posted
Interestingly (and amusingly, for me anyways), the following sequence of events has occurred.
1. PZ Myers, a writer for a science and evolution blog wrote a post ridiculing Catholics that attacked a man for taking a cracker from Communion and instead of eating it took it home. Webster Cook was threatened by local Catholics, denounced by Bill Donohue, and in response the church now has armed guards ensuring no more crackers are held hostage. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php The man was forced to give back the cracker due to threats on his life.
PZ Myers also issued a challenge for someone to bring a cracker from Communion into his hands and promised he would not back down from, giving back the cracker I guess.
2. The Catholic League has issued a call to well, do something. I'm not entirely sure what but it seems like to persuade someone above PZ Myers to either threaten his job or at least censor the blog post. Read here: http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459
posted
I suppose it's the metaphorical equivalent of kidnapping Christ, so I understand the outrage, although it sounds like it was not done by someone attempting to "kidnap Christ", but someone simply wanting to explain his religion.
Is the anger equivalent upon, say, breaking a cracker? or vomiting it up (by mistake)? How does this not happen a lot or is there something particular about this case? It does seem like a bit of an overreaction, regardless of the metaphorical implications.
Also, the person who wrote the Fox article has big issues with writing:
quote:Webster’s friend, who didn’t want to show his face, said he took the Eucharist, to show him what it meant to Catholics.
Lawl, journalism.
Also, I love the armed guards at the church. Is it really that serious a problem? I understand the implications, but this must happen all the time.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People need to grow up. You can buy these crackers online. Sending death threats and claiming that Webster's actions were "beyond hate speech" is just plain ridiculous. It seems like idolatry.
That said, I can't think of motive much douchier than trying to piss people off (which is exactly what PZ is trying to do).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: People need to grow up. You can buy these crackers online. Sending death threats and claiming that Webster's actions were "beyond hate speech" is just plain ridiculous. It seems like idolatry.
That said, I can't think of motive much douchier than trying to piss people off (which is exactly what PZ is trying to do).
Not that I am defending the Catholic faith but the believe that the host(cracker) transforms during the few moment in preperation for communion. So what you buy online would not be the same as what you would get by going into a Catholic church and taking communion (at least in the eyes of the Catholic church).
Posts: 176 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Of course, when you consider that people were threatening to kill both the kid, and responded to his words by threatening to kill him, I'd say his reaction was somewhat justified.
After all, they seem to care more about a cracker that they literally destroy by eating more than the lives of these human beings.
And from the perspective of someone who is fairly certain that cracker isn't a human being, it's both an absurd, horrifying reaction, and one that screams the danger of psychopathic inquisitional killers coming dark age style.
Because, you know, not eating the cracker is "beyond a hate crime."
Bill Donahue said:
"It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ."
I can. Intentionally causing harm to actual human beings. Trying to get them fired, and threatening their lives.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Myers is a jerk all the time. So maybe there is a bigger audience for this story, but his being a jerk isn't new. He's a devotee of Richard Dawkins and co. with the belief that constantly going on and on about the supposed stupidity of religion is valuable.
It seems to me that this this cracker issue should have been dealt with as a private matter between the church and this individual.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd say his reaction was somewhat justified.
It's somewhat justified to encourage people to either break vows they've made (if a Catholic takes the host for desecration) or to encourage people to lie by omission to take it, because a very small percentage of people have sent threats?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: And from the perspective of someone who is fairly certain that cracker isn't a human being, it's both an absurd, horrifying reaction, and one that screams the danger of psychopathic inquisitional killers coming dark age style.
In the dark ages [sic], host desecration was more of a mob riot kind of thing. The current reaction from even the most enraged emailer is nothing compared to the medieval perspective on things.
As to this guy, he's a jerk, and his approach isn't going to win him many converts. If he's hosting his threat? promise? on a university webpage, the Catholic League is well within their rights to ask it be taken down, as that sort of thing is generally prohibited by the Code of Conduct. If he were to post it on a private webpage, I'd still think he's a jerk, but he wouldn't be breaking an agreement he signed.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: As to this guy, he's a jerk, and his approach isn't going to win him many converts. If he's hosting his threat? promise? on a university webpage, the Catholic League is well within their rights to ask it be taken down, as that sort of thing is generally prohibited by the Code of Conduct. If he were to post it on a private webpage, I'd still think he's a jerk, but he wouldn't be breaking an agreement he signed.
1. PZ can be a jerk. No question.
2. His goal, as far as I've been able to determine, has never been to win converts.
3. His website is specifically not hosted by his University.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. If it isn't then I'm less irritated. I got the impression from the second article that it was. My bad. Carry on.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Ah. If it isn't then I'm less irritated. I got the impression from the second article that it was. My bad. Carry on.
The second article is by the Catholic League. And they aren't very familiar with things called "facts". (Note: I'm referring to the Catholic League, specifically their president and seemingly sole-member, Bill Donohue, not Catholics as a whole or even a majority.)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: The current reaction from even the most enraged emailer is nothing compared to the medieval perspective on things.
As to this guy, he's a jerk, and his approach isn't going to win him many converts. ...
I think he's aware that the current reaction is nothing compared to the Middle Ages, thank goodness for that. However, it seems clear to me that this particular action is not intended to win converts.
It is not even aimed at Catholics, rather for atheists it is to highlight the absurdity of the situation by essentially "trolling" people and thus make comparisons between Catholics and say, rioting Muslims with cartoons. (He makes this comparison with a visual pun)
There is a common argument in atheist circles that the majority of religious people are moderates and do not in fact hold their beliefs very strongly. Thus if we just ignore them, eventually their belief will just die without any real confrontation.
This is partly an attempt to illustrate that while this may be partially true, there are still enough people in positions of power to say post armed guards to protect a cracker, make threats on people's lives, and post amusing press releases.
His mockery not a message for Catholics, its a practical joke for the non-religious to be amused by.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
I though you were interested in facts. So I provided some.
You were presenting it as if it means something other than the school prefers to make it clear that they aren't associated with PZ's blog. Because they aren't.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You were presenting it as if it means something other than the school prefers to make it clear that they aren't associated with PZ's blog. Because they aren't.
quote:You were presenting it as if it means something other than the school prefers to make it clear that they aren't associated with PZ's blog. Because they aren't.
No, I wasn't.
You seemed to be then.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then be specific - you said I was implying something "other" than the school wanting to be clear that they aren't associated with Meyers immature rants. What was that "other"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Then be specific - you said I was implying something "other" than the school wanting to be clear that they aren't associated with Meyers immature rants. What was that "other"?
I have no idea. That's why I asked "So?" To which you replied cryptically that I like facts.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: The current reaction from even the most enraged emailer is nothing compared to the medieval perspective on things.
As to this guy, he's a jerk, and his approach isn't going to win him many converts. ...
I think he's aware that the current reaction is nothing compared to the Middle Ages, thank goodness for that.
My comments on the Middle Ages were in response to 0Megabyte's hyperbole. Host desecration narratives are really quite ugly, usually ending in pogroms. Comparing this situation to the "dark ages" falls into my own private version of Godwin's Law.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's a ship that goes through the gate. Gateship. Well, I thought it was clever."
Anyways, I've never heard of it. Wikipedia informs me that it is a term mostly in use in the southern United States.
Separately, PZ Myer's post is littered with the word "cracker" and it certainly takes on a new strange meaning if you think of cracker as a pejorative word for a white Christ, if he were white as commonly depicted anyways. It almost pains me to say I didn't know about that pun. I've been mostly holding back from puns having to do with eating or biting.
EL: Hold on, I didn't catch that the first time. I thought you were talking about sacrilege in general, but there are *actual* narratives on cracker desecration from the dark ages?
Do you have a link or something where I can read this?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I note that Dag is exhibiting exactly the behaviour of moderate Moslems who say they understand why people riot over cartoons: Pointing out how rude the offender is being, while studiously ignoring the death threats sent in by the extremists of his own faith.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I haven't said anything about understanding the people who issued death threats. I haven't commented on them at all here. That's not ignoring them. I've commented on them with a different group of people. Not here, though.
I have very good reason for that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Accusations of host desecration was commonly used to inspire pogroms
Hmmm, thats less surprising. Those seem more like false accusations used as an excuse to burn Jews rather than actual reliably documented events of cracker theft (which would have been surprising and interesting).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but the point is that it was a reliable way to inspire Christians to screaming murderous hatred. Obviously it would almost always be a false accusation, why would a Jew even care about the communion wafers? Unless he was literally starving to death, or something, and you'd think there would be easier things to steal.
quote:No, it's not. Read the next two sentences.
I did. Not being a member of whatever other group you are venting your full outrage and disgust with your co-religionists at, I can only judge by what I see here.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I did. Not being a member of whatever other group you are venting your full outrage and disgust with your co-religionists at, I can only judge by what I see here.
posted
I msut say I have absolutely no idea which statement you are talking about there, unless it is your simple denial in your 11:34 post. In any case, what I see is that you
a) State that Myers is a jerk for - oh teh noes - posting on his blog. b) Say nothing about the death threats.
Can we maybe have some sense of perspective here? The serious issue is that death threats have been made. That someone stepped on the toes of your religion in his blog is completely unimportant in comparison.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
a) State that Myers is a jerk for - oh teh noes - posting on his blog. b) Say nothing about the death threats.
Again, conveniently leaving off that you have seen here in this thread my statement that I have commented on this elsewhere. You said you read that statement.
quote:The serious issue
Talk to the OP, who described this as amusing, not serious.
Do you honestly wonder why I'm not going to discuss condemn death threats that I haven't even seen at a board you frequent?
Were someone to defend those threats, I would respond. No one has.
People have, however, defended PZM here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody had defended him at the time you made your 'jerk' comment.
quote:Again, conveniently leaving off that you have seen here in this thread my statement that I have commented on this elsewhere. You said you read that statement.
Again, what should I care about what you write where I can't read it?
quote:Talk to the OP, who described this as amusing, not serious.
Since when do you hide behind Mucus instead of taking responsibility for your own posts?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nobody had defended him at the time you made your 'jerk' comment.
Not true. The opening post found the whole idea amusing. That might not be an explicit defense, but it is a favorable statement about the correctness of PZM's actions. No such favorable statement has been made about death threats.
quote:Again, what should I care about what you write where I can't read it?
I didn't say you should. However, you now know that your statement that I am ignoring the death threats is wrong. you knew this after my first post on the subject and decided to continue to discuss it.
quote:Since when do you hide behind Mucus instead of taking responsibility for your own posts?
I'm not hiding behind Mucus. And I haven't ducked responsibility for my own posts. Instead, I attempted to explain why I have addressed particular aspects of this situation here and not others.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your 'jerk' comment was clearly far out of proportionality for such a weak 'defense' as is made by merely saying the story is amusing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So are you just going to keep making up new objections to my participation in this thread, or will you simply accept that I pretty much never comment on any aspect of a situation, that the relevant importance I assign to a topic is only one of many factors that determine what I do choose to comment on, and that the existence of a person on this board that makes frequent comments about wanting to subject me to forced reeducation is another factor I use to make that determination.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will indeed object until you acknowledge that PZ Myers is a victim, not an oppressor, in this story.
Further, your comment is in itself a defense of the death threats, in that it distracts the attention, making a victim look like a bully.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will indeed object until you acknowledge that PZ Myers is a victim, not an oppressor, in this story.
I did not call him an oppressor. I called him a jerk, and I stand by that. He's soliciting people to disrupt religious services either by explicitly violating vows they've taken or by implicitly representing to those distributing Communion that they've taken those vows. And he's doing it with the stated intention of pissing off Catholics.
That's comfortably into the "jerk" category.
He is a bully. He happens to be facing bullying, too, but that is not incompatible with being a bully oneself.
quote:Further, your comment is in itself a defense of the death threats, in that it distracts the attention, making a victim look like a bully.
Well, I guess that is the point where the conversation for all practical purposes ends. Good day to you.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
