willing to take on religious extremism. That is what Myers thought he did, no matter how incorrect we may think he is on that topic.

Get a grip, people.

Rod D. and Francis Beckwith: give up. You're making too much sense for the genius iq - 70 commenters here.

Chimps -- and remember that chimps are no less important than humans, so don't get all sweaty -- the point isn't whether of not the host is just a cracker or not. The point is whether or not I can steal something from you and then claim that there's nothing wrong with that because other people, including myself, don't think it's valuable and besides, I'm proving a valuable point to all chimps everywhere and humans.

Anyway, do we really know if the host was consecrated? I thought about sending him an unconsecrated host and telling him it was.

Carry on... chimps.

Pauli

Rod,

I'm not exactly a fan of PZ Myers, but I do think he is making a valid point which you seem to keep missing.

Those that are offended by PZ Myer's actions certainly do have a reason to be offended, but their feelings are of their own making. They are offended because PZ took something that *they* hold sacred. PZ does not hold communion wafers sacred (and neither do I). So why exactly are we expected to respect such a belief? I certainly tolerate such beliefs, and I don't go out of my way to mock those that hold them. But, on the other hand, if I feel a need to make a point that involves at least calling into question some religious dogma, I'm going to expect to be opposed at a minimum, but death threats? Come on! You should be chastising those that are trying to silence PZ at least as much as you are PZ himself.

Instead of acting responsibly, you're trotting out the usual anti-atheist canards that atheists *hate* anyone that has faith and generally re-enforcing a host of ridiculous and ignorant ideas that are nothing more than a game of shoot the messenger.

The question is: Should *everyone* be *forced* to hold some ritual sacred (or at least have a modicum of tolerance for it) just because a majority (or even a minority) does? If you were really interested in civil discourse, you would be looking to answer that question rather than trying to stretch more mileage out of PZ's religion baiting.

Come on, Rod. Why don't you really take the high road here, and instead of continuing to get all upset about what PZ did, why don't you start to address the questions that his actions raise? Or is that not reactionary enough for you?

Francis B: "If nothing is sacred, and Myers is a thing, then he is not sacred, and thus does not require our respect. So, what's his gripe about death threats? All that his emailers are doing is treating him in ways consistent with his own understanding of himself. The fact that he can't live in his own universe is sad, but predictable."

Despite not being Christian, my sympathies have been with the Catholics over this debate. However, Francis' comment is bizarre. The only possible worldview that regards humans as valuable / sacred / worthy of respect (or however you express it) is transubstantiationism? (not even Protestantism?)

What's interesting is the complete and utter lack of empathy these people have for anybody who doesn't see the world exactly as they do.

How is that different from Crunchy conservatism?

There was a strikethrough tag on the word "witches" in my previous post, but the tag filter ate it.

I guess I can only say that if you guys think it's ok to walk into the nearest synagogue and whiz on the floor, or drive to the nearest mosque and put cartoons of Mohammad underneath the windshield wipers, you've got some serious judgment issues.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | August 4, 2008 3:49 PM

Loudon, I'm arguing the other extreme - not only should people not desecrate Hosts, they shouldn't use terms like "Democratic bedwetters" or "retards" - I'm arguing for more civility, not less.

The RCC reveres the consecrated Host as the living Body of Christ. While most protestants regard it as only a symbol of Christ's Sacrifice on the cross for our redemption.

To the average Catholic, the stealing of the consecrated Host is the same as stealing Christ. The fact that a youth took it to desecrate it was as evil to them as the crucifixion of Jesus itself.

While I do not condone the death threats, I can understand how some people would react. It was an evil act with vile intentions and should not be condoned. If P. Z. Myers whats to be an atheist, that it his right. But for him to engage in a mass effort to debase and reticule what others believe (and have believed from the dawn of Christianity) is a hate crime.

For Catholics and any other Christian for threaten him with death, is equally wrong and those who have done so need to confess their sin before God and seek reconciliation and atonement.

Paul, seeking forgiveness

What Myers said was that the furor over a Catholic refusing to swallow the host had gotten out of hand. By that point the news reports were the fellow was bullied at the mass, and his life had been threatened (I've seen no one dispute the death threats).

What Myers said, in effect, was 'get a grip; we don't need to go back to the Dark Ages; we don't need a reenactment of Spanish Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, nor previous incidents where dozens of people were murdered for "disrespecting the host" in charges that were probably false.'

It is not worth sacrificing a human life to rescue a communion wafer, even a sanctified communion wafer.

Dreher appears to disagree. That's shocking, disrespectful of the tradition of religious freedom in the U.S., and itself an abomination to Christianity (think for a moment: What was it Jesus said when the Disciple cut off the Roman's ear? He didn't urge that the Roman be skewered).

So far as I have read, in the blog and in the newspaper, Dreher does not disown the death threats.

Let's start there. Dreher first acknowledges that the death threats were completely out of place. THEN, and only then, can we begin to discuss anything Myers did as incorrect.

It's not a question of what Myers holds as not sacred, or what anyone else holds as sacred. It's a question of whether we have the morals to put life and death into proportion. No one's life should be sacrificed or threatened for what the fellow did at the Mass. Those threats, and the reactions of people like Dreher, make a mockery of the crucifixion of Jesus. Continuing to pile on mockery doesn't make it better.

What say you, Rod? Death threats out of place or not?

"He committed a private act in his own kitchen and put a picture on his blog. That is not a public act." - Elizabeth

Uh... say, Liz? Let's play a little game: Re-read that and spot the blatant contradiction. (Hint: putting something on a blog AUTOMATICALLY makes his act extremely public, not private!)

Loudon, I'm arguing the other extreme - not only should people not desecrate Hosts, they shouldn't use terms like "Democratic bedwetters" . . . - I'm arguing for more civility, not less.

It's a bit off topic but, in truth, I think this opinion, by blurring the distinctions about what sort of actions should be considered unacceptable in a robust free society, effectively embraces sacrilege as an acceptable act of social communication. Fair enough that people should be more civil, but, provided they mind their manners in polite company, I don't get too concerned about people spouting off in the Blogosphere.

The PZian horde equates taking offense at sacrilege, to taking offense at being called "Mr. Poopy Pants." They are not the same and pretending offense at being called "Mr. Poopy Pants" is not the appropriate response.

Ed: Rod may or may not take the bait, but I will.

Murder is both a sin and a secular crime. Threatening to commit murder is, likewise, both a sin and a secular crime. Ergo, if I knew firsthand of anyone threatening to murder anybody for any reason, I would notify the police/FBI, and I would attempt to warn the person being threatened.

Plain and simple enough for you so far, Ed? Stick with me.

Up to now, I have never met a single person who has talked about killing P.Z. Myers or that schmuck in Florida. I have yet to hear a single sermon at a single Mass at which either Myers or the schmuck in Florida was mentioned, let alone threatened. I have yet to come across a death threat posted by any Catholic on this message board or on ANY conservative/Catholic message board I frequent.

Heck, in the "real" world, I have yet to hear anybody talking about P.Z. Myers or the Florida schmuck at all! It's only in the utterly unreal word of the Internet that they're major topics of debate.

If and when I do come across someone threatening to kill wither man, I'll quickly and gladly condemn such threats, and report them to the appropriate authorities. Until then, what am I supposed to do- condemn hypothetical death threats that Myers claims were sent by the Florida schmuck?

Incidentally, said schmuck has told half a dozen contradictory stories about what he was trying to do at that Mass- so, you'd be well advised not to take his word as Gospel, so to speak, on ANY subject. He may wish to position as an innocent, persecuted martyr rather than as a mendacious troublemaker... but surely an intellectual who claims to hold nothing sacred SHOULD be a bit more skeptical, no?

I DID hear a homily last week at daily Mass about this outrage and the homily was filled with . . . LOVE! In a calm tone, the priest described what Myers had done (I already knew all about it. Others who didn't, gasped when the actions were described by teh priest) and then asked that we make reparations for Jesus in the Eucharist, specifically on Friday during Holy Hour, and that we pray intently for Myers' conversion and specifically that he become an apostle for the Eucharist. He noted that this horrible act was a blessing for us b/c we can show how much we believe in the Eucharist. And this is a church that one could safely call an orthodox RCC. I love being Catholic!

I'm yawning here...

Courtesy has been moribund for many years. The cult of entitlement is all, now, and Christians of all stripes are as taken up by it as the most hedonistic anarchist.

"Mommy, he desecrated my host!"

"Did not! I just wanted to show it to my friend!"

"Liar! Thief!"

"Bully! Theocrat!"

... in the end, respect and tolerance come in three flavors: home grown and applied with compassion; forcibly imposed by political correctness; nonexistent. Take a guess which flavor is about to disappear.

Socialization be damned! I am entitled to respect because I am Fill In The Blank!

I think I'd rather be yawning, because the alternative is vomiting...

I told you so. The more you attack him, the more popular he becomes.

You do realize, Scott, that not only to atheists, or even non-Christians, but even to other Christians who do not believe in the 'real presence', that it is exactly that, a symbol.

As I keep saying. Empathy goes two ways. Nobody seems to truly understand, show the slightest interest in understanding, or even that it might be as positive a thing to understand as it is for the other side, their position on things.

I have, over time, long before I (and anyone else) ever heard of PZ Meyers and this event, have seen similar things done, without any buzz, any outcry whatsoever from one religion to another. It is so common a tactic in missionary work as to not even raise an eyebrow, to show the ineffectual nature of another faith's taboos, their gods, their idols and sacred objects.

Not only talking about in the early years of the Christian faith. Not even through the upheaval and conflict of the Reformation. I mean now.

Of course, nobody who does so really thinks they are causing harm, though they know they cause offense, and anger. After all, the statue is just a carved piece of stone or wood, not a god, or even an object of devotion meant to focus one's thoughts upon a god, because, of course, THAT god isn't real. So, since they are really getting upset over nothing, their upset isn't that serious either.

Given the level of even contempt I have read on blogs, on posts, in pamphlets and heard in sermons and speeches of one religion for others, the accusations of 'intellectual autism', and accusations of lack of empathy when there is not even the slightest attempt at empathy even for each other (I can't even imagine it applied toward we infidels) rings not so much hollow, but even with a certain amount of humor.

"Not only is there no historical precedent of respect for the sacred things of faiths not their own, history actually supports the opposite."

Mrs Brown I don't know where you live but in my clittle corner of the World in Louisiana this is not done.

It is amazing that in my small town that have people of differnet faiths, beliefs ,etc that all disagree quite strongly but can get along in the community and work together.

THis is the breaking of the Social compact and none of this is good. So while you might talk about Missionaries breaking up Idols and interupting Religious services in foreign lands( by the way how many do you think actually do this? ) it does not effect the severity of what is going on here

"I have, over time, long before I (and anyone else) ever heard of PZ Meyers and this event, have seen similar things done, without any buzz, any outcry whatsoever from one religion to another. It is so common a tactic in missionary work as to not even raise an eyebrow, to show the ineffectual nature of another faith's taboos, their gods, their idols and sacred objects.
"

I suppose there are cases of this but the Catholic Missionaries , Baptist Missionaries and Especially Methodist Missionaries I have talked too seem to go to great lengths not to provoke.

"Incidentally, said schmuck has told half a dozen contradictory stories about what he was trying to do at that Mass- so, you'd be well advised not to take his word as Gospel, so to speak, on ANY subject. He may wish to position as an innocent, persecuted martyr rather than as a mendacious troublemaker... but surely an intellectual who claims to hold nothing sacred SHOULD be a bit more skeptical, no?

As to the poor persecuted martyr in FLorida I hope he was excommunicated untill he repents. There are grounds that is for sure

The question still remains.

Have a single one of you been empathetic (not made what seems the moral requirement to praise or condemn an action, but actually tried to FEEL with another group feels) toward other faiths, or toward those who have no faith at all?

Given how many times I've had people disagree with me about what I think and feel, and try to redefine not just my group, but myself.. I haven't seen a great deal of empathy either.

And I'm not talking about one man, and a few supporters, nor just talking about on a blog, or to something I care about, but to myself.

P.Z. Myers is actually representative of the majority of today's university professors in his sneering derision of anything remotely resembling religion. As a Catholic high school teacher, I am well aware of how influential these so called "intellectuals" can be on today's youth, and I try to redress the balance by preparing my students for the "big, bad world" while they are still in high school.

Many of my academic students are university-bound, and I try to discourage blind belief in the garbage (packaged as "enlightenment")that often spews from the lips of the intelligentsia. I hope and pray that they are not swayed by such narrow-minded atheism.

As for students who are wavering between college and university, I am militant in encouraging them to consider the former. Two of my nephews have dropped out of university because they could not stomach the so- called "liberalism", and I have already decided that I will not allow my teenage son to have his mind poisoned by the likes of Professor Myers. He'll do what Jesus did - become a tradesman!

If Dreher won't condemn the violence, he could at least say he doesn't condone it. If he doesn't condone it, he could have let the issue die.

Step outside your fantasy world, Ed Darrell. There hasn't been any violence. And it's patently obvious that Mr. Myers pulled this little stunt in the hope and expectation that it would generate hundreds of death threats and allow him to crow about how violent Christians are.

But here we have it: Widespread condemnation of Myers (by Christians and all decent people of every belief), accompanied by no violence or serious threats of same.

You lose.

Rod,

PZ Myers cites Tony Sidaway (he/she/it?) approvingly on his blog:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/pointless_tv_poll.php

I have no idea who he/she/it may really be, whether it's multiple people posting under this assumed name, or what the name "Tony Sidaway" may signify to he/she/it (other than, perhaps, a real identity, who knows?)

I have noticed a tendency to veer toward the trollish on the part of he/she/it, with the occasional half-hearted note of faint agreement to avoid being spotted as an out and out troll. Word to the wise.

Has anyone suggested yet to Rod that he might post these emails he's received - especially from university email addys - for all to see? It's a tactic PZ himself has employed on occasion to much droll chortling in the comments section from the Pharyngula vampires set. I think it might be nice for the universities that employ those people, Rod, to see what their staff/faculty are doing with university property.

Erin,

I agree. As a father of a two year old, PZ Myers behavior reminds me a lot of a terrible two. Except my two year old is a little more mature.

You make an excellent point, DavidTC. My examples include things that people might do in their normal lives without the intention of causing offense (e.g., slaughtering an animal for food, drawing a picture). To purposely commit a peculiar act of sacrilege that has no other significance would truly be bizarre and hateful.

And that was me. Darn code not filling in the fields.

"does that count for all religions and their sacred things? Does that include the activities of missionaries on other continents, disrupting rituals, violating taboos, and often even destroying altars and ceremonial objects?" KB

TR: Mostly I say yes it does. Although it depends some on circumstance. If the disruption or destruction is necessary to save lives than it may be valid. (There is no real evidence that what PZ did will save the Florida kid or benefit him at all except in some debatably roundabout way. At best it's equivalent to naming your dog "Muhammad" in solidarity for the teddy bear lady)

On average I'd say the destruction of ceremonial objects and altars did more harm for Christianity than good. In several cases sacred places of other faiths were converted to Christian ones, but I would not find what he did equivalent. He didn't buy an abandoned church and turn it into an atheist convention site. That would offend me too, but probably more because it'd be dumb for any church to sell to Myers.

"Look, calling a communion wafer a 'cracker' is not worse than calling large segments of the population 'sluts', by any objective standard I can think of." DavidTC

TR: That Rod can be a jerk doesn't really address his point. Granted it could be "fruit of a poisonous tree", but I think that's a bit too far.

"mostly want religious folks to leave them alone, but in the charged atmosphere of the day, many are willing to take on religious extremism. That is what Myers thought he did, no matter how incorrect we may think he is on that topic." elizabeth

TR: The thing is the Eucharist is valued by even the most pacifistic Catholics, Catholics who'd die to defend the Florida kid even. If he wanted something specific to Radicals he could've I don't know burned something written by William Donohue or even gone all Sinead and ripped up a picture of the Pope.

"PZ has done you a favor. There is no social order. We are running on inertia, running on fumes. He has exposed the undercurrent that runs through many ideologies like multiculturalism. There is open contempt for what was the majority culture of the last 400 years on the North American continent, don't expect any punishment for him."

Perhaps a bit more pessimistic than I am wont to be, Other Jim, but largely accurate. Thanks.

http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=8a2505951b6aa0be011b75dea2d800e3

The Monarch: I'm trying to arch here! This isn't how it's done. Honestly, what are you doing, you retard.

Ned: No-no word.

Jonas Jr.: Yes it is, Ned.

The Monarch: Did he just cut me off?

Jonas Jr.: Retard is a hateful word. We don't use those slurs.

The Monarch: I'm your arch-enemy! I'm not going to use "bungling boobs" or "meddling kids". It's not my style. That guy needs to get a thicker skin.

Jonas Jr.: Thicker skin? Poor Ned has skin that's 3 inches thick. Now how do you think that makes him feel?

The Monarch: Itchy? I dunno. Just keep it cat and mouse, not cat and missle.

Simon, come back to the real world:

Step outside your fantasy world, Ed Darrell. There hasn't been any violence. And it's patently obvious that Mr. Myers pulled this little stunt in the hope and expectation that it would generate hundreds of death threats and allow him to crow about how violent Christians are.

Under criminal law in every state in the U.S., threats of murder or assault are assault. Under tort law, threats of murder and assault are actionable. Myer's called for Catholics to figure out which is more valuable, a human life or a host. So far, most reaction has been that it's not okay to ask such a question of religionists (I hesitate to call them Christian).

But, as with your response, there is failure to recognize the value of life, to call for a non-violent, non-killing response.

Sure it was sucker bait. Dreher, you, and at least dozens if not hundreds of others took it. Myer's ain't the sucker here.

As a kid in one of our Sunday school classes said on a poster some time back, "Jesus came to take away our sins, not our minds."

But here we have it: Widespread condemnation of Myers (by Christians and all decent people of every belief), accompanied by no violence or serious threats of same.

You missed much of the news. Death threats to the congregant were almost immediate, reported in the first news stories. Death threats to Myers, the serious ones, were referred to authorities.

If you can't be right on the morality of defense of life, please try to be closer to the facts at least.

Myers acts were disrespectful. He disrespectfully called to task those who were sinful and illegal. There's a forest out there. Quit crossing your eyes and you'll see it.

Otherwise, of course, what you're arguing for is the moral equivalent of honor killings, genital mutilation, and so on. We're looking for signs of intelligent life in the universe, and not finding much with regard to the difference between communion and human life.

Let's try this again, TR.

See, my arguments tend to be very.. focused. On particular points.

In this case, it is Rod's assertion that in the past (specifically, until PZ Meyers came along and 'changed everything') everyone went around with a bedrock of respect and empathy for other people's religious views. That, even if they disagreed, they would not attack what other people felt was sacred, even if THEY did not believe it was sacred because they knew (being all empathetic) how much that would offend and hurt.

Now, I'm not talking about the Victorian era. Even you noted there were recent examples (unless you're older than you write).

The point is, and the only point I am making is.. people do NOT, in general, truly /respect/ the sacred things, rites, and beliefs of other people.

What has actually happened is that Christianity (the religion changes in other countries when other religions are in the majority) has gotten a free pass that other religions, and other viewpoints did NOT get in this culture (long before Meyers) and Meyers only shows (at most, thinking he's getting way too much credit with that) that Christianity is getting treated NO DIFFERENTLY than other religions have been treated in the past.

Including by other Christians.

Whether or not you are against it, TR, the fact is that it did, and does occur, therefore the premise that something has changed, and that there has been a lessening of discourse and behavior that can be attributed to Meyers is wrong.

If anything, as your noting that we aren't in the Victorian age anymore, says that things, in that area, have IMPROVED in the modern era (other religions finally getting the same tiptoeing that Christianity did), not worsened.

I think his stunt can be interpreted-as all art can be interpreted- as demonstrating something different from what he intended to show. He used pieces of the Qur’an, the Bible, and the God Delusion to show that the world is made of atheists and theists. He next used the host to reveal that Christ is at the center of this multiplicity of faiths, and that he is the direct center of our existence. Then he used the banana peal and coffee grains to show the fertility of the earth that God created; but he also demonstrated the fact that these organic materials can decompose, so they should be attached to the life-giving word. Finally, in order to keep all of the materials in a collective whole on the wall he needed to use the nail, which is symbolic of Christ's death for Christians. A rusted nail demonstrates that the hardened substances of our earth undergo changes; it is just part of oxidation which science has revealed to us. So the nail keeps the atheists and the theists books connected to Christ, and we all know that Christ renewed the world when he rose from the dead. All of the things Myers used were symbolic, so his art can be interpreted symbolically. Remember, in a relativistic world no one truth exists and nothing is sacred, even art itself.

Otherwise, of course, what you're arguing for is the moral equivalent of honor killings, genital mutilation, and so on

Breathtaking stupidity.

There I no serious threat to Mr. Myers, or to the Florida kid. Neither has suffered anything, and neither is living in fear.

Neither Catholics nor the other decent people of this country have anything to apologize for here. Full stop.

However, Mr. Myers -- and Ed Darrell -- might consider apologizing to the public for disseminating their ignorance, which is transparently motivated by hatred.

Probably sound advice, Ms. Brown. Although being nasty and filled with demonic rage would not eradicate intrinsic human dignity. Not that you are either. But I had previously read how much you like to be accused of seething with demonic rage.

Ed Darrell,

I was referring to Myers as the immature two year old, although the kid is more mature than even Myers. I'll give the kid credit because, although it was a extremely immature act, he gave the Eucharist back. Where are the threats against this kid, Ed, that you swear took place? It's been over a month since this happened, and you would think that a legitimate threat would have been discovered by now. Police reports? Anything? Nothing? I would decry the violence, but what violence is there to decry? So far all I've seen is one single "death" threat (debatable reading the guys' e-mail) against Myers from some guy who apparently has issues because he had to hide behind his wife's e-mail address to do it. Maybe I should apologize for that guy whom by his actions doesn't even appear to be a practicing Catholic. Sorry. Is that good enough?

As for your comments about stoning and the OT, what a weak attempt at trolling. I think this has been covered a million times over. Come up with something original.

I stand by an earlier post that he conducted a private act. A picture of the trash does not constitute an "act."

Publishing the photo of his desecration on the internet is certainly a public act.

If Dr. Myers had carried out a similar extreme act of contempt against homosexuals or racial minorities

I would suspect public use of the "n word" or equivalent epithets for gays would get Dr. Myers a pass to the door.

"Let's try this again, TR."

TR: I'm sorely tempted to say "no", but I'll humor you.

"In this case, it is Rod's assertion that in the past (specifically, until PZ Meyers came along and 'changed everything') everyone went around with a bedrock of respect and empathy for other people's religious views. That, even if they disagreed, they would not attack what other people felt was sacred, even if THEY did not believe it was sacred because they knew" KB

TR: On the face of it this is of course wrong. Many things Dreher says are exaggerated or wrong. In the '60s a gay couple intentionally had sex in a church, and wrote about it in some magazine. Plus, until fairly recently, demeaning sacred objects of American Indian religion was okay.

However in another sense there is some truth to what he says. Even going back to the 1850s the kind of action Myers did could've been considered rabble-rousing and gotten a person arrested. In a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society there generally is a modicum of respect, or at least restraint, shown to other religions sacred objects. That American Indians, and some black churches, did not receive that is not a positive thing. Although it's not precisely a sign of a potential sectarian crisis because American Indian religions were more or less powerless. (Sad, but true)

"Now, I'm not talking about the Victorian era. Even you noted there were recent examples (unless you're older than you write)." KB

TR: Involving groups going to Asia or Africa. In Arkansas when I was a boy our religion was mocked and disparaged by the Baptists, but I really don't think they'd have gone so far as to desecrate a church or Eucharist. I think they had some lines they didn't cross. This is probably what Dreher is referring to, meaning he's referring to American society of his lifetime. (Not of 1927 or 1840) I think there's some truth to what he says on that.

Also I'm 31 and I hope that's not condescension on age. I may not be the most emotionally mature person in the world, but I have a degree and nearly died once so I'm not a total child.

"that Christianity is getting treated NO DIFFERENTLY than other religions have been treated in the past." KB

TR: I know this isn't what you mean, but this comes close to allowing for the idea "it's payback time." Do Christians need to experience raids and "Wounded Knee" like the American Indian faiths did? Is it time to punish Latin speakers the way speakers of Navajo or Sioux got punished?

Besides that Catholics have already been treated differently in this country. In 2006 4.9% of hate crimes were anti-Catholic according to the FBI. Around .5% were against agnostic and atheists.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/victims.html

According to Pew 4% of Americans are atheist or agnostic while Catholics are about 24%. If you include ex-Catholics it rises to about 34%. So by that measure Catholics get more hate crimes per-capita. Now according to the American Religious Identification Survey atheists and agnostics represent only 0.9% of the US while Catholics represent 24.5%. By that measure atheists and agnostics suffer much more per-capita, but still it's arguable we suffer similarly if you split the difference. Even if it's not, Catholics received a great deal of violence up to the 1920s when the Klan tried to push North on an Anti-Catholic and Anti-immigrant program.

"If anything, as your noting that we aren't in the Victorian age anymore, says that things, in that area, have IMPROVED in the modern era (other religions finally getting the same tiptoeing that Christianity did), not worsened" KB

TR: The improvements mostly occurred before 1970. I would say that outside of some fringe places they were fairly solid by 1960. In any event I don't want us to go backward. Rod might see it as going into some new anarchy, but that might just be to make a point or because he lacks a bit of perspective.

Actually, TR, most of what you said merely emphasizes that the majority faith gets special treatment not afforded to other faiths. And certainly NOT to those who are not of any faith at all.

That black churches, synagogues, and Native American religions not only did not get respected, but were actively targeted is case in point.

Most of those 'anti-Catholic' hate crimes? Do you want to guess that they were not only not perpetrated by atheists, or agnostics (and I hope you're going with the real definition of 'hate crime', where the initial act is, by anyone's definition, a crime in the first place. Like vandalism, or assault), or even by non-Christians, but, I'm guessing, by Protestant Christians. Probably of the 'Jack Chick' variety.

As for the percentages of hate crimes, actually, that again, makes the point.

4.9% were against Catholics. (Hardly the majority of Hate Crimes by any standard).

.5% against atheists.

However, 24.5% of the population is Catholic. There are around 76.9 million Catholics in the US. They have churches, etc. And much of the hate crime was likely focused on those locations.

Identified atheists (the only kind who could be targeted by a hate crime) are only 2.5 percent of the population. And there are probably like 20 buildings (if that) in the entire country that are visibly marked as having anything to do with atheism. Including only having offices for them.

So, not only are there ten times fewer atheists than Catholics, the majority of hate crimes (for those offices to be the target of hate crimes and account for .5 percent of all hate crimes in the US, they'd have to be pretty much continuously vandalized) are perpetrated directly against atheists, their persons and property. Which I can actually vouch for.

Its almost a game, how long an atheist bumpersticker can last on my friends' cars.

Note, it isn't how many ARE atheists. It is how many are openly atheist. Unlike Catholics, or various religious folk, we have a contingent, like gays, who aren't 'out'. And we don't get the 'it was a hate crime because they defaced our building' variety of hate crime because, for the most part, we have no buildings, we have no statues, we have no atheist property and icons and objects to vandalize. You do a hate crime against an atheist, you probably did a hate crime against an actual person.

As for the 20's, most atheists kept their mouths shut at that period. Didn't help us much come the 50's when, as most forget, the McCarthy trials, an actual government initiative, went against atheists as much as they went against communists. (After all, they /were/ the 'Godless commies', right?) And atheists were hauled before courts, publicly outed, tried, occasionally jailed, and far more commonly blacklisted and unable to find work.

But actually, you agreed with my point regarding Rod's assertion. It is NOT worse than it ever was, there really was no golden age of the past when ALL faiths were respected (and never a time for when people of no faith were) that we are deviating from.

Indeed, we can be called demonic, hatefilled, people openly admit in polls they would not vote for candidates solely based on the candidate being an atheist, and a president of the United States said,

atheist quotes,atheist shirts,atheism quotes,atheism shirts

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."

That was only about 15 years ago. Thing is, any other group, and even people outside the group would've rose up to object. It was us. Not a peep.

So, when do atheists get any of that post-70's respect and tolerance anyway, Thomas?

Not that I'm holding my breath.

If all he showed for it was a photo of the ashes in his trash, which is what would be left after the act, that would be not very exciting, even if there were traces of fringe or a corner of the original still visible.

Myers never said "Catholics are not sacred" (not that I could find) which would be an equivalent to your attempt at, um, equivalence.

Puerto Rico is a country, not a minority group.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you can find a parallel situation that puts Catholics into a category with minority groups in this country. Catholicism is not a condition one is born with (well, to a Catholic parent it might be, but even still, people do leave the RCC). Catholics did not just get the right to vote enshrined in the law of the land in the past 50 years or the right to access to jobs and housing, etc.

And just in case you did not read any of my posts on the other comboxes, I am not in sympathy for what Myers did. It was rude, hurtful and unkind, which my Buddhist ethics cannot support. But that does not make it equivalent to, say, burning a cross on a black family's lawn or beating up a gay person, or even threatening to do one of those.

This sorry thread is coming to an end. See you elsewhere.

Where are the threats against this kid, Ed, that you swear took place? It's been over a month since this happened, and you would think that a legitimate threat would have been discovered by now. Police reports? Anything? Nothing? I would decry the violence, but what violence is there to decry?

You're the first I've found to deny the initial news reports that said the threats occurred. Go to Myers's blog, follow the links, you can see the stories.

Is this a ritual you put people through before you make a stand against violence? 'First there must be evidence I deem credible, handed to me on a silver platter . . .'

Sometimes I think if it weren't for Samaritans, there'd be no good deeds done in Christendom.

Mr. Dreher, where is your condemnation for those who have threatened to kill Myers and cause harm to his children?

Apparently you think that putting a rusty nail through a cracker is a more serious offense than those *crimes*?

You're welcome to object to Myers' actions, find him rude, etc.--but why do you not criticize those who have gone *way* over the line to the point of criminal activity, such as Chuck Kroll, who caused his wife to be fired from her job at 1-800-Flowers when he sent a death threat to Myers from her company email account?