PZ Myers Vs. Bill Donahue(Catholic League) [Archive]

Achán hiNidráne

10th July 2008, 10:56 PM

Ah yes, Bill Donohue... Here are just a sample of his "wisdom:"

"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. That's why they hate this movie. It's about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth. It's about the Messiah.... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost."

-Bill Donohue,
Scarborough Country,
12/4/2004 "Well, no. I'm saying if a Catholic votes for Kerry because they support him on abortion rights that is to cooperate in evil."

-Bill Donohue,
Hardball
10/21/2004
"This same guy [Dean Hamer] came up with this idea of the gay gene. I remember when that conversation was going on. Gays were all of a sudden worrying if people would start aborting kids when they found out the DNA suggested the kid might be gay or God forbid, we'd run out of little gay kids, so all of a sudden, they became pro-life."

-Bill Donohue,
Scarborough Country,
12/4/2004

"To defend the institution of marriage is pro-civil society. This traditional institution cannot be defended if all alternative lifestyles are treated as its equal."

-Bill Donohue, in defense of former Senator Rick Santorum's 2003 remarks equating homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery.
"Well, first they said it [The Passion of the Christ] was anti-Semitic. That didn't work. Then they said it was too violent. That didn't work. Then they said it was S & M. That didn't work. Then they said it was pornography. That didn't work. Now they're saying it's fascistic queer-bashing. That kind of language would ordinarily get somebody taken away in a straitjacket and -- put you in the asylum. I don't know what about -- the queer-bashing is all about. I'm pretty good about picking out who queers are and I didn't see any in the movie. I'm usually pretty good at that."

-Bill Donohue
Scarborough Country
3/12/2004 "Name for me a book publishing company in this country, particularly in New York, which would allow you to publish a book which would tell the truth about the gay death style. There are certain things that the left won't tolerate. They are censorial at heart. Indeed, the signature appetite of the left has always been power. Now, they are running up against the American people."

-Bill Donohue,
Scarborough Country
2/27/2004

"Let this be a lesson to militant atheists like Pullman: keep your hollow beliefs to yourself. And ease up on demonizing Catholicism-no other religion has done more to promote human rights, science and goodwill."

-Bill Donohue, in a report from a Christian news site regarding the about the "poor" opening of the film version of "The Golden Compass" of which he led a boycott against.
www.LifeSiteNews.net (http://www.LifeSiteNews.net),
12/10/2007

What a bigoted piece of work!

If you read the comments section on Pharyngula you'll find that the Catholics have swooped down to demand that PZ "respect" their belief that a hunk of bread magically becomes the flesh of an apocryphal 2000-year-old rabbi and chide "liberals" for being "intolerant." These knuckle-draggers have the temerity to lecture us about "tolerance? , What makes them think we should respect their supersticions while at the very same time they piss all over those who fail to met the ridiculous spiritual ideals or questions the Medieval morality of their faith?

Where the frak do they get off?

Roboramma

10th July 2008, 11:05 PM

Reminds me of Bertrand Russel not being allowed to teach in new york...

shadron

10th July 2008, 11:18 PM

Done...

Ditto.The least I can do.

autumn1971

10th July 2008, 11:49 PM

Wow! I can actually finish reading this thread, and comment on it (PZ's posts on this all have hundreds of comments).

Sadly, PZ has gotten a few comments (really, tissue-thin minority) from people who merely asked that he refrain from doing something which would offend a great many people.
As I pointed out to them, if those who initially responded had done what these civil objectors have, there would be no story, and the eventual desecration of a holy object would not be so very funny to contemplate.
Am I sorry that a bunch of folks are going to have to realize that an act is occuring which they find offensive? Probably for some of them.
Am I still giggling like a loon over the inevitable overreaction of the loons when a totally harmless act forces them into paroxysms of violent irrationality and hypocrisy?
Oh dog, yes.

Foolmewunz

11th July 2008, 12:04 AM

I'd be interested in hearing Ben Stein's take on this. Or does he only care when it's his precious IDers who risk being EXPELLED?

Bill Donahue is a bag of wind. Like Rush, the more he mouths off, the more soap flakes they sell.

hgc

11th July 2008, 05:26 AM

Dear Dohonhue,

Jesus sees to his own revenge. Get out of the way, and go back to fellating donkeys and priests.

hgc (holy ghost in christ)

The_Fire

11th July 2008, 06:21 AM

Done.

westprog

11th July 2008, 06:34 AM

Bill Donahue has demanded the resignation of PZ Myers over his mocking commentary on the "stolen piece of cracker incident" ( http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php ) a few days back.

Basically a bunch of religious nutjobs are attacking PZ Myers Free Speech rights done outside of his time as a Professor at the U of Minnesota, Morris and are now harassing the President of the University calling for his firing.

Care to write a letter in support of Dr. Myers?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fight_back_against_bill_donohu.php

Donahue is an idiot. However, Myers is being deliberately offensive, and knows he is. "It's just a cracker", "It's just a flag", "It's just an old book" - what that adds up to is "It doesn't mean anything to me - so I don't care if it means anything to you. And if you care about that stuff, you're stupid, and if I don't, I'm smart".

paximperium

11th July 2008, 08:31 AM

Donahue is an idiot. However, Myers is being deliberately offensive, and knows he is. "It's just a cracker", "It's just a flag", "It's just an old book" - what that adds up to is "It doesn't mean anything to me - so I don't care if it means anything to you. And if you care about that stuff, you're stupid, and if I don't, I'm smart".
So? Does that give Dohahue the right to demand the firing of someone done on a private website on his own free time?

I call the Eucharist disgustingly stupid.

"Bloody cannibals. Save the Body of Christ from the Cannibals!!!"

pgwenthold

11th July 2008, 09:40 AM

I just get a kick out of the "ooh, you aren't showing catholics enough respect" comments. I wonder, WHO are the ones making death threats?

It's just another example of that common problem of, "We have a right to our express our beliefs, but you don't have a right to express your belief that our belief is idiotic" that we see all the time on the internet.

paximperium

11th July 2008, 11:04 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_25554487792389fb4a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12976)

"PZ in your Homez, coming for your Crackerz!"

Achán hiNidráne

11th July 2008, 03:07 PM

And if you care about that stuff, you're stupid, and if I don't, I'm smart".

That's pretty much it, yes. I'm sorry you're incapable of pulling your head out and accepting that reality.

It IS just a cheap, mass-produced cracker.

It IS just a rag on a pole.

It IS just a worm-eaten old book full of savage bronze-age fables.

If any of these things are "more" than just what theya re, especially to the point where you are issuing death threats to those who point out those realities to you, then you are not just stupid, but barbaric too.

Deal with it!

westprog

11th July 2008, 03:25 PM

That's pretty much it, yes. I'm sorry you're incapable of pulling your head out and accepting that reality.

It IS just a cheap, mass-produced cracker.

It IS just a rag on a pole.

It IS just a worm-eaten old book full of savage bronze-age fables.

If any of these things are "more" than just what theya re, especially to the point where you are issuing death threats to those who point out those realities to you, then you are not just stupid, but barbaric too.

Deal with it!

So here's a thought experiment. My hypothetical Asian friend is planning a trip to Washington, where he's going to burn a US flag and piss on the Vietnam war memorial. How do you think the average citizen would feel about that?

quixotecoyote

11th July 2008, 03:27 PM

westprog

11th July 2008, 03:28 PM

So? Does that give Dohahue the right to demand the firing of someone done on a private website on his own free time?

If Myers has the right to ask people to post consecrated hosts to him, then Donahue has the right to ask for him to be fired. That's how the free speech thing works. It goes both ways.

westprog

11th July 2008, 03:30 PM

Depends, is the average citizen capable of separating symbol from substance?

What do you think? When Phelps is shouting abuse at the family of veterans as they go into a funeral service, are they mature enough to realise that he isn't actually doing anyone any harm?

Civilized Worm

11th July 2008, 03:32 PM

Are you now comparing the harassment of grievers to the mockery of biscuits?

quixotecoyote

11th July 2008, 03:33 PM

What do you think? When Phelps is shouting abuse at the family of veterans as they go into a funeral service, are they mature enough to realise that he isn't actually doing anyone any harm?

If you truly think burning a flag/abuse of baked goods is the same thing as screaming abuse at a grieving family, you're too far gone for me to reach.

westprog

11th July 2008, 03:34 PM

Ah yes, Bill Donohue... These knuckle-draggers have the temerity to lecture us about "tolerance? , What makes them think we should respect their supersticions while at the very same time they piss all over those who fail to met the ridiculous spiritual ideals or questions the Medieval morality of their faith?

Where the frak do they get off?

If you watch very carefully, you'll see the point at which Bill Donahue turns into every Catholic on Earth. Nothing up his sleeves, just a wave of the handkerchief, and they all look and think just the same.

westprog

11th July 2008, 03:37 PM

If you truly think burning a flag/abuse of baked goods is the same thing as screaming abuse at a grieving family, you're too far gone for me to reach.

It doesn't matter what you think about it. It doesn't matter what I think about it. What matters is how the people on the recieving end feel about it. What is very clear from this thread is that if you hold the wrong kind of beliefs, then it doesn't matter what you feel about it.

If the Catholics are expected to say "Hey, it's just a cracker" then why shouldn't the families say "Hey, he's just shouting". Nobody gets hurt in either case.

westprog

11th July 2008, 03:39 PM

Are you now comparing the harassment of grievers to the mockery of biscuits?

Clearly the Catholics thought they were being harassed. Clearly that doesn't matter to most of the people posting here - because Catholics are stupid bigots.

If it doesn't matter about one biscuit more or less, then it doesn't matter about what someone shouts in public street. Get over it.

quixotecoyote

11th July 2008, 03:40 PM

It doesn't matter what you think about it. It doesn't matter what I think about it. What matters is how the people on the recieving end feel about it. What is very clear from this thread is that if you hold the wrong kind of beliefs, then it doesn't matter what you feel about it.

If the Catholics are expected to say "Hey, it's just a cracker" then why shouldn't the families say "Hey, he's just shouting". Nobody gets hurt in either case.

The cracker incident was only an incident because the catholics decided to make it an incident. They could have let him walk out of the church and out of their lives with no disruption.

Please honestly compare that to a bullhorn brigade interrupting a funeral.

Skeptic Guy

11th July 2008, 03:41 PM

So here's a thought experiment. My hypothetical Asian friend is planning a trip to Washington, where he's going to burn a US flag and piss on the Vietnam war memorial. How do you think the average citizen would feel about that?

I may not agree with it but I would defend with my life his/her right to do so.

If Myers has the right to ask people to post consecrated hosts to him, then Donahue has the right to ask for him to be fired. That's how the free speech thing works. It goes both ways.

The problems is the firing thing. That's where the free speech thing breaks down. Myers can say whatever he wants without the fear of being fired or his life threatened...etc.

Civilized Worm

11th July 2008, 03:42 PM

Achán hiNidráne

11th July 2008, 03:45 PM

So here's a thought experiment. My hypothetical Asian friend is planning a trip to Washington, where he's going to burn a US flag and piss on the Vietnam war memorial. How do you think the average citizen would feel about that?

1) I support is action on free speech grounds.

2) I'd probably agree with his sentiment since American's butchered his people during that damn war.

3) I wouldn't give a rat's rear end what the jingoistic, fascist, militaristic piles of excremite on America's Retarded Right had to say about it.

Skeptic Guy

11th July 2008, 03:45 PM

Clearly the Catholics thought they were being harassed. Clearly that doesn't matter to most of the people posting here - because Catholics are stupid bigots.

If it doesn't matter about one biscuit more or less, then it doesn't matter about what someone shouts in public street. Get over it.

Not all Catholics are stupid bigots, just the ones foaming at the mouth demanding that Myers be fired or get killed. Or for that matter, the young man that had the temerity to remove a wafer of unleavened bread from the church.

I spoke with a Catholic friend of mine today about the subject and she thought that the reactions by both the Church and Donohue were outrageous. She for one, is not a stupid bigot.

Achán hiNidráne

11th July 2008, 03:46 PM

If you watch very carefully, you'll see the point at which Bill Donahue turns into every Catholic on Earth. Nothing up his sleeves, just a wave of the handkerchief, and they all look and think just the same.

And just where did I say "every Catholic?" I was referring to Donohue and PZ's detractors on the Pharyngula comment section.

Civilized Worm

11th July 2008, 03:49 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_164454877d56099491.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12980)

Skeptic Guy

11th July 2008, 03:52 PM

Donahue is an idiot. However, Myers is being deliberately offensive, and knows he is. "It's just a cracker", "It's just a flag", "It's just an old book" - what that adds up to is "It doesn't mean anything to me - so I don't care if it means anything to you. And if you care about that stuff, you're stupid, and if I don't, I'm smart".

And one more thing, it wasn't that [the Catholics] "cared about that stuff", it was that they were taking it to such extremes by threatening the man's life and trying to get him expelled from school for something so patently silly. He was incensed about the rabid hatred exhibited by a faith that is supposed to believe in love, forgiveness and understanding.

He was writing for shock and outrage because the subject matter was so shocking and outrageous.

Skeptic Guy

11th July 2008, 03:54 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_164454877d56099491.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12980)

Blasphemer! I'm writing the Children's Workshop to have that creature fired! He's going straight to Hell and I'm going to send him there!

Achán hiNidráne

11th July 2008, 04:00 PM

Clearly the Catholics thought they were being harassed.

Which goes to show that these Catholics are idiots.

Clearly that doesn't matter to most of the people posting here - because Catholics are stupid bigots.

Yes, THESE Catholics are bigots, particularly Donohue. As for the rest... Strawman much?

If it doesn't matter about one biscuit more or less, then it doesn't matter about what someone shouts in public street. Get over it.

While time and place restrictions on expression are constitutional, there is no censorhip of CONTENT. Poking fun of Catholic supersticions on a blog IS NOT the same thing as "shouting fire in a crowded theatre."

I suggest you learn the difference.

Soapy Sam

11th July 2008, 04:01 PM

It seems to me that the important question here is simply the truth.

What is true?

Is it a cracker, or is it the body of a long dead Palestinian agitator?

Choose one.

There is also a subtly different question, which is "To what extent does it matter whether or not people believe one or the other?", but I feel we should deal with the truth first and opinion second.

Piggy

11th July 2008, 04:06 PM

Is it a cracker, or is it the body of a long dead Palestinian agitator?

Even under Catholic dogma, it's still a cracker until it has transubstantiated within the body of the believer, so actually no desecration has occurred here.

krazyKemist

11th July 2008, 04:21 PM

1- The first offence was against a youth who commited the incredibly horrible offence, nay, the "hate crime" as its been qualified over at Pharyngula by some, of bringing the host to show it to a friend with intent to eat it afterwards. An hysterical woman assaulted the poor fellow and he received death threaths, for FSM's sake.

2- Pr. Myers was only expressing deserved outrage at this behavior, which is on par with the danish cartoon affair and the teddy bear scandal everybody in the civilized world was laughing their heads off about (deservedly). This gross overreaction deserved ridicule, and the gross overreaction to the friggin' comment deserves an even more heavy load of ridicule, if the U.S. is to be counted among civilized nations.

3- Bill Donohue and his whacked-out following do not represent catholic people. I'm myself a lapsed catholic and my family and most of my friends still attend mass. When I told them about this piece of news they started laughing and commented "crazy americans, doesn't really surprise me anymore". So the small minority reflects pretty badly on the U.S.'s already damaged status abroad. If Pr. Myers made a mistake, then, it was in assuming that he lived in a civilized country, you know, where nobody gets stoned for witchcraft, beheaded for naming a teddy bear mohammed, or gets a bomb in his car for drawing a couple cartoon, however insulting or classless they may have been. Or receives death threats for calling the host a cracker (yeah I know, it's a wafer).

I have also seen people try to say that PZ did not similarly insult muslims because people fear them and suggesting catholics do the same to get "respect" (somehow, these people equate fear and respect. weird.). :eye-poppi

Ok....

So, if you see a tree-year-old flinging crap on the floor to get attention, as an adult, the correct thing to do is to imitate him :confused:

Wow, the high moral standards, the love, the forgiveness, they're so intense... I just feel like going to church again :cool:

GodMark2

11th July 2008, 04:28 PM

So here's a thought experiment. My hypothetical Asian friend is planning a trip to Washington, where he's going to burn a US flag and piss on the Vietnam war memorial. How do you think the average citizen would feel about that?

As long as he keeps the flames from the burning flag contained in accordance with local fire codes, burn away.

Urinating in a public place is illegal for sanitation reasons, so I will not support pissing on the monument. He can take a picture of the monument, or even purchasing a miniature replica, and do whatever he wants with it.

If the average citizen feels differently, he needs to read the constitution again.

Achán hiNidráne

11th July 2008, 04:58 PM

I have also seen people try to say that PZ did not similarly insult muslims because people fear them and suggesting catholics do the same to get "respect" (somehow, these people equate fear and respect. weird.). :eye-poppi

Yes. However if they bothered to use the blog's search function, they'd find that PZ HAS criticized Muslim antics in past postings.

According to the christo-fascists, Muslims have replaced Communists as the boogie men we all have to fear and hate. Somehow, if you aren't prepared to attack Islam (even when it has nothing to do with the conversation) at the drop of the hat you're either a coward or Al Qaeda sympathizer. "Ifin' you aint wit us, yer again' us! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!!!"

In this case, it's just tu quoque equivocation for the purposes of deflecting much-deserved criticism of the Christian Right's own "extremism."

NotJesus

11th July 2008, 05:32 PM

Even under Catholic dogma, it's still a cracker until it has transubstantiated within the body of the believer, so actually no desecration has occurred here.

That's not correct. Transubstantiation occurs when the hosts (crackers) are consecrated by the priest, before they're given to the congregation.

paximperium

11th July 2008, 06:21 PM

What do you think? When Phelps is shouting abuse at the family of veterans as they go into a funeral service, are they mature enough to realise that he isn't actually doing anyone any harm?
I actually support Phelps and his loons in all their protests of veteran's funerals because he followed the law. He never broke any ordinances and he had a 1st amendment right to do so. Call it disgusting behavior but I would defend the right of the KKK, Black Panthers, Communist Party, the Osama Bin Laden Party to do the same.

PZ Myers was being as offensive any comedy routine that hits on religion and while Donahue has the right speak and call for PZ's firing, he and his posse sure as hell have no right to harass him and the university.

lupus_in_fabula

12th July 2008, 12:59 AM

Holy cracker... the cracker cult is taking over the world! :jaw-dropp

UnrepentantSinner

12th July 2008, 03:53 AM

A juvenille commentary on a juvenille prank elicits overreaction, hysteria and death threats from The Human Bullhorn and his minions. Shocking.

If Bill Donohue wants to get upset about someone dissing the communion wafer I suggest he go after Jack Chick, publisher of The Death Cookie*. My guess is he won't because it's easier to get Catholics outrages over Jews, Muslims or atheists than fellow Christians.

* I refuse to link to that douchebags site, Google it if you're not familiar with that tract.

westprog

12th July 2008, 05:05 AM

westprog

12th July 2008, 05:12 AM

Not all Catholics are stupid bigots, just the ones foaming at the mouth demanding that Myers be fired or get killed. Or for that matter, the young man that had the temerity to remove a wafer of unleavened bread from the church.

What about the catholics who think that what he did was offensive and hurtful? Are they bigots?

I spoke with a Catholic friend of mine today about the subject and she thought that the reactions by both the Church and Donohue were outrageous. She for one, is not a stupid bigot.

How does she feel about the boy taking the "cracker" out of the church - or Myers asking to be sent consecrated hosts? Is she good with that?

Donahue is a foolish self-publicist whose overreactions have done far more harm than good. The idiots who phone in anonymous death threats are always the same kind of idiots, and they always cause trouble. I'd expect most Catholics to feel similarly. However, I wouldn't expect most Catholics to say "It's just a cracker", though I may be wrong there.

westprog

12th July 2008, 05:18 AM

If you truly think burning a flag/abuse of baked goods is the same thing as screaming abuse at a grieving family, you're too far gone for me to reach.

I see the principle here. Phelps is doing something that most people would find offensive and painful. However, the cracker-stealer was doing something that a lot of people wouldn't object to at all. Therefore anyone who does object to it is just making a fuss about nothing. Empathy means assuming that everyone else reacts just like me.

However, in both cases nobody suffers any physical harm. Their sensibilities are offended, but no blood is shed, no money is lost. Neither the mourners who are told that their child is burning in hell, nor the Catholics who are told that their beliefs are just plain wrong and stupid, have been really hurt. So what's the big deal in either case?

JoeEllison

12th July 2008, 06:49 AM

I see the principle here. Phelps is doing something that most people would find offensive and painful. However, the cracker-stealer was doing something that a lot of people wouldn't object to at all. Therefore anyone who does object to it is just making a fuss about nothing. Empathy means assuming that everyone else reacts just like me.

However, in both cases nobody suffers any physical harm. Their sensibilities are offended, but no blood is shed, no money is lost. Neither the mourners who are told that their child is burning in hell, nor the Catholics who are told that their beliefs are just plain wrong and stupid, have been really hurt. So what's the big deal in either case?
Exactly... now you're starting to get the picture. Of course, you are still comparing a CRACKER to a person, but that seems to be a delusion you're not going to give up on. Otherwise, getting your feelings hurt is not automatically a violation of your rights. Certainly, someone pointing out that the Catholic cannibalism ritual is stupid is not in any way a sign of lost religious freedom for the Catholics.

UnrepentantSinner

12th July 2008, 08:56 AM

Can we tone down the hate and loaded language a bit? Bill The Human Bullhorn Dummyhue deserves our derision... all Catholics do not.

Achán hiNidráne

12th July 2008, 09:15 AM

What about the catholics who think that what he did was offensive and hurtful? Are they bigots?

Yes, and silly too.

quixotecoyote

12th July 2008, 09:16 AM

Exactly... now you're starting to get the picture. Of course, you are still comparing a CRACKER to a person, but that seems to be a delusion you're not going to give up on. Otherwise, getting your feelings hurt is not automatically a violation of your rights. Certainly, someone pointing out that the Catholic cannibalism ritual is stupid is not in any way a sign of lost religious freedom for the Catholics.

I think there's also ethical (not rights) issues about targeting the berieved and intent issues regarding hate and disruption.

westprog

12th July 2008, 09:49 AM

Can we tone down the hate and loaded language a bit? Bill The Human Bullhorn Dummyhue deserves our derision... all Catholics do not.

That's seems reasonable enough. On the other hand...

Are they bigots?

Yes, and silly too.

quixotecoyote

12th July 2008, 09:53 AM

That's seems reasonable enough. On the other hand...

Not much point in selectively cropping the quote from two posts up.

westprog

12th July 2008, 09:55 AM

Can we tone down the hate and loaded language a bit? Bill The Human Bullhorn Dummyhue deserves our derision... all Catholics do not.

A juvenille commentary on a juvenille prank elicits overreaction, hysteria and death threats from The Human Bullhorn and his minions. Shocking.

If Bill Donohue wants to get upset about someone dissing the communion wafer I suggest he go after Jack Chick, publisher of The Death Cookie*. My guess is he won't because it's easier to get Catholics outrages over Jews, Muslims or atheists than fellow Christians.

* I refuse to link to that douchebags site, Google it if you're not familiar with that tract.

Jack Chick is an appalling bigot -IMO way out of Donahue's league - but AFAIAA, he isn't telling his followers to go into Catholic churches and get hold of the eucharist. Anti-catholic rhetoric is nothing new, and Catholics have no more right to be free of criticism than anyone else. What they are entitled to is to be able to do what they like on their own private property*.

*Incidentally, I don't know if this incident happened in an actual Catholic church, or a university chapel, or some other kind of shared building. However, it was at that time allocated for their use.

quixotecoyote

12th July 2008, 10:03 AM

Jack Chick is an appalling bigot -IMO way out of Donahue's league - but AFAIAA, he isn't telling his followers to go into Catholic churches and get hold of the eucharist.

Again, would you like to note what event(s) those statements were responding to?

Civilized Worm

12th July 2008, 11:13 AM

Jack Chick is an appalling bigot -IMO way out of Donahue's league - but AFAIAA, he isn't telling his followers to go into Catholic churches and get hold of the eucharist. Anti-catholic rhetoric is nothing new, and Catholics have no more right to be free of criticism than anyone else. What they are entitled to is to be able to do what they like on their own private property*.

*Incidentally, I don't know if this incident happened in an actual Catholic church, or a university chapel, or some other kind of shared building. However, it was at that time allocated for their use.

And people should be able to do what they like with biscuits that have been given to them.

westprog

12th July 2008, 03:33 PM

Not much point in selectively cropping the quote from two posts up.

Clearly then I wasn't trying to hide anything.

westprog

12th July 2008, 03:36 PM

And people should be able to do what they like with biscuits that have been given to them.

Regardless of what conditions apply?

I thought there was a kind of default minimum tolerance level. "I don't care what Catholics do in their churches, but I draw the line when they try to impose their morality on me. They can have their prayers in private, but keep it out of public schools." But it seems that they don't even have the right to say what happens during their own services.

westprog

12th July 2008, 03:37 PM

Again, would you like to note what event(s) those statements were responding to?

Actual events - as in things that actually happened? A woman tried to prise a young man's fingers apart, and failed.

Civilized Worm

12th July 2008, 03:38 PM

They have the right to give people biscuits, they don't have the right to force those biscuits down their throat.

quixotecoyote

12th July 2008, 03:48 PM

Actual events - as in things that actually happened? A woman tried to prise a young man's fingers apart, and failed.

Okay, so we've got assault. Keep going, there's more.

shadron

12th July 2008, 10:45 PM

That's not correct. Transubstantiation occurs when the hosts (crackers) are consecrated by the priest, before they're given to the congregation.

Yes. The priest holds up a host (the famed cracker, though not as good as a Ritz) to the congregation, and here, speaking for Christ, quoting his words, says, "Take ye and eat; For this is My body of the new covenant, which is shed for all for the remission of sin. Do This in remembrance of Me.” That is the moment of the change, as Catholics believe: consecration. Words, for me, so far in my past I had to look them up to get them right.

I'm afraid that I have to agree with Westprog here, just a little bit. The catholics consider the hosts when consecrated to be holy, and therefore not handling them correctly is an act of sacrilege, of blasphemy. (Just take the word host and change it to flag, and consider how a "true American" would consider it; catholics are anything if not conservatives. "Ah, yes...the tradition is strong in this one." ) However, much worse has been visited upon churches in the past, and will so in the future. We consider it horrendous that the Somali's dragged an Army ranger through the streets of Mogadishu, and yet the man was dead; he, personally, was far beyond caring. As a member of the family of that man, could you have detached yourself from him in the same way that you expect of a catholic witnessing what happened in the church? A real catholic (a rarity, I assure you) would, in my estimation, watch the act detached, and would have considered how the desecrater would be judged when the time comes. A charitable catholic would have prayed for him.

And a real skeptic? What should a skeptic expect of his honorable opponents, and they of him?

Yup. Idealist at the core. I knew it. Hopeless.

westprog

13th July 2008, 05:23 AM

Okay, so we've got assault. Keep going, there's more.

Such as? I suppose this being America, this "assault" might be followed by a lawsuit involving millions of dollars damages.

However, it has yet to be established whether the woman did anything wrong. He was clearly not entitled to take the cracker - that was the deal as established over the last two millenia. Whether a very mild degree of force was justified is something to be decided legally. There is no allegation that the poor boy was in any way hurt.

Meanwhile, has there been any other actual physical action? I haven't heard of it yet.

westprog

13th July 2008, 05:33 AM

They have the right to give people biscuits, they don't have the right to force those biscuits down their throat.

And they have the right to withhold them.

paximperium

13th July 2008, 05:39 AM

Such as? I suppose this being America, this "assault" might be followed by a lawsuit involving millions of dollars damages.
What is the relevance of this diatribe to the topic at hand?

However, it has yet to be established whether the woman did anything wrong. He was clearly not entitled to take the cracker - that was the deal as established over the last two millenia. Whether a very mild degree of force was justified is something to be decided legally. There is no allegation that the poor boy was in any way hurt.
Wait a minute? Priest GIVES boy cracker. Boy takes cracker to show to his friend. Crazies attack boy.
Wow, what wishy washy ethics. So it is okay to assault someone over a cracker if the force was mild? So Christian "tradition" trumps laws?

Meanwhile, has there been any other actual physical action? I haven't heard of it yet.
Irrelevant. We have an assault, harrassment and threats of violence against this kid. Hopefully this kid will see how crazy Catholicm is...Ooops...I think catholics just lost a believer.

westprog

13th July 2008, 05:50 AM

I'm afraid that I have to agree with Westprog here, just a little bit.

I apologise, and I'll try not to let it happen again.

As a member of the family of that man, could you have detached yourself from him in the same way that you expect of a catholic witnessing what happened in the church? A real catholic (a rarity, I assure you) would, in my estimation, watch the act detached, and would have considered how the desecrater would be judged when the time comes. A charitable catholic would have prayed for him.

It seems that the catholics in that church left him unscathed. In spite of being heavily outnumbered, he was able to get away unscathed*. And then they prayed for him.

*Apart from the "assault", from one woman member of the congregation.

westprog

13th July 2008, 05:55 AM

What is the relevance of this diatribe to the topic at hand?

Wait a minute? Priest GIVES boy cracker. Boy takes cracker to show to his friend. Crazies attack boy.
Wow, what wishy washy ethics. So it is okay to assault someone over a cracker if the force was mild? So Christian "tradition" trumps laws?

Personally, if someone was walking out of my house with something that belonged to me, I'd ask him to give it back, and then I would try to get it back from him. But I don't live in America, where that would make me a "Crazy".

Incidentally, only one member of the congregation made any physical contact with cracker thief at all.

Irrelevant. We have an assault, harrassment and threats of violence against this kid. Hopefully this kid will see how crazy Catholicm is...Ooops...I think catholics just lost a believer.

Aparently, if someone takes something that belongs to me in America and I ask for it back, that's harassment.

And it wasn't "given to him". The rules of Catholic communion have been around for a couple of thousand years now. They've changed a little bit, but it's never been all right to palm the bread and take it home. If he didn't know at the time, then he certainly knew when he was caught out.

paximperium

13th July 2008, 06:14 AM

Personally, if someone was walking out of my house with something that belonged to me, I'd ask him to give it back, and then I would try to get it back from him. But I don't live in America, where that would make me a "Crazy".
So...you give me something to eat but I decide to put it in my pocket instead. That somehow gives you the right to assault me? Do that and you sure as heck are crazy.
BTW: It was a cracker.

Incidentally, only one member of the congregation made any physical contact with cracker thief at all.
Okay...so will you even relent and say that ONE member of the congregation assaulted him?
BTW: It was over a cracker.

Aparently, if someone takes something that belongs to me in America and I ask for it back, that's harassment.
Oh? You gave me something and it still belongs to you? Yeah...right.
BTW: They demanded the return of a cracker

And it wasn't "given to him". The rules of Catholic communion have been around for a couple of thousand years now. They've changed a little bit, but it's never been all right to palm the bread and take it home. If he didn't know at the time, then he certainly knew when he was caught out.
So...they rent out pieces of Jesus flesh to eat? They don't give it away?
I should go on the Internet and buy a few boxes of Consecrated wafers...damn...can't do that since its not mine but the Churches.
Too bad secular law trumps "Catholic communion rules".
BTW: They gave away a Cracker.

Uzzy

13th July 2008, 07:24 AM

This just in: 50 Million Americans still lack health insurance. Now, back to our main story, the ongoing 'Crackergate' scandal.

mdpbl

13th July 2008, 07:31 AM

Flour power?

TsarBomba

13th July 2008, 08:36 AM

Man, this thread got off topic really fast!

Regarding the thread's original purpose, if you want to send the prez of the University of Minnesota something on support of P.Z., the best thing to do is take the extra time and send him a snail mail letter (at least if you live in North America). In things like this, one snail mail letter is worth 500 emails.

Here is the address:

President Robert H. Bruininks
202 Morrill Hall
100 Church Street S.E.
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455

shadron

13th July 2008, 08:41 AM

I apologise, and I'll try not to let it happen again.

Paranoid, much?

It seems that the catholics in that church left him unscathed. In spite of being heavily outnumbered, he was able to get away unscathed*. And then they prayed for him.

*Apart from the "assault", from one woman member of the congregation.OK...go on...

No one here really sticks it to the lady, or even the congregation - well, at least not without your prodding. The problem here is that this national figure decided that this was an insult to *all* Catholics (without even consulting them or the clergy, who are god's representatives here on earth, in their minds). That's some undertaking, the same sort of thing that the Rev. Sharpton does with a merely earthbound host. Had he not gotten into it, then PZ wouldn't have, and we'd be talking about plasma in this space.

People who make mountains out of molehills will be the death of humanity someday.

Civilized Worm

13th July 2008, 08:43 AM

And they have the right to withhold them.

Withhold, not forcibly retrieve.

westprog

13th July 2008, 08:53 AM

Withhold, not forcibly retrieve.

I don't think they have the right to go into the guy's apartment armed with shotguns. I think they've the right to interrupt him on the way out and say "Excuse me, could you give that back please."

Civilized Worm

13th July 2008, 08:55 AM

And he has the right to say "no take backsies".

westprog

13th July 2008, 09:09 AM

Paranoid, much?

OK...go on...

No one here really sticks it to the lady, or even the congregation - well, at least not without your prodding.

I'm quite a powerful influence, then. The description of the hysterical out of control crazy lady who might be doing federal hard time wasn't wholly dictated by me. I just tried to find out what she, and the congregation had actually done.

The problem here is that this national figure decided that this was an insult to *all* Catholics (without even consulting them or the clergy, who are god's representatives here on earth, in their minds). That's some undertaking, the same sort of thing that the Rev. Sharpton does with a merely earthbound host. Had he not gotten into it, then PZ wouldn't have, and we'd be talking about plasma in this space.

The reason I joined in this particular thread was a succession of posts supporting Myers and condemning Donahue. I pointed out that Myers was as much of a jackass as Donahue, and seemed to want to deliberately inflame the situation.

It's a very common tactic - pick on the extreme enemy, and say that everyone else is like him - and then attack with as broad a brush as possible. Myers decided to have a big go at all Catholics. I don't think he meant what he said, but he certainly meant to upset a lot of people who'd done him no harm whatsoever.

People who make mountains out of molehills will be the death of humanity someday.

I think people making mountains out of molehills is a colossal problem - the biggest in the history of the universe.

UnrepentantSinner

13th July 2008, 09:24 AM

Wait a minute? Priest GIVES boy cracker. Boy takes cracker to show to his friend.* Crazies attack boy.**

Hold on a minute. You seem to be omitting some stuff between your straw man marked with the asterisk and your straw man marked with two asterisks.

This is a skeptics forum and we should stick to not making emotional claims but factual ones in order to maintain our high ground.

paximperium

13th July 2008, 09:46 AM

Hold on a minute. You seem to be omitting some stuff between your straw man marked with the asterisk and your straw man marked with two asterisks.

This is a skeptics forum and we should stick to not making emotional claims but factual ones in order to maintain our high ground.
*Pout*

quixotecoyote

13th July 2008, 09:57 AM

Such as? I suppose this being America, this "assault" might be followed by a lawsuit involving millions of dollars damages.

However, it has yet to be established whether the woman did anything wrong. He was clearly not entitled to take the cracker - that was the deal as established over the last two millenia. Whether a very mild degree of force was justified is something to be decided legally. There is no allegation that the poor boy was in any way hurt.

It was my mistake as someone pointed out, it was technically battery, not assault. Do carry on.

Civilized Worm

13th July 2008, 10:26 AM

I'm interested to know why not eating Jesus is considered worse than eating Jesus.

westprog

13th July 2008, 10:28 AM

Yes. However if they bothered to use the blog's search function, they'd find that PZ HAS criticized Muslim antics in past postings.

Has he offered to burn the Koran live on the Internet? That's a rhetorical question, obviously.

westprog

13th July 2008, 10:42 AM

It was my mistake as someone pointed out, it was technically battery, not assault.

I don't think it's technically anything until a court adjudicates.

Do carry on.

Technically I'd call it a whiny cry-baby making a fuss over nothing, but I'm not a lawyer.

quixotecoyote

13th July 2008, 10:54 AM

Technically I'd call it a whiny cry-baby making a fuss over nothing, but I'm not a lawyer.

Whiny cry baby does seem appropriate for the topic, doesn't it.

Gimme back my cracker! Wahhhh

Civilized Worm

13th July 2008, 11:16 AM

technically I'd Call It A Whiny Cry-baby Making A Fuss Over Nothing, But I'm Not A Lawyer.

Oh The Irony.

JoeEllison

13th July 2008, 11:46 AM

Whiny cry baby does seem appropriate for the topic, doesn't it.

Gimme back my cracker! Wahhhh

Waaahhhhh!!!! I'm hungry for some of that Jesus Cracker!!!! Waaaaahhhhh!!!! Leave No Baby Jesus Cracker Behind!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!

Morrigan

13th July 2008, 12:08 PM

The reason I joined in this particular thread was a succession of posts supporting Myers and condemning Donahue. I pointed out that Myers was as much of a jackass as Donahue

“It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ.”

When Myers says something on a similar level of outrageousness, get back to me. In the meantime, we'll keep pointing out that your comparison is absurd.

cyborg

13th July 2008, 12:29 PM

Quick question: if I collect enough of these wafers together can I get a whole Jesus?

paximperium

13th July 2008, 12:36 PM

Has he offered to burn the Koran live on the Internet? That's a rhetorical question, obviously.
So burning the Koran is equivalent to sacrilege against crackers?

Myshkin

13th July 2008, 01:25 PM

So burning the Koran is equivalent to sacrilege against crackers?

Pretty close, I'd say. Some group of people consider an object sacred, and someone else does something to it that the former people consider blasphemous, sacrilege, or at least disrespectful.

I don't understand the uproar, myself. I don't give a flip if anyone disrespects some object that I hold dear, so long as it's their own cookie or book.

Civilized Worm

13th July 2008, 01:31 PM

If someone was making a big fuss about Qu'ran burning he may well offer to burn one himself, I don't know.

quixotecoyote

13th July 2008, 03:36 PM

I've decided to use this incident for the course paper in my graduate communication ethics class. I'll share when I'm done.

westprog

13th July 2008, 03:59 PM

So burning the Koran is equivalent to sacrilege against crackers?

Yes, it's precisely equivalent, except of course for the consequences.

westprog

13th July 2008, 04:01 PM

“It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ.”

When Myers says something on a similar level of outrageousness, get back to me. In the meantime, we'll keep pointing out that your comparison is absurd.

Well, naturally. You think catholic beliefs are absurd, and that Catholics are stupid. A catholic jerk will seem stupider to you than an atheist jerk.

Assume that their base beliefs have equal value, and you might come to a different conclusion. But that isn't going to happen.

Civilized Worm

13th July 2008, 04:01 PM

I'd burn a Qu'ran.

Civilized Worm

13th July 2008, 04:04 PM

paximperium

13th July 2008, 04:04 PM

westprog

13th July 2008, 04:08 PM

Name something that a Christian could do that would piss off an atheist but is completely and utterly harmless like kidnapping a cracker. Try hard.

I already gave one. Pissing on the Vietnam memorial.

Phelps is another case. He hasn't hurt a fly.

paximperium

13th July 2008, 04:13 PM

I already gave one. Pissing on the Vietnam memorial.

Phelps is another case. He hasn't hurt a fly.
Wrong. Pissing on the Vietnam memorial will piss off anyone who supports the dead in the war, not just Atheist. it is also against public ordnance against urinating in public. It is harmful because it is dirty.

The Phelps case? I support his right to free speech as disgusting as it is. It pisses everyone off who find his behavior unseemly to the family.

Try again. Name something that a Christian could do that would piss off an atheist but is completely and utterly harmless like kidnapping a cracker.

Civilized Worm

13th July 2008, 04:21 PM

Not even kidnapping, just not eating it.

Olowkow

13th July 2008, 05:10 PM

...
Try again. Name something that a Christian could do that would piss off an atheist but is completely and utterly harmless like kidnapping a cracker.

Knocking on his door and trying to convert him. :D Pisses me off every time.
Harmless.

paximperium

13th July 2008, 05:21 PM

Knocking on his door and trying to convert him. :D Pisses me off every time.
Harmless.
You are right. I'm so pissed off, I'm going to start a letter writing campaign to get them fired and write them hate mail. :viking1

I actually occasionally enjoy conversing with them especially the Mormon kids. Most of the time its a time waster.

PS: I believe that converting more people to a mythic belief is harmful.

Achán hiNidráne

13th July 2008, 05:43 PM

Has he offered to burn the Koran live on the Internet? That's a rhetorical question, obviously.

Then why did you ask it?

Morrigan

14th July 2008, 12:27 AM

Well, naturally. You think catholic beliefs are absurd, and that Catholics are stupid. A catholic jerk will seem stupider to you than an atheist jerk.

Assume that their base beliefs have equal value, and you might come to a different conclusion. But that isn't going to happen.
??? This isn't about beliefs.

You said that Myers was "as much of a jackass as Donahue". But Donaahue basically implied that the non-eating of a cracker is worse than child abuse, rape, torture, slavery, murder, genocide and so on.

This isn't about beliefs, nor about me thinking Catholics are stupid (by the way, that's your strawman, please keep it). It's about common human decency. When Myers says something that utterly trivializes the very real suffering of real human beings, he'll be "as much of a jackass as Donahue". In the meantime, you're talking bollocks.

westprog

14th July 2008, 02:17 AM

??? This isn't about beliefs.

You said that Myers was "as much of a jackass as Donahue". But Donaahue basically implied that the non-eating of a cracker is worse than child abuse, rape, torture, slavery, murder, genocide and so on.

This isn't about beliefs, nor about me thinking Catholics are stupid (by the way, that's your strawman, please keep it).

the Catholics have swooped down to demand that PZ "respect" their belief ...
These knuckle-draggers

I call the Eucharist disgustingly stupid.

Not my strawman. I've been following this.

And yes, the references have not been to Donahue, or to the people making death threats. It's been to catholics who believe something that some other people regard as absurd.

It's about common human decency. When Myers says something that utterly trivializes the very real suffering of real human beings, he'll be "as much of a jackass as Donahue". In the meantime, you're talking bollocks.

Yes, it is about common human decency.

I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There’s no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I’m sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I’ll send you my home address.

Now, why did he write that? Presumably he wanted to get a reaction. He wanted to upset people. Who did he want to upset? Believing Catholics. Had they, as a group, done him any harm? No.

I don't think that Myers actually intends to do any such thing. I don't think most Catholics will hear about it. Many wouldn't be that put out anyway. But his intention was to hurt people because he thinks their beliefs are stupid. And the people on JREF who support him do so because they think that Catholic beliefs are stupid. And if someone is upset because her beliefs leads him to assign value to a cracker, then she does not deserve sympathy.

Donahue is not entitled to have anyone else value that little bit of bread the way he does. He's entitled to value it himself, and so are other Catholics. And other people are allowed to think that belief is nonsense.
But what seems to be required here is that Catholics aren't even allowed to talk about their beliefs. They aren't even to be allowed to practice them in private.

westprog

14th July 2008, 02:26 AM

Then why did you ask it?

Is that a rhetorical question?

It's been alleged that Myers criticises Islam as much as Catholicism. That may be the case, but contrary to what's been claimed in this thread, he didn't stir up trouble by criticising catholicism, he stirred it by saying that he intended to carry out a sacrilegous act.

The exact equivalent act against Islam would not be a blog about female circumcision or polygamy. It would be a declared intention to carry out a sacrilegous act against Islam.

The reason that the question was rhetorical is because there is no chance that Myers wouldn't proclaim such an intention, because contrary to what has been alleged here, anti-Islamic blasphemy carries far worse consequences than anti-Catholic blasphemy. I've no problem with Myers not wanting to risk his life to make a point - but let's not pretend there's any other principle involved.

westprog

14th July 2008, 02:39 AM

Wrong. Pissing on the Vietnam memorial will piss off anyone who supports the dead in the war, not just Atheist. it is also against public ordnance against urinating in public. It is harmful because it is dirty.

Oh, the rule has to be that it will only upset atheists? Or is it that it will upset all atheists and no christians? Any other rules you want to add?

I think it's a fairly safe bet that pissing on the Vietnam memorial, or burning a flag in front of a Marine base, or spitting on children on the way to school, would upset a lot of people regardless of whether or not they were atheists, and entirely independent of public ordinances.

The Phelps case? I support his right to free speech as disgusting as it is. It pisses everyone off who find his behavior unseemly to the family.

Try again. Name something that a Christian could do that would piss off an atheist but is completely and utterly harmless like kidnapping a cracker.

It's actually so easy that I'm almost thinking that something else must be meant. All insults are intrinsically harmless. Racial abuse, for example, is often just a matter of saying an obvious truth in an offensive way. Call someone an African-American and he'll probably find that quite acceptable. Use a variety of synonyms and near synonyms and you might provoke a riot. And yet all that is being said is that someone has a particular skin complexion.

Are these people unreasonable for being offended? No - because they know that someone is acting hatefully towards them. The act might be intrinsically harmless, but it's agressive and spiteful.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 06:57 AM

Oh, the rule has to be that it will only upset atheists? Or is it that it will upset all atheists and no christians? Any other rules you want to add?

<Snip>

Yawn...the whole "Kidnapping a piece of Jesus Flesh" didn't piss anyone off except for Christians, so you want to use an example that would piss EVRYONE off as an equivalent? Yeah...didn't you mention something about double standards before...

Are these people unreasonable for being offended? No - because they know that someone is acting hatefully towards them. The act might be intrinsically harmless, but it's agressive and spiteful
Nope. They are reasonable for being offended, I just consider their reason inherently stupid. Hateful? How can you be hateful towards a cracker? Perhaps disrespectful towards a belief that many consider delusional...then yup.

You got one thing correct. It is aggressive and spiteful but you have yet to name something that a Christian could do that would piss off an atheist but is completely and utterly harmless like kidnapping a cracker.

ponderingturtle

14th July 2008, 07:53 AM

Actual events - as in things that actually happened? A woman tried to prise a young man's fingers apart, and failed.

So it is assault.

If you didn't want him to have the craker you shouldn't give him the craker.

ponderingturtle

14th July 2008, 07:56 AM

And they have the right to withhold them.

But not the right to force you to do something with them after they give them to you.

They also clearly need to brush up on classic catholic pain compliance techniques.

ponderingturtle

14th July 2008, 08:04 AM

I don't think they have the right to go into the guy's apartment armed with shotguns. I think they've the right to interrupt him on the way out and say "Excuse me, could you give that back please."

He didn't steal anything, he decided to do something that they did not want with something that was freely given to him.

He stole nothing, he just used what they gave him in ways that they did not approve of.

It is like someone you invited to a party taking an hors d'oeuvre home with them.

That might be tacky, but it is not theft to take something that was freely offered.

So the responce is really to assault people at your parties if you don't like how they are eating the hors d'oeuvres?

ponderingturtle

14th July 2008, 08:09 AM

Yes, it's precisely equivalent, except of course for the consequences.

What about a similarly sacriligious act to the cracker one, buying a Koran translated into english?

westprog

14th July 2008, 08:23 AM

Yawn...the whole "Kidnapping a piece of Jesus Flesh" didn't piss anyone off except for Christians, so you want to use an example that would piss EVERYONE off as an equivalent? Yeah...didn't you mention something about double standards before...

Well, what standard would you operate? There are things that would offend everyone, there are things that would offend some people, there are things that might offend just one person. All of them perfectly harmless, all potential causes of hurt. I've listed a few. I can certainly come up with more if required, but I doubt if I can fit this very restrictive and continually redefined template.

If you want something that will inherently upset all atheists and nobody else, I doubt if I could. However, I doubt if I could find something that would upset all Christians, or Catholics, or Catholic priests.

Nope. They are reasonable for being offended, I just consider their reason inherently stupid. Hateful? How can you be hateful towards a cracker? Perhaps disrespectful towards a belief that many consider delusional...then yup.

You got one thing correct. It is aggressive and spiteful but you have yet to name something that a Christian could do that would piss off an atheist but is completely and utterly harmless like kidnapping a cracker.

I find it difficult to see the point here. If atheists are immune from normal abuse, I haven't noticed it. On this very thread we've had atheists* complaining about how hurtful it is that Donahue compared the theft of the host with child abuse. Donahue upset them just by stating his beliefs. How is that harmful?

*I'm assuming from the tenor of their posts that they're atheists, but if I'm wrong I'll happily retract.

ksbluesfan

14th July 2008, 08:43 AM

To Catholics, this cracker is literally the body of Christ.

In the past, black mass has been performed with the cracker. It used to be a lot harder to obtain than it is today.

When I was 12, I took the cracker back to my seat without eating it. I didn't think it was a big deal until I was told by a classmate that I could go to hell for desecrating the body of Christ. I quickly ate it before Satan could catch me.

pgwenthold

14th July 2008, 09:13 AM

Yawn...the whole "Kidnapping a piece of Jesus Flesh" didn't piss anyone off except for Christians,

To be fair, this should just be CATHOLICS.

I can't say that I've seen too much outrage from the non-catholic christians. I may have missed it, but I have actually looked a little to see their response, and haven't found anything.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 09:15 AM

If you want something that will inherently upset all atheists and nobody else, I doubt if I could. However, I doubt if I could find something that would upset all Christians, or Catholics, or Catholic priests.

When did anyone mention anything about ALL atheist?
I'm asking you to name one single thing that would piss off Atheist as a group that is not harmful.

Burning a Bible-->Pissed off Christians as a group
Burning Koran--->Pissed off Muslims as a group

Try again or is that a no from you?

I find it difficult to see the point here. If atheists are immune from normal abuse, I haven't noticed it. On this very thread we've had atheists* complaining about how hurtful it is that Donahue compared the theft of the host with child abuse. Donahue upset them just by stating his beliefs. How is that harmful?
Hurtful? Nope, just downright stupid. Child abuse by Priest equals Stolen Cracker. Love the "Christian" morality.
Now are you saying that Donahue's call for the firing of Myers is not harmful?
[/QUOTE]

Skeptic Guy

14th July 2008, 09:27 AM

What about the catholics who think that what he did was offensive and hurtful? Are they bigots?

Certainly silly anyway.

How does she feel about the boy taking the "cracker" out of the church - or Myers asking to be sent consecrated hosts? Is she good with that?

Yup.

Donahue is a foolish self-publicist whose overreactions have done far more harm than good. The idiots who phone in anonymous death threats are always the same kind of idiots, and they always cause trouble. I'd expect most Catholics to feel similarly. However, I wouldn't expect most Catholics to say "It's just a cracker", though I may be wrong there.

I think you're wrong. I don't think all Catholics follow the church line 100%. I know a lot of Catholics that practice birth control, think abortion is a woman's choice...other things that would be considered a "sin".

If this was Sylvia Brown, John Edward or a any of a host of other non-religious believers of silly stuff, would you be so concerned about calling them to task?

Such as? I suppose this being America, this "assault" might be followed by a lawsuit involving millions of dollars damages.

However, it has yet to be established whether the woman did anything wrong. He was clearly not entitled to take the cracker - that was the deal as established over the last two millenia. Whether a very mild degree of force was justified is something to be decided legally. There is no allegation that the poor boy was in any way hurt.

Meanwhile, has there been any other actual physical action? I haven't heard of it yet.

Lots of things have been "established" over the past two millenia, a lot of it without merit. The goal is to use critical thought to reduce the BS as much as possible. This kind of things falls within the BS column.

To Catholics, this cracker is literally the body of Christ.

In the past, black mass has been performed with the cracker. It used to be a lot harder to obtain than it is today.

When I was 12, I took the cracker back to my seat without eating it. I didn't think it was a big deal until I was told by a classmate that I could go to hell for desecrating the body of Christ. I quickly ate it before Satan could catch me.

And that is just scary that you felt you had to do that...in order not to be caught by "Satan". Perhaps religion is child abuse. I wouldn't want my child to be afraid of not eating a cracker.

Civilized Worm

14th July 2008, 11:04 AM

And if someone is upset because her beliefs leads him to assign value to a cracker, then she does not deserve sympathy.

Bingo.

Olowkow

14th July 2008, 01:21 PM

On the off chance that someone here has not seen this, P.Z. Meyers has decided (new policy) to post all emails that contain "death threats", and include all the headers. This is an enormous flap, because one of the threats came from a "1800FLOWERS" email address. The account owner claims she did not write the email, so someone either used her log on, or is very very good at spoofing. The second one is from a known nutter.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php#more

The blog comments are copious, and interesting.

This is a little old, as it is a developing story, but a good summary:
http://breakingspells.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/employee-of-1800flowerscom-issues-death-threats-to-professor/

Piggy

14th July 2008, 03:57 PM

That's not correct. Transubstantiation occurs when the hosts (crackers) are consecrated by the priest, before they're given to the congregation.

Do you have a citation on that?

I'd heard different.

And I mean, even the faithful can see (and taste) that it's still a cracker when it goes in the mouth, so it would be an odd doctrine to attempt to maintain.

That doesn't mean it's not actually the doctrine, but I'd like to see the official Church position.

I can't make heads or tails of this babble (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm).

bokonon

14th July 2008, 04:00 PM

He didn't steal anything, he decided to do something that they did not want with something that was freely given to him.
I'm inclined to think the cracker wasn't given "freely," it was given with the expectation that it would be eaten on the spot. If taking the cracker without intending to eat it immediately is not theft, it still violates some clause of the social contract in that setting. Maybe he's guilty of fraud?

He stole nothing, he just used what they gave him in ways that they did not approve of.
But it was given conditionally, with the expectation that it would be used for the purpose which they did approve.

It is like someone you invited to a party taking an hors d'oeuvre home with them.

That might be tacky, but it is not theft to take something that was freely offered.

So the responce is really to assault people at your parties if you don't like how they are eating the hors d'oeuvres?
It would be completely reasonable to me if the host at a party stopped someone walking out the door with a tray of hors d'oeuvres, or a bagful, or a pocketful, even though they're presumably free to the party-goers. If someone was walking out the door with a single finger sandwich, the social context would lead me to expect the host would just smile and wave.

Lots of things are "freely given" with strings attached. If a single man walks into a bar, sees an attractive woman sitting by herself, asks if he can buy her a drink, and buys her the drink of her choice, he should reasonably expect that she will not turn around and hand the drink to her boyfriend. If she does so, in my opinion, he has the right to take the drink back.

If someone walks into an auto dealership for a free test drive, he has the right to take the auto on a short drive to assess its handling. He does not have the right to use the car to run errands for half the afternoon.

In this context, the cracker was provided for a specific purpose. While death threats are not an appropriate response when that purpose is violated, I think the people who attempted to retrieve the cracker rather than let him carry it out of the church, even going so far as to take hold of the young man's hand, were acting reasonably. Yeah, it's just a stupid cracker, and in my mind spraying it with digestive juices and converting it to excrement seems more sacrilegious than putting it in a tidy plastic bag, but it's not my stupid cracker, and it really isn't his.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 04:12 PM

<snip>Maybe he's guilty of fraud?
Not in a legal sense. As mentioned it may have been tacky or rude but you can't really call it fraud.

But it was given conditionally, with the expectation that it would be used for the purpose which they did approve.
But was it? Was specific terms spelled out in this gift? Not to lawyer up but giving something away without telling the specific terms(YOU MUST EAT THIS) is not really binding.

It would be completely reasonable to me if the host at a party stopped someone walking out the door with a tray of hors d'oeuvres, or a bagful, or a pocketful, even though they're presumably free to the party-goers. If someone was walking out the door with a single finger sandwich, the social context would lead me to expect the host would just smile and wave.
The guest is perfectly free to keep taking something freely given until the host stops giving it away. The host has no right to something that was already given away but if the host specifically tells the "guest" the leave, the guest would be considered stealing.

Lots of things are "freely given" with strings attached. If a single man walks into a bar, sees an attractive woman sitting by herself, asks if he can buy her a drink, and buys her the drink of her choice, he should reasonably expect that she will not turn around and hand the drink to her boyfriend. If she does so, in my opinion, he has the right to take the drink back.
Actually no, he does not have any right to the drink back. It was a gift with no strings attached.

If someone walks into an auto dealership for a free test drive, he has the right to take the auto on a short drive to assess its handling. He does not have the right to use the car to run errands for half the afternoon.
Wrong example. You have no legal right to the car. The car is still owned by the dealership and you are bound by its terms of use.

In this context, the cracker was provided for a specific purpose. While death threats are not an appropriate response when that purpose is violated, I think the people who attempted to retrieve the cracker rather than let him carry it out of the church, even going so far as to take hold of the young man's hand, were acting reasonably. Yeah, it's just a stupid cracker, and in my mind spraying it with digestive juices and converting it to excrement seems more sacrilegious than putting it in a tidy plastic bag, but it's not my stupid cracker, and it really isn't his.
I disagree. The cracker was given away without any specific terms attached as to when it was to be eaten or used. I don't know of any Church or doctrine that specifically states that you MUST eat the cracker at that point.
(does anyone know?)

NotJesus

14th July 2008, 04:45 PM

Do you have a citation on that?

I'd heard different.

Sorry, no. But I'm an ex-Catholic and I'm quite sure of it.

And I mean, even the faithful can see (and taste) that it's still a cracker when it goes in the mouth, so it would be an odd doctrine to attempt to maintain.

When has that ever stopped any religion?

bokonon

14th July 2008, 04:47 PM

Actually no, he does not have any right to the drink back. It was a gift with no strings attached.
Says who? You? The guy offered to buy the girl a drink, not her boyfriend. He expected her to consume the drink, and she understood this expectation. She didn't say "I don't drink, but I'd appreciate it if you'd buy my boyfriend a drink," she accepted the drink knowing that it was being purchased for HER consumption.

Wrong example. You have no legal right to the car. The car is still owned by the dealership and you are bound by its terms of use.
What "terms of use"? The person taking a test drive doesn't sign any contract before he gets behind the wheel. If the salesman, as the dealership's representative, tells the test driver to return the car to the lot, it seems to me that is exactly equivalent to the woman who took it upon herself to represent the church, and tell the cracker taker to return the cracker to the communion plate.

The contract in both cases is implicit, and all parties are aware of the terms. Violating the terms invites action.

The cracker was given away without any specific terms attached as to when it was to be eaten or used. I don't know of any Church or doctrine that specifically states that you MUST eat the cracker at that point.
(does anyone know?)
The clear expectation on the part of the cracker giver is that it will be consumed immediately, whether this is codified as doctrine or not. The party-goer who stuffs plates of hors d'oeuvres into his pockets and is asked to leave the party does not have the right to leave with whatever he has managed to take possession of in the meantime, only that which he has actually consumed.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 04:56 PM

Says who? You? The guy offered to buy the girl a drink, not her boyfriend. He expected her to consume the drink, and she understood this expectation. She didn't say "I don't drink, but I'd appreciate it if you'd buy my boyfriend a drink," she accepted the drink knowing that it was being purchased for HER consumption.
Not really relevant. He bought her a drink. It was a gift. She accepted it. It now belongs to her. She can give it to whoever she wants.
It may not be right but I don't see any implicit fraud UNLESS she was getting a drink for a specific thing in trade.

What "terms of use"? The person taking a test drive doesn't sign any contract before he gets behind the wheel. If the salesman, as the dealership's representative, tells the test driver to return to the lot, it seems to me that is exactly equivalent to the woman who took it upon herself to represent the church, and tell the cracker taker to return the cracker to the communion plate.
No. The car still belongs to the dealership. It was not given away like the cracker to be consumed. If the salesperson demand that the driver return to the dealership, the driver had better do so or be charged with kidnapping and stealing the car.

The cracker was given to the kid to be eaten. It is not equivalent to taking a cracker for a test drive.

The clear expectation on the part of the cracker giver is that it will be consumed immediately, whether this is codified as doctrine or not. The party-goer who stuffs plates of hors d'oeuvres into his pockets and is asked to leave the party does not have the right to leave with whatever he has managed to take possession of in the meantime, only that which he has actually consumed.
The food GIVEN away at the party was given away. You can't take back something given away. You can stop freely giving away the food but you cannot take back something already given away.

Any lawyers that can help us out here?

bokonon

14th July 2008, 05:08 PM

The car still belongs to the dealership. It was not given away like the cracker to be consumed. If the salesperson demand that the driver return to the dealership, the driver had better do so or be charged with kidnapping and stealing the car.

The cracker was given to the kid to be eaten. It is not equivalent to taking a cracker for a test drive.
The car still belongs to the dealership, and the cracker still belongs to the church. They aren't tossing crackers to the congregation, they are placing it on someone's tongue so that it will be consumed immediately. If it becomes clear that the specific purpose for which the church made the item available is not being fulfilled, the church has a right to get the item back. The seats are free to sit in during the service, the hymn books are free to provide words and music to those who can't remember them, and the cracker is free to those who will swallow it before returning to their seat.

Everything is being provided with a clear expectation which is understood by both the provider and the providee. The boy was wrong to violate the implicit understanding, and the over-reaction on the part of some does not make him right.

ETA: Suppose instead of a cracker, he decided to walk out with the collection plate, and argued "he handed it to me" when he was stopped at the door. It's really the same thing.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 05:14 PM

Everything is being provided with a clear expectation which is understood by both the provider and the providee. The boy was wrong to violate the implicit understanding, and the over-reaction on the part of some does not make him right.

ETA: Suppose instead of a cracker, he decided to walk out with the collection plate, and argued "he handed it to me" when he was stopped at the door. It's really the same thing.
Never said he was right.

The collection plate example is wrong. The collection plate and money belongs to the Church. It was not given to the kid. The cracker was given to the kid.

bokonon

14th July 2008, 05:27 PM

quixotecoyote

14th July 2008, 05:33 PM

Irony

14th July 2008, 05:38 PM

Both are given for a specific purpose. The cracker is given for ritual consumption. The plate is given to provide an opportunity for charity. The context makes these expectations clear, and the person on the receiving end doesn't have the right to unilaterally change the terms of the transaction once he is in possession of either item.

The handing of the plate in no way signified that the church was transferring ownership of the plate or it's contents to the person. The fact that it's called a "collection" plate makes that fairly clear.

If you are going to argue that being given food to consume does not transfer ownership then go right ahead, but I hope you realize that you have just signed over partial ownership of your organs to your grocery store.

bokonon

14th July 2008, 05:41 PM

Sure he does. The church has claim on the plate through property rights.
The cracker is the church's property too. If it is obtained under false pretenses (in this case, the pretense that it will be ritually consumed), the church has a right to reclaim it.

If the young man was granted access to a room in the building for the purpose of holding a bible study class, and decided to have an orgy instead, the "rightful owners" could reclaim possession and evict him from the room.

He obtained the cracker under the false pretense that he would consume it to fulfill the communion ritual. When his deception was revealed, the church asked for their property back. They had every right to.

bokonon

14th July 2008, 05:48 PM

The handing of the plate in no way signified that the church was transferring ownership of the plate or it's contents to the person. The fact that it's called a "collection" plate makes that fairly clear.
The handling of the communion wafer is just as clear. It's placed directly on the tongue, and the expectation that it will be consumed immediately is unambiguous. There is probably some language in the "call to communion" which makes the expectation explicit, whereas the collection plate is probably not referred to by that name during the ceremony.

If you are going to argue that being given food to consume does not transfer ownership then go right ahead, but I hope you realize that you have just signed over partial ownership of your organs to your grocery store.
My grocery store doesn't give me food; I purchase it. At that point, I'm certainly free to do anything I want with the food which doesn't violate other laws (i.e., I can't assault someone with that banana). The transfer of ownership is complete and unambiguous at the point the cash changes hands, and there is no reasonable expectation on the part of the grocery store about whether I will consume it, use it for compost, or shoot a "Vegetales" animation.

The cracker is being provided for one purpose only, and that too is unambiguous.

badnewsBH

14th July 2008, 06:11 PM

The handling of the communion wafer is just as clear. It's placed directly on the tongue, and the expectation that it will be consumed immediately is unambiguous.

Never was in the church I attended, but I've seen it both ways.

The cracker is being provided for one purpose only, and that too is unambiguous.

Sorry, bokonon, but I don't think this holds up under scrutiny. Ever heard of the tried and true practice of "regifting"? Someone who's a friend, or even a close relative, gives you a gift, with the minimum expectation that you'll keep it. None of those people has any right to tell you not to give that gift to someone else, because it's now yours.

Any expectations on the part of the people in the church mattered not a whit; once the church gave up its ownership of the bread chip in question, none of its representatives (or supporters, if the woman in question wasn't somehow working for the church) had any business telling the fellow what to do with it. They were certainly free to refuse him communion in the future, of course, but that's a different story entirely.

NobbyNobbs

14th July 2008, 06:44 PM

He was clearly not entitled to take the cracker - that was the deal as established over the last two millenia.

And it wasn't "given to him". The rules of Catholic communion have been around for a couple of thousand years now. They've changed a little bit, but it's never been all right to palm the bread and take it home.

I was wondering about this before I read your post, and I'm still wondering. Can anyone point out where it is written that it is desecrating the host if you take it out of the church? You say this has been one of the rules for a couple thousand years....then it shouldn't be too hard to cite.

According to the articles I've read, the "thief" wasn't planning to "not eat it". He was simply not eating it until after he had shown it to a friend. Is this still desecration?

bokonon

14th July 2008, 07:12 PM

Never was in the church I attended, but I've seen it both ways.
That seems to be the way it happened in this case.

Any expectations on the part of the people in the church mattered not a whit; once the church gave up its ownership of the bread chip in question, none of its representatives (or supporters, if the woman in question wasn't somehow working for the church) had any business telling the fellow what to do with it.
I'm saying I don't think they give up ownership until it's swallowed, just as the car dealership doesn't give up ownership until the contract is signed. Even then, if the conditions of the contract aren't fulfilled, the dealership has the right to repossess. In this case, the contract is implicit, but I still think it's valid.

Piggy

14th July 2008, 07:15 PM

Sorry, no. But I'm an ex-Catholic and I'm quite sure of it.

My best friend married a Catholic, and her family is "quite sure" of many things which turn out not to be Church dogma.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that it is Church dogma that transubstantiation occurs at the moment of blessing -- after all, I've never been a Catholic, and I'm operating on hearsay, so I'm more likely to be wrong -- but if anyone out there does have a cite, please post for my edification.

ponderingturtle

14th July 2008, 07:43 PM

I'm inclined to think the cracker wasn't given "freely," it was given with the expectation that it would be eaten on the spot. If taking the cracker without intending to eat it immediately is not theft, it still violates some clause of the social contract in that setting. Maybe he's guilty of fraud?

Not likely fraud, bad behavior as a guest sure, but nothing remotely illegal.

But it was given conditionally, with the expectation that it would be used for the purpose which they did approve.

It was given with an expectation not a condition.

It would be completely reasonable to me if the host at a party stopped someone walking out the door with a tray of hors d'oeuvres, or a bagful, or a pocketful, even though they're presumably free to the party-goers. If someone was walking out the door with a single finger sandwich, the social context would lead me to expect the host would just smile and wave.

So you attack your guest then?

And he did not take more than one, so you would object to a guest bringing a single hors d'oeuvre home that you specificaly gave them.

In this context, the cracker was provided for a specific purpose. While death threats are not an appropriate response when that purpose is violated, I think the people who attempted to retrieve the cracker rather than let him carry it out of the church, even going so far as to take hold of the young man's hand, were acting reasonably. Yeah, it's just a stupid cracker, and in my mind spraying it with digestive juices and converting it to excrement seems more sacrilegious than putting it in a tidy plastic bag, but it's not my stupid cracker, and it really isn't his.

Yes it is his.

ponderingturtle

14th July 2008, 07:47 PM

ponderingturtle

14th July 2008, 07:53 PM

The cracker is the church's property too. If it is obtained under false pretenses (in this case, the pretense that it will be ritually consumed), the church has a right to reclaim it.

So you claim the right to take any gift you give someone back if you do not aprove of how they use and treat that gift?

This is not a unique concept(it is the belief that orrigionated the phase indian giver) but it is not commonly accepted in america.

If the young man was granted access to a room in the building for the purpose of holding a bible study class, and decided to have an orgy instead, the "rightful owners" could reclaim possession and evict him from the room.

again access, vs ownership. If you gave someone a house as a gift and they turn it into a place to hold swinger orgies, and you wanted it to be a place to study the bible, well you better have not simply signed over the deed.

Piggy

14th July 2008, 07:59 PM

I found this (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310qq.asp), which appears to hold that transubstantiation does indeed occur on the altar at the moment of consecration:

Q: After reading the article on transubstantiation in the July, 1993 issue of This Rock, a fellow religion teacher insisted to me that the Catholic Church accepts other theologies of the Eucharist besides transubstantiation. She stated that Pope Paul VI had said this in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei. Is this so?

A: It depends on what you mean. The Church does permit a variety of explanations of the transformation of the elements, so long as these explanations do not contradict transubstantiation. In the 1960s it became popular for some theologians to say that what happens to the bread and wine is a transfinalization or transignification.

Transfinalization would be a fundamental change of the entity's purpose (e.g., physical nourishment made into spiritual nourishment). Transignification would be a fundamental change in what the entity signifies (e.g., from signifying food into signifying Christ).

In Mysterium Fidei Pope Paul VI stated that it is permissible to say these things happen on the altar--so long as one says transubstantiation also occurs. In fact, the pope stated that transfinalization and transignification occur precisely because of transubstantiation.

He said: "As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new `reality' . . . For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species [that is, what is now the new substance of the elements] is not what was there before, but something completely different . . . the body and blood of Christ" (Mysterium Fidei 46 [1965]).

There is also room for different explanations of how transubstantiation occurs. So long as one says that the whole substance of the unconsecrated elements is changed into the whole substance of Christ--body, blood, soul, divinity--with only the appearances of bread and wine remaining, flexibility of explanation is permitted.

I sit corrected. The body of Christ was pilfered.

Btw, potshots at quotation welcomed. I couldn't write this stuff.

Oh, and don't forget to check out the answers to other "quick questions" on the same page, like...

Q: How can Catholics say Christ does not die again on the altar when the Council of Trent states that he is immolated in the Mass?

Q: Could you explain the criteria used in naming a church a basilica? A church in my area may be designated a basilica soon, and some of my non-Catholic friends have been asking about this subject. I need an answer.

Q: Some people in the Church of Christ movement argue that theirs must be the true church, the one established by Jesus, since it has a biblical name (Rom. 16:16 refers to "the churches of Christ"). They note that when a husband takes a bride, she acquires his surname. Since the Church is called, especially by Catholics, the bride of Christ, they argue that the true Church's name will be the Church of Christ.

Q: I know that God is the most perfect being possible, yet he does not have the ability to make a being equal to himself. Wouldn't he be even more perfect if he had the ability to copy himself?

Kthulhut Fhtagn

14th July 2008, 08:10 PM

I think the Catholics deserve the same respect that any other religion/philosophical outlook on life deserves. I'm not going to be deliberately confrontational by walking into a Catholic Church during mass and p***ing in the holy water the same as I'm not going to race pigs outside of a Mosque during any particular religious festival they may practice. The same as I would expect a religious person to not come to my house and take a dump on "The Origin of Species" in my front yard. It's not a matter of free speech it's a matter of frackin' respect! The actions of the student was immature and deliberately confrontational; as was Myers comments. Considering the inflammatory comment and the nature of his final statement I whole-heartedly believe that Myers is looking to pick a fight here. And I wouldn't be surprised if the student was as well. Do I think Myers deserves to be fired? No. But he does need to reminded that he has deliberately placed himself in a public position that can compromise his teaching position and the welfare of the university if he continues to make confrontational speech aimed at particular groups with large amounts of financial backing. That's not "appeasing the religious" that's frackin' reality.

ETA: This isn't to say that Donahue isn't d-bagging it up as usual; nor is it to say that he and that Catholics attending this mass aren't over-reacting. I'm simply asserting that if someone walks around saying bad things to everyone he meets eventually someone is going to punch him in the face. That doesn't make hitting or in this case calling for firing him right; that's just reality.

bpesta22

14th July 2008, 08:14 PM

I'm inclined to think the cracker wasn't given "freely," it was given with the expectation that it would be eaten on the spot. If taking the cracker without intending to eat it immediately is not theft, it still violates some clause of the social contract in that setting. Maybe he's guilty of fraud?

But it was given conditionally, with the expectation that it would be used for the purpose which they did approve.

It would be completely reasonable to me if the host at a party stopped someone walking out the door with a tray of hors d'oeuvres, or a bagful, or a pocketful, even though they're presumably free to the party-goers. If someone was walking out the door with a single finger sandwich, the social context would lead me to expect the host would just smile and wave.

Lots of things are "freely given" with strings attached. If a single man walks into a bar, sees an attractive woman sitting by herself, asks if he can buy her a drink, and buys her the drink of her choice, he should reasonably expect that she will not turn around and hand the drink to her boyfriend. If she does so, in my opinion, he has the right to take the drink back.

If someone walks into an auto dealership for a free test drive, he has the right to take the auto on a short drive to assess its handling. He does not have the right to use the car to run errands for half the afternoon.

In this context, the cracker was provided for a specific purpose. While death threats are not an appropriate response when that purpose is violated, I think the people who attempted to retrieve the cracker rather than let him carry it out of the church, even going so far as to take hold of the young man's hand, were acting reasonably. Yeah, it's just a stupid cracker, and in my mind spraying it with digestive juices and converting it to excrement seems more sacrilegious than putting it in a tidy plastic bag, but it's not my stupid cracker, and it really isn't his.

Great post-- I hadn't consider this line of reasoning and had previously agreed that it wasn't theft since it was given to him.

PZ has tenure-- I wonder if he's in a union too.

Skeptic Ginger

14th July 2008, 08:15 PM

The cracker is the church's property too. If it is obtained under false pretenses (in this case, the pretense that it will be ritually consumed), the church has a right to reclaim it.

If the young man was granted access to a room in the building for the purpose of holding a bible study class, and decided to have an orgy instead, the "rightful owners" could reclaim possession and evict him from the room.

He obtained the cracker under the false pretense that he would consume it to fulfill the communion ritual. When his deception was revealed, the church asked for their property back. They had every right to.This legal fantasy may seem logical to you but you are forgetting one thing, no DA in his right mind would prosecute this case.

bokonon

14th July 2008, 08:21 PM

It was given with an expectation not a condition.
What if it is a condition? I assume we can agree that the church owns the crackers before the service begins. Isn't the rightful owner entitled to set conditions on transfer of ownership? Am I allowed to "give" an engagement ring with the condition that ownership only transfers when the marriage ceremony takes place?

When I shop for groceries, I can put items in the cart, but ownership isn't transferred by cart placement. The cashier can scan the items, but ownership isn't transferred by cashier scanning. I can put the scanned items in a bag, but ownership isn't transferred by bagging. Ownership in this case only transfers when I pay. Why isn't the church allowed to say ownership transfers when I swallow?

pgwenthold

14th July 2008, 08:32 PM

My best friend married a Catholic, and her family is "quite sure" of many things which turn out not to be Church dogma.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that it is Church dogma that transubstantiation occurs at the moment of blessing -- after all, I've never been a Catholic, and I'm operating on hearsay, so I'm more likely to be wrong -- but if anyone out there does have a cite, please post for my edification.

Transubstantiation occurs during the "Eucharistic prayer." There are many variations of much of them, but they all are the same in the important parts:

Take this all of you and eat it. This is my body, which will be given up for you. Do this in memory of me.

TS is said to occur when he says "This is my body."

Take this all of you and drink from it. This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

Ditto on the italics part

Although the priest is allowed some flexibility in the prayers, these passages must be recited exactly as written every time. It is because they are where transubstantiation takes place.

In fact, a few priests got into trouble in the early 80s because they modified the second passage. It originally said, "it will be shed for you and for all men, so that sins may be forgiven." Some priests, unhappy with the sexist language, were changing it to "all men and women" or "all people." The bishops were not happy, so they finally made it more inclusive by dropping the "men". It messed up a lot of the old priests, who had recited it so many times that they said it by habit.

When serving mass, we had to "ring the bell" three times during the Eucharistic prayer. The first was during the general blessing of the bread and wine (NOT transubstantiation), and then after each of these passages, where transubstantiation occured. Each church has their own variation of how they do it, but most will have some bells at these points in the prayer.

I remember Eucharistic Prayer II was the shortest, and so that was good, but it also jumped right into it with the blessing over the gifts, so if you were serving and they did that version, you had to be ready right away ("Lord you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy so that they may become the body and blood of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.")

Irony

14th July 2008, 08:36 PM

What if it is a condition? I assume we can agree that the church owns the crackers before the service begins. Isn't the rightful owner entitled to set conditions on transfer of ownership? Am I allowed to "give" an engagement ring with the condition that ownership only transfers when the marriage ceremony takes place?

When I shop for groceries, I can put items in the cart, but ownership isn't transferred by cart placement. The cashier can scan the items, but ownership isn't transferred by cashier scanning. I can put the scanned items in a bag, but ownership isn't transferred by bagging. Ownership in this case only transfers when I pay. Why isn't the church allowed to say ownership transfers when I swallow?

It is allowed to, just not after the fact. Unless he was told otherwise, the act of giving the cracker to him signified transfer of ownership. In the event that the church actually stated that ownership was not transferred until after swallowing then he is indeed guilty of the heinous crime of stealing a sub-cent valued wheat wafer. I doubt, however, that the church ever made such a statement.

bokonon

14th July 2008, 08:45 PM

It is allowed to, just not after the fact. Unless he was told otherwise, the act of giving the cracker to him signified transfer of ownership. In the event that the church actually stated that ownership was not transferred until after swallowing then he is indeed guilty of the heinous crime of stealing a sub-cent valued wheat wafer. I doubt, however, that the church ever made such a statement.
The Eucharist prayer a couple of posts up has the priest speaking the words "Take this all of you and eat it." I'd say that's giving notice before the fact that the gift is conditional, and that only when it is consumed is ownership transferred. When he made it clear that he wasn't willing to eat it on the spot, the church was within its rights to demand its return.

pgwenthold

14th July 2008, 08:56 PM

The Eucharist prayer a couple of posts up has the priest speaking the words "Take this all of you and eat it." I'd say that's giving notice before the fact that the gift is conditional, and that only when it is consumed is ownership transferred. When he made it clear that he wasn't willing to eat it on the spot, the church was within its rights to demand its return.

To be fair, nothing in the Eucharistic Prayer says anything about eating it immediately. In fact, there are many exceptions. Most blatently, there is communion brought to the sick, which is not only not eaten immediately, but is actually removed from church premises before it is passed on to someone else. Admittedly, the person who takes the communion to the sick is authorized by the church to take it for that purpose, but that is church rules and nothing inherent in the Eucharistic Prayer that makes it so. Similarly, hosts that are not used up are generally saved until the next mass, so that indicates nothing about immediate consumption (the exception here is Good Friday, where no hosts are can be left after the service, and so the priests eats the leftovers, so to speak; btw, the hosts handed out on Good Friday were actually consecrated the night before at Holy Thursday mass, since there cannot be mass on Good Friday). BTW, I forgot to mention, the only communion hosts that "count" in the consecration (transubstantiation) are those in the appropriately designated area on the altar (it does not include the whole altar itself) during the Eucharistic Prayer, and those in the "sachristy", the little lock box generally off to the side or in the back.

You serve enough masses in your life (note that all the prayers I wrote above are from memory) and you get to see the details of what the priest is doing. There are guidelines that they follow.

shadron

14th July 2008, 08:56 PM

Do you have a citation on that?

I'd heard different.

And I mean, even the faithful can see (and taste) that it's still a cracker when it goes in the mouth, so it would be an odd doctrine to attempt to maintain.

That doesn't mean it's not actually the doctrine, but I'd like to see the official Church position.

I can't make heads or tails of this babble (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm).

Here you go - everything you wanted to know about it, ready for easy memorization:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bsacr-e.htm

You did want to memorize it, right?

pgwenthold

14th July 2008, 09:00 PM

You could read all that, but to make it easy for Piggy, it just says that what I wrote above is right.

shadron

14th July 2008, 09:03 PM

I'm saying I don't think they give up ownership until it's swallowed, just as the car dealership doesn't give up ownership until the contract is signed. Even then, if the conditions of the contract aren't fulfilled, the dealership has the right to repossess. In this case, the contract is implicit, but I still think it's valid.

Isn't this getting just a little too rich, guys? The problem here isn't property rights, it's sacrilege. In the same way as catholics fight abortion - they don't argue that someone else owns the fetus, they consider the act itself to be wrong.

bokonon

14th July 2008, 09:11 PM

To be fair, nothing in the Eucharistic Prayer says anything about eating it immediately. In fact, there are many exceptions. Most blatently, there is communion brought to the sick, which is not only not eaten immediately, but is actually removed from church premises before it is passed on to someone else. Admittedly, the person who takes the communion to the sick is authorized by the church to take it for that purpose, but that is church rules and nothing inherent in the Eucharistic Prayer that makes it so.
That's fine, I'm just saying I think the giver is more entitled than the receiver to set the conditions under which the transfer is complete. If some lay person ferrying bread to the bedridden is killed in an accident, I assume the church is entitled to repossess it, rather than having it inherited by the intermediary's children. It seems clear in this instance that the people representing the church don't consider transfer of ownership complete when the priest places it on somebody's tongue, so I don't think the people saying it was the kid's cracker at that point have a very strong case.

pgwenthold

14th July 2008, 09:14 PM

bokonon

14th July 2008, 09:21 PM

The problem here isn't property rights, it's sacrilege. In the same way as catholics fight abortion - they don't argue that someone else owns the fetus, they consider the act itself to be wrong.
Sacrilege is a different problem, and I think free speech trumps sacrilege. If I buy a bible at the local Lighthouse of the Lord, the church can't stop me from using it as toilet paper. I own it.

In this case, I think the language being used, (e.g., "kidnapped Christ") makes it more of a property rights issue, or at least a rightful possession issue. If a non-custodial parent takes the kids to Timbuktu without permission, that's kidnapping. If the parent has rightful custody, it isn't.

articulett

14th July 2008, 09:43 PM

what a horrific insult to anyone who has actually had a person they loved kidnapped...

Achán hiNidráne

14th July 2008, 10:08 PM

...it's sacrilege.

A victimless crime if ever there was one.

Achán hiNidráne

14th July 2008, 10:16 PM

what a horrific insult to anyone who has actually had a person they loved kidnapped...

Yup.. not to mention the fact that they have more outrage over the "misuse"of a cracker than their religion's own efforts to disenfranchise gays, spread sexual misinformation about contraceptives and anti-STD measures in the developing world, and cover up the activities their altar-boy-raping clergy.

articulett

14th July 2008, 11:27 PM

Isn't this getting just a little too rich, guys? The problem here isn't property rights, it's sacrilege. In the same way as catholics fight abortion - they don't argue that someone else owns the fetus, they consider the act itself to be wrong.

They don't want anyone testing their holy transubstantiated crackers for Jesus DNA... lest they clone him, I guess... or find out it's just a cracker after all with plain old wheat DNA.

The Non Prophets (podcast) suggested that if they collected enough consecrated wafers, maybe they could put Jesus back together again.

It's like getting Mormon sacred underwear and wearing it around when you aren't Mormon, I guess. I can see why people would be offended... but it's more offensive to expect others to defer to your silly superstition. Let your invisible savior fight his own damn battles--he's omnipotent, right. It's the same with the offensive Muslim cartoons-- Keep your magical thinking to yourself folks.

How audacious for people to expect others to revere their superstitions. Scientologists hunt down people who use their e-meters without being Scientologists or paying them... they are just devices that measure galvanic skin responses so they may be useful in counseling because you get a rough measure when someone is thinking about something uncomfortable... These sacrilege and blasphemy laws and rules need to be relegated to the past. If you can go to a psychic like Sylvia Browne and get a reading when you aren't a believe like people do... then you can get a damn cracker that they are handing out to those in church... especially if you put something in that collection plate. Only those who believe in the "divine laws" need to follow them... it's not their place to force others to defer. I think churches get enough government subsidies and people looking the other way for their abuses (exorcisms, faith healings, pedophilia, condom misinformation, etc.) that they really ought to shut up about people leaving the building with their magic bread outside their body.

(It makes me want to put a hex on such people with my special magical voodoo amulets.)

We are in the 21st century, right?

articulett

14th July 2008, 11:35 PM

That's fine, I'm just saying I think the giver is more entitled than the receiver to set the conditions under which the transfer is complete. If some lay person ferrying bread to the bedridden is killed in an accident, I assume the church is entitled to repossess it, rather than having it inherited by the intermediary's children. It seems clear in this instance that the people representing the church don't consider transfer of ownership complete when the priest places it on somebody's tongue, so I don't think the people saying it was the kid's cracker at that point have a very strong case.

Most priests place the host in peoples hands instead of directly on the tongue now for health reasons (I guess the body of Christ isn't the best at keeping the body of germs at bay)--

Anyhow, I hear the kid is suing for giving an underage kid wine and also assault, I think. I bet they'll both drop their cases, but all religions make a big mistake when they try to use the law to force others to obey their superstitions in my opinion. It might just cause their congregation to "think" which would be dangerous for the whole charade. They would have been much smarter to just look the other way. Now they've made it into a dare... and a legal challenge as well. I would love for churches, which get huge tax breaks, to finally have to answer to the same laws other organizations must answer to.

Gilmar

14th July 2008, 11:55 PM

Hosties cereal.

http://www.viewaskew.com/auctionsask.../hosties/1.jpg

Animated commercial: http://viewaskew.com/hosties/hosties.html

As seen in Kevin Smith's movie "Dogma", where the late George Carlin plays a Catholic cardinal trying to remake the church's image into something more fun.

Buddy Christ:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Buddy_christ.jpg
He's your buddy!

Rasmus

15th July 2008, 12:31 AM

That's fine, I'm just saying I think the giver is more entitled than the receiver to set the conditions under which the transfer is complete.

Yes, maybe.

But first of all we are still talking of a cracker! To make such a fuss about it simply is insane. Imagine a supermarket going to court against a customer who took two toothpicks with the cheese samples instead of one. (Not the whole plate or anything for the sort, mind you.)

Secondly, the conditions are not made explicit. And they are far from obvious. Nowhere else in the world would anyone give a ***** about what I do with a cracker that they gave me. Why should a rational person be expected to immediately see which parts of the ritual are significant and carry any meaning beyond their immediate appearance? Fine, they place the cracker on my tongue. But they are a bunch of insane people, so it could mean anything.

How can someone at the same time claim that the cracker they have given me is part of a living zombie god and then also make appeals to logic?

If some lay person ferrying bread to the bedridden is killed in an accident, I assume the church is entitled to repossess it, rather than having it inherited by the intermediary's children.

The thought alone is insane. It's a cracker! No sane person ever would consider the legal details involved in the repossession of a cracker.

It seems clear in this instance that the people representing the church don't consider transfer of ownership complete when the priest places it on somebody's tongue, so I don't think the people saying it was the kid's cracker at that point have a very strong case.

No. What the people "consider" or "assume" doesn't matter. They can setup clearly worded, written contracts if they are so worried about their crackers.

Morrigan

15th July 2008, 12:40 AM

Not my strawman. I've been following this.

Excuse me? You said, You think catholic beliefs are absurd, and that Catholics are stupid.
Since I NEVER said "Catholics are stupid", you are putting words in my mouth. That's a strawman.

But what seems to be required here is that Catholics aren't even allowed to talk about their beliefs. They aren't even to be allowed to practice them in private.
What the hell are you talking about. Where did anyone say Catholics should not be allowed to practice their beliefs in private? Show me.

On this very thread we've had atheists* complaining about how hurtful it is that Donahue compared the theft of the host with child abuse. Donahue upset them just by stating his beliefs. How is that harmful?
What makes you think I'm upset or that I find this "hurtful"? I think Donahue's a disgusting douchebag but I'm not offended butthurt about it, like those Catholics are about their crackers, like you're implying. That's just your imagination again, making s--t up in order to have some sort of point. Give it up.

westprog

15th July 2008, 01:22 AM

Secondly, the conditions are not made explicit.

The conditions have been explicit for many hundreds of years. They are told to every child making his first communion.

In this case, Webster was told repeatedly at the time, which apparently offended him. However, as he was at least brought up Catholic, he should have known anyway.

Incidentally, if Webster Cook isn't currently a believing Catholic*, then he should not have been taking communion. That's a fundamental rule, and while the conditions for the consumption of the host are somewhat vague, the conditions as to who can partake aren't.

you must believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation.

And since he was brought up a Catholic, he would know this.

*Or possibly orthodox - there's a small range of acceptable Christian churches.

articulett

15th July 2008, 01:29 AM

Religious rules do not apply to the people who do not follow the religion.

A non religious person is not bound by other peoples religious rules... nor should they ever be... the whole idea of a secular nation is that no-one's religion should intrude upon anyone else's beliefs or behaviors. The kid didn't interrupt the mass... and churches are free and want people to "walk in"-- they sure get enough government goodies with not having to pay taxes. I'd love to see this crap challenged in court. I think it's repulsive that people claim divine truths or divine rights or divine contracts or whatever the hell mumbo jumbo they are claiming.

If you can't take the bread or wear the mormon undergarments unless you sign a paper or something, then it needs to be spelled out in writing before you detain someone and demand they give you back your magical amulets or whatever it is people have obtained through legal means. The owner of the cracker is whomever it is given to.

Sure, the kid was disrespectful... but I'm glad there's someone out there willing to challenge sacred cows and declare that the emperor isn't wearing clothes. It's about time religious folks started thinking about things that actually matter instead magical bread and promised rewards and blasphemy. What a bunch of ninnies. If it was astrologist protesting the fact that we have new planets or that pluto was now a planetoid... I think we'd rightfully be mocking them. Sylvia Browne's people own their "readings"-- they paid for them... the tapes of them... so the kid owned the damn cracker. And he has no obligation to believe it their magical rituals in return.

westprog

15th July 2008, 01:30 AM

Not in a legal sense.

What about the non-legal sense? The legalities aren't the important thing here. It's a question of whether Webster Cook acted reasonably or not. I doubt if he'll be doing hard time over it.

westprog

15th July 2008, 01:36 AM

Both are given for a specific purpose. The cracker is given for ritual consumption. The plate is given to provide an opportunity for charity. The context makes these expectations clear, and the person on the receiving end doesn't have the right to unilaterally change the terms of the transaction once he is in possession of either item.

I think it's fairly obvious that the girl who solicits drinks and gives them to her boyfriend or the guest who stuffs his pockets with smoked salmon on cream cheese are acting in a way likely to cause annoyance.

westprog

15th July 2008, 01:44 AM

When did anyone mention anything about ALL atheist?
I'm asking you to name one single thing that would piss off Atheist as a group that is not harmful.

How can something upset atheists as a group. Atheism just means not having a set of beliefs. It's very unlikely that I could think of something that would upset people because they don't believe something.

However, it's ridiculously easy to think of intrinsically harmless things that would upset people who don't have religious beliefs. That's because people have a lot of other beliefs.

Now are you saying that Donahue's call for the firing of Myers is not harmful?

I entered the thread condemning Donahue. AFAICT he's an idiot.

westprog

15th July 2008, 01:53 AM

I was wondering about this before I read your post, and I'm still wondering. Can anyone point out where it is written that it is desecrating the host if you take it out of the church? You say this has been one of the rules for a couple thousand years....then it shouldn't be too hard to cite.

The "terms of use" are told to Catholic children at about the age of seven. It's not a mystery.

According to the articles I've read, the "thief" wasn't planning to "not eat it". He was simply not eating it until after he had shown it to a friend. Is this still desecration?

Probably not - though it's certainly not to be encouraged. However, taking it home in a baggie probably is.

This is beside the point since he was told at the time that his behaviour wasn't acceptable.

It's possible that some of the rhetoric used involved some kind of paranoid suspicions about black masses. That's silly, but it's far from being a specifically Catholic obsession.

westprog

15th July 2008, 02:16 AM

Excuse me? You said, You think catholic beliefs are absurd, and that Catholics are stupid.
Since I NEVER said "Catholics are stupid", you are putting words in my mouth. That's a strawman.

I shouldn't have directly assigned opinions to you in that way, when you hadn't stated them yourself. It was rude, and I apologise.

What the hell are you talking about. Where did anyone say Catholics should not be allowed to practice their beliefs in private? Show me.

That's what this whole thing is about. Catholics believe that the consecrated host is the literal body of God. They wish to restrict access to it. There are a large number of people insisting that they should accept that it isn't the literal body of God.

What makes you think I'm upset or that I find this "hurtful"? I think Donahue's a disgusting douchebag but I'm not offended butthurt about it, like those Catholics are about their crackers, like you're implying. That's just your imagination again, making s--t up in order to have some sort of point. Give it up.

Here I didn't quite specifically assign opinions to you - I referred to what's been said on this thread.

hecaterin

15th July 2008, 02:32 AM

According to the articles I've read, the "thief" wasn't planning to "not eat it". He was simply not eating it until after he had shown it to a friend. Is this still desecration?
Probably not - though it's certainly not to be encouraged. However, taking it home in a baggie probably is.

This is beside the point since he was told at the time that his behaviour wasn't acceptable.As soon as I read this, my first thought was "See if that friend converts now! Haha, self-pwned!"

But seriously, the kid may have been raised in a more liberal church than the one he was attending at college. There are minor differences in practice in different churches. He most likely genuinely thought that it was OK to show his friend. Only when assaulted did he change his mind and hang on to it. But even if he thought it was a bit naughty, the point remains that he was a catholic kid making a mistake, not a ranting blasphemer out to disrupt the service.

The first overreaction to this, of the mysterious lady who tried to grab it back, and the subsequent call for armed guards is itself hilarious and sad. PZ mocks this, with a little extra taunting "ha, you think the kid was bad, look what *I* can do to a cracker!" And then this is further overreacted to.

It all looks like this to me:
Student makes faux pas at mass => assault, cries for student to be expelled & charged with hate crime, calls for armed guards to protect the crackers.

Blogger points this out and taunts crackers => immense outcry, cries for blogger to be sacked, death threats and other vitriol.

I know the catholic church used to torture and set fire to people for this sort of offense, but I thought they'd given that up.

ponderingturtle

15th July 2008, 04:24 AM

What if it is a condition? I assume we can agree that the church owns the crackers before the service begins. Isn't the rightful owner entitled to set conditions on transfer of ownership? Am I allowed to "give" an engagement ring with the condition that ownership only transfers when the marriage ceremony takes place?

Sure, but then you need to do things like contracts and the like

When I shop for groceries, I can put items in the cart, but ownership isn't transferred by cart placement. The cashier can scan the items, but ownership isn't transferred by cashier scanning. I can put the scanned items in a bag, but ownership isn't transferred by bagging. Ownership in this case only transfers when I pay. Why isn't the church allowed to say ownership transfers when I swallow?

And remember eating the free samples is stealing.

ponderingturtle

15th July 2008, 04:27 AM

Isn't this getting just a little too rich, guys? The problem here isn't property rights, it's sacrilege. In the same way as catholics fight abortion - they don't argue that someone else owns the fetus, they consider the act itself to be wrong.

The point is sacrilige is not a crime. As I pointed out similar sacrilige like translateing the Koran is not something most americans have a problem with.

ponderingturtle

15th July 2008, 04:32 AM

What about the non-legal sense? The legalities aren't the important thing here. It's a question of whether Webster Cook acted reasonably or not. I doubt if he'll be doing hard time over it.

Yes interfearing with other peoples magic rituals is rude.

ponderingturtle

15th July 2008, 04:33 AM

I think it's fairly obvious that the girl who solicits drinks and gives them to her boyfriend or the guest who stuffs his pockets with smoked salmon on cream cheese are acting in a way likely to cause annoyance.

ANd thus you go and assault that girl...

For this is the worst crime possible to commit in a bar(stabbings are nothing compared to this)

Just trying on the Catholic position.

ponderingturtle

15th July 2008, 04:35 AM

The "terms of use" are told to Catholic children at about the age of seven. It's not a mystery.

But was the person catholic? To a non catholic walking in it is easy to see how they would not know that.

ponderingturtle

15th July 2008, 04:36 AM

That's what this whole thing is about. Catholics believe that the consecrated host is the literal body of God. They wish to restrict access to it. There are a large number of people insisting that they should accept that it isn't the literal body of God.

Then they shouldn't hand it out so freely.

But here I thought denying someone comunion was a significant change in activity, not just something done to anyone with out the proper paper work.

bokonon

15th July 2008, 05:51 AM

But first of all we are still talking of a cracker! To make such a fuss about it simply is insane. Imagine a supermarket going to court against a customer who took two toothpicks with the cheese samples instead of one.
Sure, it's just a cracker, and it's a little nuts for either side to make a fuss over it. But the church is giving out its crackers for a much different purpose than the supermarket is giving out cheese samples. They aren't saying "Isn't Jesus yummy? Don't you want to eat more Jesus? Then you'll have to come back next week!"

How can someone at the same time claim that the cracker they have given me is part of a living zombie god and then also make appeals to logic?
I'm the one who's trying to mount this particular appeal to logic, and I'm not making any zombie god claim. I'm saying that even though it's just a cracker, it's the church's cracker until the guy swallows it.

The thought alone is insane. It's a cracker! No sane person ever would consider the legal details involved in the repossession of a cracker.
People attach emotional importance to all kinds of things without becoming insane. If this was a cracker John Lennon had personally served during his bed-in, and you'd just bought it at Sotheby's for $75,000, you might (somewhat sanely) consider the legal details involved in its repossession if someone filched it.

ETA: I might think the baseball signed by Hank Aaron which he hit out of the park to break Babe Ruth's record is "just a ball," but its rightful owner might have a very different idea about its value.

No. What the people "consider" or "assume" doesn't matter. They can setup clearly worded, written contracts if they are so worried about their crackers.
Sure, they could. They could also depend on context and good faith, as they did.

If I'm giving away a litter of puppies, and you arrive at my house with a half a dozen little girls and their parents, all of whom seem to fall in love with the pups, and I let you take possession of them based on your representation that they'll all have loving homes, I think I'd be justified in trying to retrieve them later if I discovered that the "families" were nothing more than actors hired for the hour, and the pups were actually being used in painful and protracted experiments.

In this case, the guy misrepresented his intention, by taking communion with the congregation. When the church discovered his deception, they decided he no longer had a right to their property.

We don't demand written contracts for every interaction, because there is a common understanding of what is and is not acceptable in most situations. When I go shopping, I don't sign a contract stipulating that I have the right to try on clothes, but may not leave the store with them unless I pay for them, it's simply understood.

Jaggy Bunnet

15th July 2008, 06:32 AM

Jaggy Bunnet

15th July 2008, 06:42 AM

I That's what this whole thing is about. Catholics believe that the consecrated host is the literal body of God. They wish to restrict access to it. There are a large number of people insisting that they should accept that it isn't the literal body of God.

Not quite, there are a large number of people insisting that they should not expect anyone who does not share their belief to accept that this cracker is any different to an identical cracker which hasn't been magically transformed.

So when they give the cracker to someone, that is no different to a supermarket giving someone a cracker as a free sample. They can eat it on the spot or they can stick it in a bag and take it home with them.

They are perfectly entitled to restrict who they choose to give the cracker to, but if they make a mistake and give the cracker to someone who does not treat it the way they want they have no more right to demand it back than the supermarket can demand their cracker back.

bokonon

15th July 2008, 07:02 AM

Nonsense. The wording says precisely nothing about timing so their is zero justification for you assuming those words require it to be eaten on the spot.
The words are spoken in a context, and the people in the church are presumed to be aware of that context:

- only practicing Catholics are permitted to partake
- the ritual in which they are participating requires the cracker to be eaten on the spot.

I'm a twice-divorced atheist, but I still (on rare occasions) go to Catholic church services with my Catholic wife and our children. The children take communion; my wife and I do not. I don't because I don't believe in it. My wife doesn't because she married me, and the church doesn't recognize my previous divorces, so it doesn't recognize our marriage, so... well, I'm not really sure, but I guess it comes down to her being semi-excommunicated or something. At any rate, she's not currently "holy" enough or whatever she needs to be to take communion.

They're not my rules, or her rules. I think they're stupid, and maybe she does on some level, but we're both willing to abide by the rules that everyone understands, or should understand, when they walk into the church. Certainly, as someone who grew up attending Catholic church, the guy who filched the cracker understood the rules.

If I gave a friend money for their birthday and told them to "buy themselves a couple of drinks" but they instead spent the money paying their electricity bill then your argument would suggest that my gift was conditional and I could demand the money back. Good luck finding anyone who agrees with you.
I don't agree with your straw man either, so what? The context of a birthday gift and the context of a cracker being placed on someone's tongue during a Catholic communion are two different things.

bokonon

15th July 2008, 07:08 AM

They are perfectly entitled to restrict who they choose to give the cracker to, but if they make a mistake and give the cracker to someone who does not treat it the way they want they have no more right to demand it back than the supermarket can demand their cracker back.
I disagree.

An airline is perfectly entitled to restrict who flies on their planes, and if they make a mistake and allow someone to board without a valid ticket (let's say he presented a convincing-looking counterfeit), they are well within their rights to demand the seat back when the deception is discovered.

If someone is having a party, and insists that everyone remove their shoes at the door, and I come in with the implied promise that I will remove my shoes but then I don't, the host is entitled to ask that I either remove my shoes or leave. It's their territory, and their terms. I may think their terms are stupid ("It's a linoleum floor. Are you KIDDING me?!") but that doesn't mean I'm free simply to ignore them.

westprog

15th July 2008, 07:17 AM

People attach emotional importance to all kinds of things without becoming insane. If this was a cracker John Lennon had personally served during his bed-in, and you'd just bought it at Sotheby's for $75,000, you might (somewhat sanely) consider the legal details involved in its repossession if someone filched it.

ETA: I might think the baseball signed by Hank Aaron which he hit out of the park to break Babe Ruth's record is "just a ball," but its rightful owner might have a very different idea about its value.

They're good examples, but they both have possible financial value. I'd consider, say, the one photograph saved from the fire where a beloved spouse and children died. Of no concievable worth to anyone else.

Sure, they could. They could also depend on context and good faith, as they did.

There seem to be two parallel arguments going here. One is that the church had no business making a big fuss about a worthless cracker. The other is that they shouldn't just be letting anyone in and trusting them to behave properly.

Ocelot

15th July 2008, 07:20 AM

So my favourite godless liberal evolutionary blogger seems to have sparked outrage by asking for a piece of Christ’s body to desecrate. In reality its not Christ’s body at all but a wafer over which a man duly appointed by the catholic church has said a few words. However to Catholics this not only symbolises Christ’s flesh but in some spooky way really actually is.

Now Bill Donohue is in on the act and whipping up hated for the bearded one amongst the catholic faithful. Strangely we have modern enlightened followers of Christ actually issuing death threats. PZ is pretty blasé about them but seems a little more concerned about a campaign to get him sacked.

The facts of the case are this.
PZ is an accomplished educator whose international audience via his Pharangyla blog, enjoy not only his rants as a godless liberal but his clear yet detailed explanations of evodevo and a credit to the university who employs him.
Host desecration was a crime made up in the 11th century.
Jews were accused of desecrating the "body of Christ" and tortured into confessing to a multitude of fanciful offences such as squeezing Christ’s blood from the Eucharist and using it to remove "Jew stink" so that they could infiltrate gentile society.
There's no evidence that the host has ever been used in any satanic or black magic ritual by anyone Jewish or not, tales of this bizarre blood libel are so fanciful as to belie any possibility of truth.
PZ hasn't desecrated any host but has said he would.
He's been equally disparaging about many types of superstitious belief. Such as offering to desecrate the Quran (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/desecration_its_a_fun_hobby.php)
He made these comments outside of work.
Nonetheless from the catholic perspective it reflects badly on the university that they would employ someone who would make such a comment.
The catholic complaints are pretty over the top, not just those that stoop to making death threats, some say that his crime is the worst imaginable, an unspeakable hate crime. (Worse than actually doing what he said he would? Worse than covering up child sex abuse cases involving priests? Worse than torturing and executing Jews for a made up crime?)
Nonetheless a widespread campaign could make things difficult for the university.

I’m told that the Marquis de Sade envisaged the ultimate desecration to be sodomising an underage relative with a host on the end of his penis.

I imagine PZ’s idea of desecration to be more like putting it under a microscope or subjecting it to DNA testing to find any possible evidence that this was in any way the body of Christ.

Many of the question discussed earlier int his thread would have been greatly illuminated by a knowledge of the supposed crime of host desecration. Look it up, it's fascinating.

articulett

15th July 2008, 07:39 AM

No.... the argument is that it's illegal to detain people because you don't think they are giving proper respect to your magic beans. It's ridiculous for people to expect others to "believe in" their magic. If you want communion to be a contractual obligation, then pay taxes and police officers to conduct proper searches and detainment. In a public school, it would be illegal to detain someone physically because they didn't eat food you gave them in your presence. We can't even physically restrain an emotionally or mentally challenged kid bent on dashing out the door.

It's ridiculous and embarrassing for the church to make an issue out of this... it's as ridiculous and embarrassing as if a Mormon person detained someone because they weren't a Mormon, but they obtained (legally) the magical underwear and wore it.

Moreover, it's a tort--a violation of the kid's civil rights.

Go PZ: http://minnesotaindependent.com/view/mnindy-interview

Religion allows people to get their panties in a bunch over the most inane things. It is not against the law to be "rude"-- it IS against the law to detain someone without cause.

You can tsk-tsk the young man all you want for his rudeness and try to get him to see the error of his ways... You can excommunicate him--and try to get a bandwagon of ire aimed at him-- but you cannot detain him. You cannot violate laws because you are peeved that someone didn't respect your sacred ritual. Whether the kid was rude or not is an OPINION. Whether it was legal to restrain him or not is a matter of law. I don't think a bunch of blowhards' opinions mean much to that kid... and less so now, no doubt. They should not have touched him and they should have used whatever wisdom, compassion, or morality they imagine they have to consider a better solution regarding their feelings of "offense". And their attempts to use their mighty powers to get PZ fired is way more offensive than absconding with a cracker. It's vile. If they really truly believe in their magic man- they ought to let him fight his own damn battles--he's omnipotent... controls all... I don't think he needs mortals fighting his battles for him, does he? They're really screaming out "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"--lest they lose more membership to reason.

Faith hides behind bluster... they're not upset their Jesus was kidnapped... they're afraid of the truth-- which can stand the light and the scrutiny and doesn't need to hide. Their ideas look pretty damn archaic with the light of truth and honest inquiry shining down upon it.

westprog

15th July 2008, 07:44 AM

...
Host desecration was a crime made up in the 11th century.
...

The modern equivalent would probably be Satanic ritual abuse - something equally sparse in evidence.

However, the reason that Catholics made up the stories about Jews carrying out black magic rites with the host is because they already had a set of beliefs associated with it. The misuse of the host was fictional. The veneration of the host wasn't.

Jaggy Bunnet

15th July 2008, 08:03 AM

The words are spoken in a context, and the people in the church are presumed to be aware of that context:

- only practicing Catholics are permitted to partake
- the ritual in which they are participating requires the cracker to be eaten on the spot.

I'm a twice-divorced atheist, but I still (on rare occasions) go to Catholic church services with my Catholic wife and our children. The children take communion; my wife and I do not. I don't because I don't believe in it. My wife doesn't because she married me, and the church doesn't recognize my previous divorces, so it doesn't recognize our marriage, so... well, I'm not really sure, but I guess it comes down to her being semi-excommunicated or something. At any rate, she's not currently "holy" enough or whatever she needs to be to take communion.

They're not my rules, or her rules. I think they're stupid, and maybe she does on some level, but we're both willing to abide by the rules that everyone understands, or should understand, when they walk into the church. Certainly, as someone who grew up attending Catholic church, the guy who filched the cracker understood the rules.

You referred only to the specific words "Take this all of you and eat it". Your claim was that those words gave notice that the gift was conditional on it being eaten straight away. This is clearly untrue, unless you can explain what IN THOSE SPECIFIC WORDS you were referring to at the time. As none of your post above deals with that, I have ignored it as irrelevant to your claim.

I don't agree with your straw man either, so what? The context of a birthday gift and the context of a cracker being placed on someone's tongue during a Catholic communion are two different things.

Only if you believe that religious beliefs are entitled to special treatment. That is the implied assumption in your argument - because this is religious it is somehow different. In other words you expect non-Catholics to treat this item as "magical" because Catholics do. Not going to happen.

articulett

15th July 2008, 08:05 AM

Here's the original story: http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html

And Here's the PZ thread that started the brouhaha: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php

And here's Dawkin's summation http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2848,PLEASE-WRITE-IN-SUPPORT-OF-PZ-MYERS,Richard-Dawkins-PZ-Myers-Pharyngula,page13#209992

All in all I think this is going to be a big blow to the church... and an over reaction that prods a few people to begin asking questions...

I don't really see the most intelligent people on the side of the church in regards to these events...

(And it doesn't look like the communion wafer was placed on his tongue... they place these things in the hand now-- and when he didn't promptly put it in his mouth, he was stopped... so he put it in his mouth and then took it out... )

Jaggy Bunnet

15th July 2008, 08:14 AM

I disagree.

An airline is perfectly entitled to restrict who flies on their planes, and if they make a mistake and allow someone to board without a valid ticket (let's say he presented a convincing-looking counterfeit), they are well within their rights to demand the seat back when the deception is discovered.

You mean BEFORE they have provided the contracted service? Yes I completely agree. And if the church had found out he was not intending to eat the cracker there and then BEFORE they gave it to him, they would be entitled to refuse to give it to him.

But AFTER they have given it to him they can no more demand it back than the airline can stop the individual after he is off the plane, force him back on board and fly him back to the city of departure.

If someone is having a party, and insists that everyone remove their shoes at the door, and I come in with the implied promise that I will remove my shoes but then I don't, the host is entitled to ask that I either remove my shoes or leave. It's their territory, and their terms. I may think their terms are stupid ("It's a linoleum floor. Are you KIDDING me?!") but that doesn't mean I'm free simply to ignore them.

So what? This has no relevance to the subject under discussion. If they ask you to come in, give you a drink and ask you to take your shoes off and notice 5 minutes later that you have not taken your shoes off they can ask you to take them off or leave. If you choose to leave and take the drink with you, you have NOT stolen it. They gave it to you. It is yours. Whether you have drunk it or nor is irrelevant.

If your argument is that they CAN take the drink from you in those circumstances, what if you have already finished it? Can they charge you for it? If not, why not?

westprog

15th July 2008, 08:15 AM

Only if you believe that religious beliefs are entitled to special treatment. That is the implied assumption in your argument - because this is religious it is somehow different. In other words you expect non-Catholics to treat this item as "magical" because Catholics do. Not going to happen.

Nobody is entitled to "special treatment". What they want is to set their own rules in their own places. Nobody is forced to attend Catholic services any more.

If you play golf, or visit a museum, or go to a shop, they all have their own set of rules. Nobody expects to go to Augusta National and putt with a croquet mallet. They accept the rules or play a different game. And if they leave divot marks on the green they'll be physically restrained quickly enough.

Jaggy Bunnet

15th July 2008, 08:21 AM

Nobody is entitled to "special treatment". What they want is to set their own rules in their own places. Nobody is forced to attend Catholic services any more.

If you play golf, or visit a museum, or go to a shop, they all have their own set of rules. Nobody expects to go to Augusta National and putt with a croquet mallet. They accept the rules or play a different game. And if they leave divot marks on the green they'll be physically restrained quickly enough.

You want this cracker to be treated differently to a free cracker given away in a supermarket. That IS a request for special treatment.

articulett

15th July 2008, 08:30 AM

nG5QXyMGy0U

The faithful need to bad mouth people of reason because they have no facts to support their beliefs-- just bluster, promised salvation, and fear of "losing faith".

Facts are anathema to faith.

thaiboxerken

15th July 2008, 08:49 AM

If Myers has the right to ask people to post consecrated hosts to him, then Donahue has the right to ask for him to be fired. That's how the free speech thing works. It goes both ways.

Yes, and we have the right to criticize Donahue for doing so.

articulett

15th July 2008, 09:09 AM

Yes, and we have the right to criticize Donahue for doing so.

Yes... and PZ fans have apparently shared their opinions with those eager to share their criticisms of PZ.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/stop_it_now_please.php

Why won't they trust the magic man they believe so fervently in, to fight his own damn battles?
(I must note that he doesn't seem to protect his minions from their own stupidity very well.)

Catholic sock puppetry is alive and well: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fyi.php

pgwenthold

15th July 2008, 09:11 AM

Most priests place the host in peoples hands instead of directly on the tongue now for health reasons (I guess the body of Christ isn't the best at keeping the body of germs at bay)--

Yep, that changed in the late 70s/early 80s. When I first started serving mass (about 1978), it was always directly on the tongue. It changed a couple years or so after. When it first switched, people were given the option, and many of the older people would always have it directly on the tongue. I always used to get a kick out of the different approaches people had to sticking out their tongues.

Anyhow, I hear the kid is suing for giving an underage kid wine and also assault, I think. I bet they'll both drop their cases, but all religions make a big mistake when they try to use the law to force others to obey their superstitions in my opinion.

Actually, they are begging a HUGE problem in this case if they try it. As much as the Catholics want to believe it, if they are going to claim that "kidnapping Jesus" is a legal issue, then they are going to bear the burden of showing that it IS Jesus. They can't legally get away with "well, we believe it." The defense is going to come at them with every scientific test they can muster and will show it is just bread. When that happens, the court can't ignore it and say "it is Jesus based on faith." They will have to rule that, no, there is no indication that it is anything other than bread. Hence, it does not hold any special status in the eyes of the law.

I don't think the Catholic church wants that ruling to come down.

bokonon

15th July 2008, 09:21 AM

Only if you believe that religious beliefs are entitled to special treatment. That is the implied assumption in your argument - because this is religious it is somehow different. In other words you expect non-Catholics to treat this item as "magical" because Catholics do. Not going to happen.
No, not in the least. Nowhere in my argument have I used the word "magical" or "religious." I'm saying that whoever owns the cracker can set whatever conditions they choose on how ownership may transfer to another. If you choose not to accept those rules, don't take the cracker. I don't care if you think it's magical or not, I'm saying it's a simple case of property rights, and the guy who left the church with the cracker didn't own it, because he'd violated the implicit agreement under which it came to be in his possession.

krazyKemist

15th July 2008, 09:21 AM

Now, why did he write that? Presumably he wanted to get a reaction. He wanted to upset people. Who did he want to upset? Believing Catholics. Had they, as a group, done him any harm? No.

You're entitled to that opinion, of course, but I don't think he did it for that purpose... I think he was shocked by the overreaction the first benign gesture (remember the kid was catholic, intended to show the wafer to a friend and consume it before leaving the premises, if we believe the actual account) elicited. He was shocked because this is U.S., which is supposed to be a free, civilized country. Not Saudi Arabia.

Yes there seems to be a double standard between how instances of blaspheme or desecration are treated between islam (in iraq or saudi arabia) and catholiscism (in U.S.). But it has to do with how free, civilized and educated the involved populations are. It's like what you expect from a child vs what you expect from an adult. A child having a tantrum over a dropped candy is much less shocking than an adult behaving in the same way. Death treats (and a putative official reaction, like getting fired or imprisonned) over blaspheme are expected in Saudi Arabia, but they are very shocking in U.S., or in any civilized country.

...snip... But his intention was to hurt people because he thinks their beliefs are stupid. And the people on JREF who support him do so because they think that Catholic beliefs are stupid. And if someone is upset because her beliefs leads him to assign value to a cracker, then she does not deserve sympathy.

No, I don't think so. He wants to see that incident ridiculed to put it into proper perspective. A ritual is only a ritual. You can be angry that it gets disturbed, but you can't expect to get a kid expelled from a university over it. You can't make death threats over it (again, in a civilized, sane country, that is). Heck, it is a symbol. A reenactment of Jesus's last meal that the church shares in remembrance. That's what I was taught in catholic school. What if one guest misbehave ? He's a jerk, okay, if he's being overly disruptive, throw him out. If he is harrassing and repeats the offense, call the police. But you can't expect that he gets expelled or fired over it.

Donahue is not entitled to have anyone else value that little bit of bread the way he does. He's entitled to value it himself, and so are other Catholics. And other people are allowed to think that belief is nonsense.
But what seems to be required here is that Catholics aren't even allowed to talk about their beliefs. They aren't even to be allowed to practice them in private.

There is a big difference between allowing to practice your beliefs in private and expecting everyone else to respect them, to the point of taking official sanction (like firing or expelling somebody) over them. The kid misbehaved, they are within their rights to have him thrown out of the church, nothing more. Not expelled from university. That would be demanding that everybody else respect their belief in the host. PZ is similarly allowed free speach, even if catholics don't like what he says.

We've had this discussion in Canada over Sharia, the wearing of hijab and even nikab (sp?) in public institutions, insistance of the Hassidic jew community to be served by only male member of public institutions, wearing the kirpan (ceremonial knife worn by sikh men) at school, prayers in the mayor's office. The consensus we've come to is that certain values, those of our charts of rights, trump religious practice.

Thus, Hassidic jews are not entitled to be served by only male member of public services, since gender equality trumps religious observance. You can wear the hijab at school, but canadian judicial courts won't uphold the Sharia. You cannot have religious prayers in a mayor's office but you can have a moment of silence to do whatever you want with.

We live in societies that have religious freedom at the heart of their values. It supposes that there will be compromises (we even have a name for those in my province (in french) : accomodements raisonnables / reasonable accomodations) and that you have to expect that sometimes secular values, like free speach and equality of genders, will trump religious ones, however important they are to you.

westprog

15th July 2008, 09:57 AM

What if one guest misbehave ? He's a jerk, okay, if he's being overly disruptive, throw him out. If he is harrassing and repeats the offense, call the police. But you can't expect that he gets expelled or fired over it.

I've no particular wish for UCF to behave in any particular way. If they have a policy on that kind of behaviour, I'd expect it to be followed in a uniform and just way.

We live in societies that have religious freedom at the heart of their values. It supposes that there will be compromises (we even have a name for those in my province (in french) : accomodements raisonnables / reasonable accomodations) and that you have to expect that sometimes secular values, like free speach and equality of genders, will trump religious ones, however important they are to you.

I think that the secular world cannot bow to any particular interpretation of faith. However, inside the doors of the actual, physical church building, it seems fair enough to say "our rules here".

westprog

15th July 2008, 10:01 AM

As much as the Catholics want to believe it, if they are going to claim that "kidnapping Jesus" is a legal issue, then they are going to bear the burden of showing that it IS Jesus. They can't legally get away with "well, we believe it." The defense is going to come at them with every scientific test they can muster and will show it is just bread. When that happens, the court can't ignore it and say "it is Jesus based on faith." They will have to rule that, no, there is no indication that it is anything other than bread. Hence, it does not hold any special status in the eyes of the law.

I don't think the Catholic church wants that ruling to come down.

It would be absurd to try to claim legal protection for the host as a person. It would be quite possible to claim the right to impose their own set of rules in their own churches, and to ask anyone entering them to observe those rules. That's pretty much how any private operation with access to the public operates.

If Webster thinks he was badly treated in church, he should try standing up on a plane when he's told to sit down.

thaiboxerken

15th July 2008, 10:11 AM

The absurd analogies and comparisons that westprog makes are rather hilarious. Are you arguing for the sake of argument, west, or do you actually believe the nonsense you are posting?

westprog

15th July 2008, 10:21 AM

The absurd analogies and comparisons that westprog makes are rather hilarious. Are you arguing for the sake of argument, west, or do you actually believe the nonsense you are posting?

It might help if you were to be a little more specific.

Incidentally, the claim that churches should have to follow the same rules that apply to supermarkets wasn't mine.

paximperium

15th July 2008, 10:26 AM

I think that the secular world cannot bow to any particular interpretation of faith. However, inside the doors of the actual, physical church building, it seems fair enough to say "our rules here".
Bingo. So why are they imposing their beliefs onto Myers outside the Church?
Why should non-believers give a cracker special treatment?

paximperium

15th July 2008, 10:33 AM

It would be absurd to try to claim legal protection for the host as a person. It would be quite possible to claim the right to impose their own set of rules in their own churches, and to ask anyone entering them to observe those rules. That's pretty much how any private operation with access to the public operates.

If Webster thinks he was badly treated in church, he should try standing up on a plane when he's told to sit down.
Exactly. A private entity has the right to impose their own set of rules WITHIN the scope of the law. They don't get to make up their own laws.
1)Giving a cracker to someone means it no longer belongs to you. The new owner can do what they wish to it.
2)You don't get to claim that because he was in Church that when he was manhandled that is automatically means he could not have been assaulted/battered

When you set the rules involved with setting foot on your property, you have the right to make that other person leave ie. banks, shops and money making places like Churches. You also need a darn good reason to manhandle or hold someone against their will while waiting for police to arrive such as shoplifting...anything else is kidnapping.

PS: You may need to stop using the airplane standing example because you can't stand in an airplane is due to Federal Law and FAA rules not due to some arbitrary made up rules.

bokonon

15th July 2008, 10:39 AM

Bingo. So why are they imposing their beliefs onto Myers outside the Church?
I don't think Myers should be fired for desecrating crackers. I do think grown men who believe cracker desecration is a worthwhile form of protest or performance art may be a little childish.
Why should non-believers give a cracker special treatment?
I guess he wants to give it special treatment because he thinks he needs to make a point. I don't know what kind of desecration he has in mind -- using it to culture slime mold, storing it with Saltines, sprinkling it on an ice cream cone, serving it with fava beans and a little Chianti -- but the whole thing seems silly to me. I wrote my email in support of his continued employment; nevertheless, the term "publicity whore" comes to mind when I see how he's latched on to this incident the way Al Sharpton latched on to Tawana Brawley.

Morrigan

15th July 2008, 10:44 AM

I shouldn't have directly assigned opinions to you in that way, when you hadn't stated them yourself. It was rude, and I apologise.

Apology accepted.

That's what this whole thing is about. Catholics believe that the consecrated host is the literal body of God. They wish to restrict access to it. There are a large number of people insisting that they should accept that it isn't the literal body of God.
Not really. Catholics are free to believe that when they eat this cracker, they are consecrating the body of the dead Jew or whatever. That still doesn't mean they are free to assault people who do otherwise, and who even have innocent intentions about it.

bokonon

15th July 2008, 10:49 AM

You also need a darn good reason to manhandle or hold someone against their will while waiting for police to arrive such as shoplifting...anything else is kidnapping.
The reason was theft of property.

If a retail store gives me a pen at the checkout counter to sign a credit card receipt, I understand that they expect I will return the pen after the receipt is signed. The pen has been given for a specific purpose. If I walk away with the pen, and they stop me and ask me to return the pen, and I refuse, they are probably within their rights to restrain me even though it is just a ten cent pen.

In this case, the cracker belongs to the church until it is eaten. If it hasn't been eaten, they have a right to get it back.

If I write a check to charity, I expect my money will be spent a certain way. The charity doesn't get to decide to repurpose the money once the check clears. Mere possession does not equal ownership.

Jaggy Bunnet

15th July 2008, 10:58 AM

In this case, the cracker belongs to the church until it is eaten.

At which precise moment? When it enters the mouth? Well it entered his mouth so what is your problem?

When it is swallowed? What if he regurgitated it? Would you have no problem then?

Do you have anything to support your claim that the point when ownership passes is when the cracker is eaten other then the fact you would LIKE this to be true?

paximperium

15th July 2008, 11:02 AM

The reason was theft of property.

If a retail store gives me a pen at the checkout counter to sign a credit card receipt, I understand that they expect I will return the pen after the receipt is signed. The pen has been given for a specific purpose. If I walk away with the pen, and they stop me and ask me to return the pen, and I refuse, they are probably within their rights to restrain me even though it is just a ten cent pen.

In this case, the cracker belongs to the church until it is eaten. If it hasn't been eaten, they have a right to get it back.

If I write a check to charity, I expect my money will be spent a certain way. The charity doesn't get to decide to repurpose the money once the check clears. Mere possession does not equal ownership.

Which continues to not be an issue because despite all your examples, the pen, car, collecting plate, chicken etc. was not given away like the cracker was now, was it?

Please clearly point out in the law where it states that the cracker has this special treatment of it being the Church's property until eaten AFTER it is given away. Damn, give me any example of something being given away BUT continues to be the property of the Giver.

Please stop using such terrible examples. If you write a check to a charity to save the little children and the charity decides to use it to build itself a new headquarters, you have NO right to the money YOU GAVE AWAY as long as the charity uses it according to the law.

Jaggy Bunnet

15th July 2008, 11:04 AM

If a retail store gives me a pen at the checkout counter to sign a credit card receipt, I understand that they expect I will return the pen after the receipt is signed. The pen has been given for a specific purpose. If I walk away with the pen, and they stop me and ask me to return the pen, and I refuse, they are probably within their rights to restrain me even though it is just a ten cent pen.

Why is it that your examples all seem to involve a situation where there is NO intention for title to pass, rather than those that are actually analagous to this situation where title is 100% intended to transfer?

If they give you a gift of a pen when you open your account and you immediately close it again, then the pen belongs to you. Sure they expected you to keep the account open when they give you the pen, but there is no obligation on you to do so. You might be thought rude, and they might choose not to do business with you but they cannot try and physically force the pen from you or prevent you leaving the bank.

paximperium

15th July 2008, 11:05 AM

<snip>I wrote my email in support of his continued employment; nevertheless, the term "publicity whore" comes to mind when I see how he's latched on to this incident the way Al Sharpton latched on to Tawana Brawley.
The whole incident is silly but please clearly show us how he has been using this like a "publicity whore"? Which news interviews can I watch? What about a podcast interview? What public office is he running for? What about that promotion...oh wait, he's tenured...well he may get to be a full Professor instead of just an "Associate" Professor.

Civilized Worm

15th July 2008, 11:08 AM

I think the Catholics deserve the same respect that any other religion/philosophical outlook on life deserves. I'm not going to be deliberately confrontational by walking into a Catholic Church during mass and p***ing in the holy water the same as I'm not going to race pigs outside of a Mosque during any particular religious festival they may practice. The same as I would expect a religious person to not come to my house and take a dump on "The Origin of Species" in my front yard. It's not a matter of free speech it's a matter of frackin' respect!

I would have a problem with anyone taking a dump in my front yard. If however someone was to defecate on their own book in their own home I couldn't give a flying ****.

And why should all outlooks deserve equal respect? That seems highly relativistic to me. Do the views of neo nazis deserve respect? Flat earthers? NAMBLA? I certainly have great difficulty affording respect to those who invest magical properties in biscuits.

I don't think Myers should be fired for desecrating crackers. I do think grown men who believe cracker desecration is a worthwhile form of protest or performance art may be a little childish.

If that's a little childish then how childish is the belief in magic Jesus crackers in the first place? To me it seems utterly infantile.

bokonon

15th July 2008, 11:28 AM

Damn, give me any example of something being given away BUT continues to be the property of the Giver.
I already provided the example of the puppies which you thought were going to loving homes, and instead wound up in labs for painful experiments. The fact that misrepresentation was used to obtain possession of the puppies would probably be enough to unwind the gift in a court of law if it came to that.

In this case, an implied contract is being violated. Certain conditions are illegal (i.e., I can't sell you a house with the stipulation that it can't be resold to people of certain ethnicities). I don't think there's any law against saying it isn't yours unless you've eaten it.

If I go into an all-you-can-eat restaurant, I'm allowed to "take" as much food as I want for a flat fee, but only if I eat it. I'm not allowed to fill a trash bag and drag it out the door. The food I've purchased is mine when I eat it, and not before. If I've put it on my plate, but can't eat another bite, it's the restaurant's prerogative to toss it in the trash rather than letting me walk out the door with it. If I try to walk out the door with it, they have a right to restrain me if they choose to.

I got a cell phone "free" with a two-year contract. If I cancel service or default on payments before the two-year proviso is satisfied, I have to pay a fee for the phone.

There are lots of cases in which something is "given" conditionally. This is one, in my opinion.

paximperium

15th July 2008, 11:38 AM

I already provided the example of the puppies which you thought were going to loving homes, and instead wound up in labs for painful experiments. The fact that misrepresentation was used to obtain possession of the puppies would probably be enough to unwind the gift in a court of law if it came to that.
Please show me the law or case that would support your claim.

In this case, an implied contract is being violated. Certain conditions are illegal (i.e., I can't sell you a house with the stipulation that it can't be resold to people of certain ethnicities). I don't think there's any law against saying it isn't yours unless you've eaten it.
But there isn't any law that says you have any right to it until after you've met those conditions.

If I go into an all-you-can-eat restaurant, I'm allowed to "take" as much food as I want for a flat fee, but only if I eat it. I'm not allowed to fill a trash bag and drag it out the door. The food I've purchased is mine when I eat it, and not before. If I've put it on my plate, but can't eat another bite, it's the restaurant's prerogative to toss it in the trash rather than letting me walk out the door with it. If I try to walk out the door with it, they have a right to restrain me if they choose to.
Notice the bold? You have no right to the food except to eat it within the premise of the restaurant.

I got a cell phone "free" with a two-year contract. If I cancel service or default on payments before the two-year proviso is satisfied, I have to pay a fee for the phone.
Notice the bold? Notice the word contract which YOU signed and which YOU agreed to those penalties?

There are lots of cases in which something is "given" conditionally. This is one, in my opinion.
Would you care to name one?

bokonon

15th July 2008, 11:39 AM

The whole incident is silly but please clearly show us how he has been using this like a "publicity whore"?
He publicizes himself on his blog. By fanning the flames of controversy, he generates more publicity. Maybe the additional notoriety enables him to book a speaking engagement he wouldn't have snagged before.

As for how he's been using this like a publicity whore, the simple fact that he's going into stunt mode ("Get ME some crackers; I'll show you DESECRATION!") is enough to label him a publicity whore in my book. He didn't have a dog in this fight, and he's trying to make it about himself. If he'd simply written an article laying out why he thought the student was right, or the church was wrong, or defended a stake somewhere in the middle, that would be one thing. Promising a performance instead makes it seem to me that he may be more interested in the publicity than the issue.

bokonon

15th July 2008, 11:46 AM

Would you care to name one?
I see you're going into DOC mode here (essentially ignoring the points I've raised rather than addressing them, and asking me to provide something I've already provided many times), so I think I'll be moving on.

krazyKemist

15th July 2008, 11:54 AM

I've no particular wish for UCF to behave in any particular way. If they have a policy on that kind of behaviour, I'd expect it to be followed in a uniform and just way.

I'll go even further : there shouldn't be any policy from the university on that kind of behavior. Because it would equate having a law that deals with blaspheme/desecration. Respect of religious values by secular autorities.

I think that the secular world cannot bow to any particular interpretation of faith. However, inside the doors of the actual, physical church building, it seems fair enough to say "our rules here".

I, for one, do not advocate disturbing religious people's rituals. They have the right to practice their religion in private. But similarly, then, religious freedom means I have a right to blaspheme, as free speach. If I repeatedly disturb the mass in my local church, secular law can be called upon since this constitute hasrassment. If I film myself drawing a smiley-face on a consecrated host and post it on youtube, that's my prerogative, as much in bad taste as it may seem.

As to saying "our rules here" in the church, what about if the rules or the behavior of the people contradict secular law ? Is assault on somebody not respecting church rules acceptable ? Death threats ? Are the congregants immune to criminal law because the person dared disturb their sacred ritual ?

I don't think most here are promoting harassment on religious people in their chosen place of cult, but they are rather appalled at the reaction it elicited. I don't think giving that much weight to a simple ritual, meant to unite the church in remembrance, constitutes "being religious". Neither is calling a simple deviation from said ritual, in which the "criminal" had allegedly no harmful intent, "kidnapping" and "hate crime". It is just plain, medieval superstition. It has no rightful place in civilized countries, in the 21st century.

The only thing this congregation, Bill Donohue and the catholic league succeed in doing is making catholics look like superstitious savages. That should be profoundly insulting to any catholic. I'm insulted on behalf of my family. Responding by saying : "They really believe the host is the body of Christ, so they are right to react that way" is adding insult to injury. It's like saying "Yes, they're superstitious savages, they can't reason by themselves, so let's call things down, they could become violent."

shadron

15th July 2008, 11:58 AM

A victimless crime if ever there was one.

Absolutely, I agree. RAHeinlein once said (paraphrase) that blasphemy was the second-most ridiculous sin in the universe. Furthermore, it's only a sin for those who believe. Nevertheless, that is the issue here, not property rights.

paximperium

15th July 2008, 12:05 PM

He publicizes himself on his blog. By fanning the flames of controversy, he generates more publicity. Maybe the additional notoriety enables him to book a speaking engagement he wouldn't have snagged before.

Maybe...maybe...maybe.

As for how he's been using this like a publicity whore, the simple fact that he's going into stunt mode ("Get ME some crackers; I'll show you DESECRATION!") is enough to label him a publicity whore in my book. He didn't have a dog in this fight, and he's trying to make it about himself. If he'd simply written an article laying out why he thought the student was right, or the church was wrong, or defended a stake somewhere in the middle, that would be one thing. Promising a performance instead makes it seem to me that he may be more interested in the publicity than the issue.
That's your opinion. He wrote exactly what you stated with one small little quip in the end of the post about the cracker whose tone was sarcastic. Didn't read the original post did you?

paximperium

15th July 2008, 12:08 PM

I see you're going into DOC mode here (essentially ignoring the points I've raised rather than addressing them, and asking me to provide something I've already provided many times), so I think I'll be moving on.

Wow, what a nice ad hom.

I addressed all your so called "points" which is to call it politely, garbage.
Your so called points were demolished and I'm still awaiting for something valid and even relevant to the discussion at hand instead of "You can't take food out of an ALL YOU CAN EAT" or "I broke a cellphone contract" as equivalent to a cracker that was given away.

Bye bye.

shadron

15th July 2008, 12:21 PM

The whole incident is silly but please clearly show us how he has been using this like a "publicity whore"? Which news interviews can I watch? What about a podcast interview? What public office is he running for? What about that promotion...oh wait, he's tenured...well he may get to be a full Professor instead of just an "Associate" Professor.

Pax, you're attacking some unmentioned advantage that PZ may get from being as outspoken as he is rather than looking at the act itself. I think bokonon has something here. PZ is an excellent fellow - bright, knowledgeable, driven, argumentative, easily able to hold his own in a debate (at least, I think he would). Brilliant. He seems to have, IMHO, this one character flaw - he takes things to excess. Now, you may not think so and since it is more a matter of taste than anything else, then we can certainly differ on this. I would point out that in the interview following the expelled from Expelled incident PZ encouraged others to try to crash other viewings (I cannot remember all the details; he also encouraged some behavior that I considered rather against netiquette; perhaps someone with better memory could help me out here). Some people were a bit aghast that he would use the bully-pulpit to push what is considered an over-thetop, ill-mannered action by others. It appears that that is quintessential PZ. I for one don't like that too much, but I certainly back his basic position, and on balance, I thiink he is definitely an asset to the pro-science cause. But, in my view, he acted as badly as Donahue did and as Sharpton often does, and I find them equally repugnant.

Unload the rifle, we're mostly all friends here. :)

bokonon

15th July 2008, 12:27 PM

Your so called points were demolished and I'm still awaiting for something valid and even relevant to the discussion at hand instead of "You can't take food out of an ALL YOU CAN EAT"
That's completely relevant, and hasn't been addressed. It's an implied contract, even if there is no explicit statement saying "All you can eat at one sitting" rather than "all you can eat in a week."

And I provided the example of an engagement ring, which is another conditional gift "with intent to transfer ownership." If there is no marriage, the expectation is that the ring will be returned to the donor.

I think the person providing the cracker can set conditions, just as the all-you-can-eat restaurant does. The prayer saying "take this and eat it" seems to me to be just as valid an implied contract as "all you can eat." That you don't see it that way hardly "demolishes" anything.

paximperium

15th July 2008, 12:54 PM

Pax, you're attacking some unmentioned advantage that PZ may get from being as outspoken as he is rather than looking at the act itself. I think bokonon has something here. PZ is an excellent fellow - bright, knowledgeable, driven, argumentative, easily able to hold his own in a debate (at least, I think he would). Brilliant. He seems to have, IMHO, this one character flaw - he takes things to excess. Now, you may not think so and since it is more a matter of taste than anything else, then we can certainly differ on this. I would point out that in the interview following the expelled from Expelled incident PZ encouraged others to try to crash other viewings (I cannot remember all the details; he also encouraged some behavior that I considered rather against netiquette; perhaps someone with better memory could help me out here). Some people were a bit aghast that he would use the bully-pulpit to push what is considered an over-thetop, ill-mannered action by others. It appears that that is quintessential PZ. I for one don't like that too much, but I certainly back his basic position, and on balance, I thiink he is definitely an asset to the pro-science cause. But, in my view, he acted as badly as Donahue did and as Sharpton often does, and I find them equally repugnant.

Unload the rifle, we're mostly all friends here. :)

That is exactly what I'm attacking. He is insinuating that PZ purposefully did this for publicity when it looks more like a sarcastic comment that has been taken to the extremes.

I have little doubt that Myers often goes way overboard and I disagree with his approach to many things but I disdain people who attempt to tar anyone with a dismissive tone of "his just a publicity whore", or "he brought it on himself."

paximperium

15th July 2008, 12:59 PM

That's completely relevant, and hasn't been addressed. It's an implied contract, even if there is no explicit statement saying "All you can eat at one sitting" rather than "all you can eat in a week."

And I provided the example of an engagement ring, which is another conditional gift "with intent to transfer ownership." If there is no marriage, the expectation is that the ring will be returned to the donor.

I think the person providing the cracker can set conditions, just as the all-you-can-eat restaurant does. The prayer saying "take this and eat it" seems to me to be just as valid an implied contract as "all you can eat." That you don't see it that way hardly "demolishes" anything.
The "all you can eat" argument no longer applies because most if not all buffets have written contracts and rules when you pay for the food.

Now we're talking. I did not see the engagement ring example. That is actually a valid conditional gift but the courts have looked at this from a different perspective. An engagement ring is a contractual nonverbal agreement for marriage which is a legal contract. A cracker has no such legal contract.

Whatever, the kid was wrong BUT I see the Churches reaction as the bigger "sin" because I see that tussle as an assault. I see the threats against the kid as very wrong.

While PZ's behavior was over the top, I'll defend his right to insult and desecrate as many crackers as he wishes just I will defend the right of Catholics to worship as they wish. The Church does not have the right to force anyone to respect their infantile beliefs.

bokonon

15th July 2008, 01:30 PM

Whatever, the kid was wrong BUT I see the Churches reaction as the bigger "sin" because I see that tussle as an assault. I see the threats against the kid as very wrong.
I agree with you there, but I didn't think that position needed much defending here.

Rasmus

15th July 2008, 04:36 PM

Whatever, the kid was wrong

Only if we can assume he did what he did to cause trouble.

And of that, I am not convinced.

And I am not going to blame someone - not even a catholic - for failing to memorize by heart and follow the letter (or not, as the case may be) the insane, illogical and pointless rules of a bunch of madmen.

There is nothing wrong in taking a cracker that someone gives me out of the building I was given it in. There is nothing wrong with not knowing that the person giving me is a starking mad lunatic who will throw a hissy fit if I do not immediately eat the whole cracker.

There's nothing wrong, either, with being aware of the stupid "rule" and assuming that breaking it simply wouldn't be a big deal. There is nothing wrong, not even for a catholic, to not follow every last illogical dogma that at some point in the past was made up by someone.

articulett

15th July 2008, 06:39 PM

I don't see PZ Myers as a publicity whore... or if he is one... then I guess I like smart cogent publicity whores. I think he challenges people to think. I think that encouraging people to abscond with the Eucharist may be an excellent way to get people thinking real thoughts...instead of thinking about magic men who need to be pleased and symbolic zombies that must be consumed. Why do people think certain stuff is rude and offensive while letting other stuff that is far more damaging slide without passing?

PZ is guilty of being rude by encouraging people to get consecrated wafers and calling them "fracking crackers"... the kid is being rude by not following the nebulous rules of the church where communion must be eaten in front of the congregation--

But how does that begin to compare to trying to detain the kid (illegal) or trying to get PZ fired??! How does that compare to the inane and childish beliefs of magic biscuits which must never be questioned... nor examined? How does that compare with eons of unquestioned obedience to idiocy and the punishment of those who dare to speak up?

If anyone thinks these are equally "bad" things, they are blinded by the faith meme in my book. Suppose Randi had said, "send me your consecrated magic undergarments, Mormons, so I can see if they qualify for the MDC? " Wouldn't that be the same thing that PZ is doing? But only the Mormons would get upset and call him a rude publicity whore, right? It would be vile if they tried to make his life hellish by pulling whatever muscle they had-- wouldn't it? HOW is this different? How is this different then RSL at Sylvia's reading? It sounds like people want traditional forms of magical thinking declared off limits for scrutiny.

Moreover, PZ is honest, and made efforts not to overplay his supporters efforts on his behalf. Can anyone say the same of the Catholic Church? Donohue used blackmail and declarations of kidnapping and the threats from on high to make his point that "every one must respect the holy cracker". PZ just said, "it's just a fracking cracker; it doesn't become magic because some self appointed witch doctor says magic words over it".

That is an important message... maybe the kind one ought to consider whoring so that it competes in society along with the meme that we we must never question "faith" or it's ridiculous claims.

Sorry, but this former Catholic girl sees the Catholic Church as the publicity whore with too much power-- the Goliath in this story-- fearful of being taken down by a matter-of- fact-mild-mannered bespeckled scientist who dares to say the "Emporer is naked--I'll prove it to you".

Piggy

15th July 2008, 06:51 PM

Here you go - everything you wanted to know about it, ready for easy memorization:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bsacr-e.htm

You did want to memorize it, right?

Thanks.

No, I don't care to memorize it, but I do need to study it. First of all, I shouldn't be ignorant of such an important tenet of one of the largest religions in the world and the largest religious denominations in my country.

Second, it's quite an astonishing commentary on the elaborate lengths people will go to in order to maintain an indefensible delusion, and an apt cautionary tale about the tremendous risk we face when we believe nonsense... we could spend our lives teasing out the fine details of imaginary things.

Piggy

15th July 2008, 06:53 PM

PZ is guilty of being rude by encouraging people to get consecrated wafers and calling them "fracking crackers"... the kid is being rude by not following the nebulous rules of the church where communion must be eaten in front of the congregation--

But how does that begin to compare to trying to detain the kid (illegal) or trying to get PZ fired??! How does that compare to the inane and childish beliefs of magic biscuits which must never be questioned... nor examined? How does that compare with eons of unquestioned obedience to idiocy and the punishment of those who dare to speak up?

I think that sums it up right there.

Complexity

15th July 2008, 07:19 PM

I've been taking a break from here - had to get away from some of the idiots.

However, I have been following and participating in the cracker affair...

PZ is right on in his thinking and his actions. If I have any slight criticism, he needs to show less restraint and really let the catholic idiots (redundancy, my dears) have it right in the teeth.

The catholic beliefs are moronic. Period.

The catholic apologists are moronic, nasty, and sleazy.

Anyone who shows 'respect' for the beliefs of these insane christian/catholic people is immoral.

It is not only not wrong to disrespect this level of foolishness but obligatory for any civil human being. This type of superstitious nonsense needs to be stamped out.

I haven't forgotten the catholic league cretin - he simply is unworthy of my contempt.

I had a really good day today.

Imagine what I'd be saying if it had been a bad day.

Complexity

15th July 2008, 07:21 PM

Perhaps a year ago, I said that if I could push a button and wipe out forever religious belief, I would not do so.

Today, I would push that damned button, cheerfully and proudly.

Piggy

15th July 2008, 08:14 PM

Perhaps a year ago, I said that if I could push a button and wipe out forever religious belief, I would not do so.

Today, I would push that damned button, cheerfully and proudly.

We would have about a week to enjoy it. ;) :D :boggled: :(

Complexity

15th July 2008, 08:38 PM

We would have about a week to enjoy it. ;) :D :boggled: :(

True. Then I'd have to press the other button.

Actually, I'd be prepared to pressed the ReligionBeGone button daily just to be sure.

Jaggy Bunnet

16th July 2008, 03:40 AM

And I provided the example of an engagement ring, which is another conditional gift "with intent to transfer ownership." If there is no marriage, the expectation is that the ring will be returned to the donor.

This is a vast oversimplification. The position varies from state to state and from country to country. Some allow the recipient to keep it in all circumstances, some apply fault tests (i.e. if she breaks it off he gets it back, if he does then she keeps it) and some rule it must always be returned.

westprog

16th July 2008, 03:42 AM

I agree with you there, but I didn't think that position needed much defending here.

Nobody on this thread has defended the death threats. An anonymous death threat is always contemptible, cowardly and counter-productive. If someone has done something deserving of death - which certainly isn't the case here - then they should be confronted directly.

As to the demands for sackings - in general, that's a bullying, nasty technique to get at someone who should be combatted with argument. However, if someone carries out an act or makes a statement which is in conflict with their terms of employment, then they run the risk that if they upset someone, it will be pointed out. If they haven't done something contrary to their terms of employment, then they shouldn't be sacked. Sacking someone just because they have opinions that upset some people is wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1999/02/03/nhod03.html

But the question then remains - did Webster Cook or PZ Myers do anything wrong? There's a body of opinion here that they are entirely blameless, and that all the blame lies with the Catholics.

westprog

16th July 2008, 03:44 AM

I've been taking a break from here - had to get away from some of the idiots.

However, I have been following and participating in the cracker affair...

PZ is right on in his thinking and his actions. If I have any slight criticism, he needs to show less restraint and really let the catholic idiots (redundancy, my dears) have it right in the teeth.

The catholic beliefs are moronic. Period.

The catholic apologists are moronic, nasty, and sleazy.

Anyone who shows 'respect' for the beliefs of these insane christian/catholic people is immoral.

It is not only not wrong to disrespect this level of foolishness but obligatory for any civil human being. This type of superstitious nonsense needs to be stamped out.

I'd like to see all the intolerant people locked up in camps, and beaten until they become more tolerant.

Jaggy Bunnet

16th July 2008, 03:54 AM

Nobody on this thread has defended the death threats. An anonymous death threat is always contemptible, cowardly and counter-productive. If someone has done something deserving of death - which certainly isn't the case here - then they should be confronted directly.

As to the demands for sackings - in general, that's a bullying, nasty technique to get at someone who should be combatted with argument. However, if someone carries out an act or makes a statement which is in conflict with their terms of employment, then they run the risk that if they upset someone, it will be pointed out. If they haven't done something contrary to their terms of employment, then they shouldn't be sacked. Sacking someone just because they have opinions that upset some people is wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1999/02/03/nhod03.html

But the question then remains - did Webster Cook or PZ Myers do anything wrong? There's a body of opinion here that they are entirely blameless, and that all the blame lies with the Catholics.

Is there? Can you tell me who holds this opinion?

I see a lot of people saying they were rude and/or insensitive, but they are not crimes. Unlike assault, unlawful detention and the making of death threats. Perhaps that is why people focus more on those who did those things?

westprog

16th July 2008, 04:13 AM

Is there? Can you tell me who holds this opinion?

I see a lot of people saying they were rude and/or insensitive, but they are not crimes. Unlike assault, unlawful detention and the making of death threats. Perhaps that is why people focus more on those who did those things?

Then why when I said that they were rude and/or insensitive, did I recieve responses disagreeing with me? I didn't call on them to be sacked, or punished.

In fact, there's been comparitively little condemnation of the actual people making death threats. I've condemned them explicitly, several times. However, I haven't extended the blame to other catholics who didn't make death threats.

articulett

16th July 2008, 04:27 AM

But the question then remains - did Webster Cook or PZ Myers do anything wrong? There's a body of opinion here that they are entirely blameless, and that [I]all the blame lies with the Catholics.

Nobody calls them "entirely blameless"-- but "wrong" is a matter of opinion... and some wrongs are more harmful than others. Brainwashing people to believe in the sacredness of a blessed cracker is more wrong than not eating it in front of the priest. Trying to get people fired and using threats and abuses of power is more wrong than calling a "fracking cracker" a "fracking cracker" and offering to do the DNA testing which proves it.

Hiding behind bluster and lies and threats from on high is more wrong then speaking out when you see people being made stupid in the name of faith.

I'd like to see all the intolerant people locked up in camps, and beaten until they become more tolerant.

Starting with you, of course.

westprog

16th July 2008, 04:34 AM

I'd like to see all the intolerant people locked up in camps, and beaten until they become more tolerant.

Starting with you, of course.

Whoosh #1.

Rasmus

16th July 2008, 04:51 AM

Nobody calls them "entirely blameless"

I am tempted to.

If there was no ill-intend behind taking the cracker then the guy is entirely blameless.

Nobody should be held responsible to be aware of every last little insane ritual or dogma that a religious community might be supporting.

I should not be held responsible to know that Muslims don't eat pork. Unless I offer them food that contains pork to purposely upset them I am not to blame. I should not be expected to even make the effort to remember such an insane rule in the first place.

If you absolutely do not want to eat pork, it is your responsibility to ensure that nothing you eat contains it.

If you tell me explicitly that you, personally, do not eat pork for whatever reason, then it would be nice of me to accommodate that or let you know when I can't or won't change my dinner plans because of you. But it is, ultimately, your problem, not mine. I am not responsible to remember everybody else's dietary (and other) little quirks.

Jaggy Bunnet

16th July 2008, 04:57 AM

Then why when I said that they were rude and/or insensitive, did I recieve responses disagreeing with me? I didn't call on them to be sacked, or punished.

Can you point me to where this has happened? (I couldn't find it from a quick thread search on rude but realise that if the wording was slightly different that would miss it.)

In fact, there's been comparitively little condemnation of the actual people making death threats. I've condemned them explicitly, several times. However, I haven't extended the blame to other catholics who didn't make death threats.

Condemning the death threats goes without saying. Have you also condemned those who carried out the assault and attempted unlawful detention?

I haven't extended the blame to anyone not directly involved either. If you think others have, take it up with them.

Who makes up this "body of opinion" that Myers and Cook are blameless?

westprog

16th July 2008, 05:17 AM

Can you point me to where this has happened? (I couldn't find it from a quick thread search on rude but realise that is the wording was slightly different that would miss it.)

It's where I came into the thread, page 1. I said that Myers was being deliberately insenitive.

Condemning the death threats goes without saying. Have you also condemned those who carried out the assault and attempted unlawful detention?

No, because I consider it at worst entirely trivial, and possibly entirely justified. A scuffle between students isn't comparable to death threats.

If the worst that could be said against religion was that it sometimes leads to physical contact not leading to injury then I don't think there would be much to worry about.

I haven't extended the blame to anyone not directly involved either. If you think others have, take it up with them.

Who makes up this "body of opinion" that Myers and Cook are blameless?

If there was no ill-intend behind taking the cracker then the guy is entirely blameless.

articulett

16th July 2008, 05:25 AM

This is a vast oversimplification. The position varies from state to state and from country to country. Some allow the recipient to keep it in all circumstances, some apply fault tests (i.e. if she breaks it off he gets it back, if he does then she keeps it) and some rule it must always be returned.

Moreover a ring is an "engagement ring"-- it is recognized as "consideration" for a contract to be later fulfilled or the "consideration" returned.

CONSIDERATION: - The inducement, price or motive that causes a party to enter into an agreement or contract.

Something of value that is given in exchange for getting something from another person. For example, rent payments paid to receive the right to rent an apartment.

A wafer has little value and is not considered "consideration" for some implied contract-- it's a symbolic "gift"... in fact, those who bring up the communion to be consecrated are said to be bringing up the gifts. There is nothing in Catholic teachings which state it is to be an obligation nor that it must be consumed in the presence of the congregation.

http://www.osv.com/OSV4MeNav/Sacraments/TheEucharist/TheGiftofFaithTheEucharist/tabid/495/Default.aspx

The PZ situation is comparable to someone trying to force their version of some god's "laws" on others-- it's not comparable to someone offering consideration in exchange for a promise to fulfill a contract.

It is not right for anyone to force their god's laws or beliefs on anyone else-- even if they really believe those laws trump all human laws. It leads to things like 9-11 when people get to dictate to non believers what the invisible guy wants by bloody force if necessary. We need to encourage believers to prove their faith by trusting hat their invisible savior can fight his own damn battles without mortal assistance... and raise future generations so they don't fall prey to this inanity.

Bravo to PZ and Webster for their efforts on behalf of this goal.

bokonon

16th July 2008, 05:52 AM

Jaggy Bunnet

16th July 2008, 05:57 AM

It's where I came into the thread, page 1. I said that Myers was being deliberately insenitive.

Your claim was that you received responses disagreeing with you. Can you link to them?

No, because I consider it at worst entirely trivial, and possibly entirely justified. A scuffle between students isn't comparable to death threats.

You consider assault and unlawful detention entirely trivial? How would you categorise not eating a cracker as soon as its given to you on that scale?

As for justified, I cannot conceive of any circumstances where it could possibly be considered reasonable to use physical force because somebody will not eat a cracker. YMMV.

One post does not a "body of opinion" make. Like to try again?

Complexity

16th July 2008, 05:58 AM

Nobody calls them "entirely blameless"--

I call them entirely blameless, because they are.

Neither has anything to apologize for.

PZ Myers has done us all a great favor by drawing the nasty idiots out of their cave into the light of day.

Not only is PZ not under any obligation to 'respect' the superstitius beliefs of idiots, but he feels the moral calling to make their ridiculous beliefs apparent for all to see. Only in this way - yes, through humor and mockery - will some people learn to grow up and walk away from religion.

Pax nabisco.

Jaggy Bunnet

16th July 2008, 06:09 AM

And in Singapore you can be caned for chewing gum on the subway.

My point is that numerous examples exist in which gifts are conditional, and if the conditions are not met, the property is expected to be returned. In places where an engagement ring is returned to the donor, the fact that it is called an "engagement" ring has been held by the courts to be an implicit condition, distinguishing the ring from an ordinary ring. "Wedding gift" is another example. I think a strong case could be made that a similar implicit condition exists for a "communion wafer" being used in a "communion ceremony," certainly enough to distinguish it from a free sample handed out in a grocery store.

What's your point?

And in places where it is NOT required to be returned, the fact it is called an "engagement" ring is meaningless.

In other words even in this, your best attempt at finding an example that even vaguely supports your position, there is no settled position that what you claimed is true. In many countries and states the position is 100% different from what you claimed, without limitation, was true.

And of course as articulett has pointed out, an engagement ring is not comparable to a cracker.