Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Crackers Don't Matter started by Dr.GH
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 12 2008,13:50
California PENAL CODE SECTION 240-248
240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.
In practice, "unlawful attempt" includes threats, so that if someone were to say "I have a gun, and I'll kill you" that could constitute assault. It would not matter if you really had a gun. The point was that painting threats are prosecuted as "hate crimes" rather than simple assault becasue of the religious, or ethnic nature of the crime. It would still be a crime regardless.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 12 2008,13:56
Previous discussion of CrackerGate begins < about here on the UD thread. >
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 12 2008,14:19
I gotta go to a party- a friend just became a citizen.
Posted by: dhogaza on July 12 2008,14:22
As I said, the definition varies by state. Congratulations.
Now that we've got you reading the actual law, go for extra credit with a cite that demonstrates that a Catholic in good standing accepting the Host from a Priest, then leaving Mass without consuming it, has committed a crime, much less a "hate crime".
Note that PZM's "incitement to hate crime" didn't specify that NON-CATHOLICS accept communion. Plenty of catholics are reading his posts on the matter and agree with him, and some have offered to score for him.
After failing at this task, feel free to take up a less challenging one - a cite that supports your claim that a non-Catholic attending Mass and accepting Communion is a secular crime. More extra credit for evidence that it falls under Hate Crime statutes, federal or in PZM's state.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 12 2008,14:25
I really gotta go- but
The FBI defines a hate crime (a.k.a. bias crime) to be:
"a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."
HT to Mark Vandewettering at TO.
Posted by: dhogaza on July 12 2008,14:27
Interestingly, in Oregon it appears that accepting a cracker under false pretenses is never criminal fraud (the possibilities are iterated in our statutes).
So, perhaps the church could sue for civil defraud over the penny or so the cracker costs them ...
I imagine the wine's worth more, though.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 12 2008,14:28
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,15:25) | I really gotta go- but
The FBI defines a hate crime (a.k.a. bias crime) to be:
"a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."
HT to Mark Vandewettering at TO. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As an aside, I find it interesting that religion is the only item on that list that is not beyond one's own control.
Posted by: dhogaza on July 12 2008,14:35
Yeah, that website's not exactly a mystery. Rather than quoting the FBI, though, I prefer the summary of the statute:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- "a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Note that a hate crime involves two parts:
1. a crime must have been committed
2. the motivation for that crime was due to religion etc
Acceptance of the Host and removal from the Church can not be a hate crime unless it is first a property crime.
The hate crime statute in itself does not turn non-criminal behavior into criminal behavior, though individual laws against certain hate crimes (cross burning, for instance), very well may.
You might have a shot at demonstrating that the Church was defrauded of a cracker worth a penny or so, civil fraud, but good luck with your criminal charges.
I'd love to see an criminal indictment - "failure to eat cracker" ... "forgot to think of all the starving children in China" ...
Posted by: dhogaza on July 12 2008,14:41
BTW, "kick the cracker" will be offensive to some, but not for the reason you imagined when writing it ...
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on July 12 2008,15:49
Posted by: keiths on July 12 2008,16:05
The reaction of believers to perceived "blasphemy" or "desecration" has long fascinated me.
Some believers feel compelled to defend the "honor" of their God and his prophets, sacred objects or places. But who could be less in need of defending than the almighty, omnisicient Creator of the universe? Is it reasonable to suppose that He is overly concerned about being dissed by a few members of one puny species on one planet on the outskirts of one galaxy out of hundreds of billions in a universe that is at least 156 billion light-years across?
And if He were offended by it, He could punish the offenders instantly in the most spectacular way. If a tornado of fire descended from the skies over Morris, Minnesota and incinerated PZ Myers for desecrating the Host, leaving a pile of smoldering ash, the event would make world headlines and the rate of blasphemy would drop dramatically. Why do believers think that their God needs "help" in curtailing blasphemy? A fiery tornado outdoes an email campaign every time.
Other believers might concede that their God is unharmed by blasphemy, but complain that they are personally offended by having their beliefs mocked. To them I would point out the following:
1. Some people think your beliefs (whatever they are) are ridiculous whether they say so or not. Get used to it. If you interpret silence as tacit agreement, you are mistaken.
2. People have every right to believe in magic crackers, that Rev. Moon is God, that Xenu was our galactic overlord, or that John Frum will return to the islands with lots of cargo. They don't have the right to compel the rest of us to regard these beliefs as anything but risible, or to force us to mute our disdain.
3. We all have beliefs that others mock, whether those beliefs are religious, political, scientific, philosophical, etc. I'm an atheist who accepts evolution, but that doesn't entitle me to suppress open criticism or even outright mockery of either position. Why should your religious beliefs be exempt from the same sort of criticism and scrutiny?
Last, some believers will complain that such open mockery interferes with their attempts to proselytize. But again, why suppose that your almighty God is incapable of out-arguing a few blasphemers? If He wants to get his message across, He can. If He does nothing about blasphemy, it's because He has chosen to do nothing. Why do you think you know better?
The irony of all of this is that the anti-blasphemers end up being blasphemers themselves by implying that their God is not powerful enough or smart enough to deal with the situation on His own.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 12 2008,19:28
Quote (dhogaza @ July 12 2008,12:41) | BTW, "kick the cracker" will be offensive to some, but not for the reason you imagined when writing it ... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I lived in Georgia for many years.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 12 2008,19:40
Quote (keiths @ July 12 2008,14:05) | The reaction of believers to perceived "blasphemy" or "desecration" has long fascinated me. <snip> Other believers might concede that their God is unharmed by blasphemy, but complain that they are personally offended by having their beliefs mocked. To them I would point out the following:
1. Some people think your beliefs (whatever they are) are ridiculous whether they say so or not. Get used to it. If you interpret silence as tacit agreement, you are mistaken.
2. People have every right to believe in magic crackers, that Rev. Moon is God, that Xenu was our galactic overlord, or that John Frum will return to the islands with lots of cargo. They don't have the right to compel the rest of us to regard these beliefs as anything but risible, or to force us to mute our disdain. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does that distain allow you to disrupt a religious observance? Does that distain allow you to take church property?
Plus, I also wonder about the predictable reaction of believers- is it incitement to mess with their rituals?
Let's imagine that there is a child's birthday party in a public park- The family is deeply religious and they have their eyes closed in prayer. You are more wise than they are and so you dump the birthday cake on the ground.
You get arrested. It is as simple as that. If you get a good ass kicking resisting arrest, few courts would probably bother prosecuting the family members.
Posted by: khan on July 12 2008,19:49
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,20:40) | Quote (keiths @ July 12 2008,14:05) | The reaction of believers to perceived "blasphemy" or "desecration" has long fascinated me. <snip> Other believers might concede that their God is unharmed by blasphemy, but complain that they are personally offended by having their beliefs mocked. To them I would point out the following:
1. Some people think your beliefs (whatever they are) are ridiculous whether they say so or not. Get used to it. If you interpret silence as tacit agreement, you are mistaken.
2. People have every right to believe in magic crackers, that Rev. Moon is God, that Xenu was our galactic overlord, or that John Frum will return to the islands with lots of cargo. They don't have the right to compel the rest of us to regard these beliefs as anything but risible, or to force us to mute our disdain. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does that distain allow you to disrupt a religious observance? Does that distain allow you to take church property?
Plus, I also wonder about the predictable reaction of believers- is it incitement to mess with their rituals?
Let's imagine that there is a child's birthday party in a public park- The family is deeply religious and they have their eyes closed in prayer. You are more wise than they are and so you dump the birthday cake on the ground.
You get arrested. It is as simple as that. If you get a good ass kicking resisting arrest, few courts would probably bother prosecuting the family members. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wooosh!
Posted by: rhmc on July 12 2008,19:51
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,20:28) | Quote (dhogaza @ July 12 2008,12:41) | BTW, "kick the cracker" will be offensive to some, but not for the reason you imagined when writing it ... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I lived in Georgia for many years. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
atlanta ain't georgia. :)
Posted by: Badger3k on July 12 2008,19:53
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,19:40) | Quote (keiths @ July 12 2008,14:05) | The reaction of believers to perceived "blasphemy" or "desecration" has long fascinated me. <snip> Other believers might concede that their God is unharmed by blasphemy, but complain that they are personally offended by having their beliefs mocked. To them I would point out the following:
1. Some people think your beliefs (whatever they are) are ridiculous whether they say so or not. Get used to it. If you interpret silence as tacit agreement, you are mistaken.
2. People have every right to believe in magic crackers, that Rev. Moon is God, that Xenu was our galactic overlord, or that John Frum will return to the islands with lots of cargo. They don't have the right to compel the rest of us to regard these beliefs as anything but risible, or to force us to mute our disdain. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does that distain allow you to disrupt a religious observance? Does that distain allow you to take church property?
Plus, I also wonder about the predictable reaction of believers- is it incitement to mess with their rituals?
Let's imagine that there is a child's birthday party in a public park- The family is deeply religious and they have their eyes closed in prayer. You are more wise than they are and so you dump the birthday cake on the ground.
You get arrested. It is as simple as that. If you get a good ass kicking resisting arrest, few courts would probably bother prosecuting the family members. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How is accepting a cracker then sitting down disrupting a religious observance. In the original, the priest and other fanatics caused the disruption. The priest gave the wafer to the kid, it is not their property anymore. I'd like to see that one go to court.
I've never seen anyone react violently to something like that, so I doubt that fanatical attacks is considered predictable. Considering that most states have reasonable force laws or definitions for crimes, physically restraining someone for not eating a wafer does not seem to me to constitute, in any sense, reasonable force - since no force seems justified.
If the priest and others want to be offended, then so be it. That gives them no right for assault.
Your birthday party is a nice strawman, since that is not the same. Consider that the family gives you a piece of that cake, and you do not eat it, but instead decide to take it home.
Does the family have the right to stop you, to physically try to restrain you and force you to give back the cupcake, to demand for an apology, to ask for police protection for the cupcakes so they make sure that everyone eats theirs at the party?
Priorities. They need to get some.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 12 2008,19:57
Quote (rhmc @ July 12 2008,17:51) | Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,20:28) | Quote (dhogaza @ July 12 2008,12:41) | BTW, "kick the cracker" will be offensive to some, but not for the reason you imagined when writing it ... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I lived in Georgia for many years. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
atlanta ain't georgia. :) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I rarely ever went to Atlanta- 3 times in 6 years. Too bad to, it seemed like a fairly nice place. Why did you make a such a silly assumption?
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 12 2008,19:59
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 13 2008,01:40) | Does that distain allow you to disrupt a religious observance? Does that distain allow you to take church property?
Plus, I also wonder about the predictable reaction of believers- is it incitement to mess with their rituals?
Let's imagine that there is a child's birthday party in a public park- The family is deeply religious and they have their eyes closed in prayer. You are more wise than they are and so you dump the birthday cake on the ground.
You get arrested. It is as simple as that. If you get a good ass kicking resisting arrest, few courts would probably bother prosecuting the family members. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you keep using these really weak analogies? Dumping a kids birthday cake on the ground != walking away with a wafer from mass (that you have been given) != burning crosses != spraying swastikas on synagogues.
Posted by: J-Dog on July 12 2008,20:06
Quote (jeannot @ July 12 2008,17:04) | Quote (Louis @ July 12 2008,13:14) | Wait a second, this all seems totally cracked to me.
Firstly, regardless of the rights or wrongs of PZ's comments he hasn't actually done anything or incited anyone to do anything illegal.
Secondly, comparing PZ destroying (which he has yet to do btw, he's merely talked about it) a communion wafer to a KKK cross burning or the vandalising of a synagogue with Nazi symbols is hyperbolic drivel of the highest order. Those crimes are demonstrably of a racial, not religious, nature, a fact established in every civilised country on the planet. One of the key arguments in the "offence to religion"/race debates has always been that Jewish religion (for example) can almost exclusively be identified with a specific, and narrow, set of racial groups. The rights or wrongs of this categorisation are immaterial, at least in the UK these matters have fallen under racial discrimination laws, not (despite the best efforts of this misguided government) religious hatred laws.
Thirdly, communion wafers are a commercial product, they can be bought. PZ can perfectly legitimately get his hands on some. Even if someone snuck them out of a mass they have been freely given them by the priest, a reasonable transfer of ownership can be said to have taken place. No disclaimer signed, no contract entered into. To claim that the wafer would have to be stolen in order to acheive this "desecration" is to twist the definition of "stolen" so far that my wife could have me prosecuted for theft of her saliva after a prolonged kiss should she so desire. The sacrament is freely given to people professing that faith. Should that person miraculously change their mind 2 seconds after receiving it.....well how can you prove their lack of sincerity? Even demonstrable premeditation could fall foul of the protections that religious affiliations (and the ability to change them) have under the law.
Fourthly, blasphemy is only blasphemy to a believer, PZ isn't a believer. He can whack off on wafers, burn bibles, get a lady to queef on Qu'rans, tear up Torahs, grind his genitals on Guru Granth Sahibs and shit on sections of every sacred sheet in the world. Hell, I'll even join him. So what? Will this upset some people? Sure. Will it offend some people? Sure. Will it constitute blasphemy in the eyes of some people? Sure. But rather tellingly, such acts only have the significance they are attributed under various belief systems. They are tellingly very seperate from "Get to the back of the bus nigger" or "filthy kike" or "dirty paki" or cross burnings or Holocaust denial or "No Blacks, No Irish" signs, they don't involve discrimination against persons or people on the basis of an unchangeable facet of their birth, i.e. their race.
Threatening to kill someone is a crime. Threatening to kill someone because of their race or religion is a hate crime. Threatening to crumble a cracker in a (probably) comedy fashion, even if it pisses someone off, is not a crime (should said cracker be legally obtained). If it is then I get to play the exact same cards. I get to burn chuches because they "offend" me (they don't but hey, I can claim whatever beliefs I like right?), I get to call for the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury because his beard "offends" me (it doesn't but hey, when did reality enter into the equation). I get to beat up muslim people on the street because their presence "offends" me (it doesn't, but hey, why let a little thing like the facts get in the way of a good emotive load of shit?).
Guess what? PZ's comments (and maybe actions) WILL offend someone, it's possible that causing offence is quite deliberately intended. Causing offence=/=hate. Not even close. PZ is drawing attention to a demonstrably ludicrous idea and questioning it. He might be doing so in a way that I would not, or that I might tacticly disagree with, but what he is expressedly not doing is anything remotely resembling a hate crime.
To equate the two is to cheapen a) hate crimes and the suffering their victims have been through, and b) to miss the point of what PZ has said.
I suggest people grow up a bit. Given a choice between having my kids beaten up for the colour of their skin or having their most precious holy relic desecrated I know which I'd choose. And I know which is a hate crime and which isn't. I suggest that we stop pandering to the hysterical persecution complexes of people that are afraid to be disagreed with.
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well said Louis. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hear Hear!
Well said Louis - I knew there was a reason we keep you around!
Here's my take as a Born & Raised Catholic - Yep, still got that "indelible mark" (seriously - they tell you that!).
So, PZ buys the wafers, I understand @ $.99 a box, = @ $.01 each... He goes to a Catholic Mass, and when the priest gets done fooling around with the wine and the altar boy, the priest gets down to it and "consecrates the hosts"..
So how far does the "magic aura " extend? 1 foot? 5 feet? the whole church? Whatever, it doesn't really matter - the correct answer is whatever we (or the church) decides is right.
My point is that PZ could get that priest to turn 1,000 wafers into ...wafers... and do whatever the hell he wants with them.
No crime. Nothing to see, run along home now.
Yeah, there are some offended Catholics, but it's not a crime against Catholics, it's only that somebody is making fun of their wierd beliefs. Sort of like some crazy people believing that bacteria flagella have outboard motors and are irreducibly complex. I know, sounds crazy, but I swear that some wierd professor in PA actually wrote a book about it!
Bottom line - religious people always think they have the theology and the truth and all the answers - and they didn't like PZ's answer.
I just don't see the crime.
edited to move
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 12 2008,20:09
Well, I think that there is an interesting contrast between Mirecki and the assault and battery I think that is waiting for PZ; Mirecki used pejorative language- he called the Catholic pope "an old guy in a dress" and said in an email (as I recall) that teaching his class on creationism and ID would be "a big slap in the fat face of the fundies." About a month later he had been demoted from Department Chair, had some of his classes canceled, and gotten slapped around on a deserted road.
That was an outrage then as it is now.
PZ has encouraged others to take actions on his request that are merely intended to outrage still others. I think that call for actual physical action alters the entire situation.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 12 2008,20:13
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 12 2008,17:59) | Quote (Dr.GH @ July 13 2008,01:40) | Does that distain allow you to disrupt a religious observance? Does that distain allow you to take church property?
Plus, I also wonder about the predictable reaction of believers- is it incitement to mess with their rituals?
Let's imagine that there is a child's birthday party in a public park- The family is deeply religious and they have their eyes closed in prayer. You are more wise than they are and so you dump the birthday cake on the ground.
You get arrested. It is as simple as that. If you get a good ass kicking resisting arrest, few courts would probably bother prosecuting the family members. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you keep using these really weak analogies? Dumping a kids birthday cake on the ground != walking away with a wafer from mass (that you have been given) != burning crosses != spraying swastikas on synagogues. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The kid's cake was cheap, and they shouldn't pray when it offends you. Right? It was a public park and they were being offensive to your tender emotions. They deserved it.
Posted by: steve_h on July 12 2008,20:18
I just reviwed the page before submitting this and badger3k seems to have got in ahead of me. Damn you, badger.
--
Let's say there are two cakes. The cake dumped upon the ground could be shown, scientifically, to be contaminated by real life bacteria. You could take swabs and show a difference: Germ-laden cake .... nice cake --- not the same! You can't recommence proceedings with the contaminated cake. You can still feed the other, pristine, cake to your guests with a clear conscience, but if one guest gleefully devours the cake, while another "saves a piece for later", you don't get to demand the death of that person.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 12 2008,20:25
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 13 2008,02:13) | The kid's cake was cheap, and they shouldn't pray when it offends you. Right? It was a public park and they were being offensive to your tender emotions. They deserved it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: rhmc on July 12 2008,20:27
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,20:57) | I rarely ever went to Atlanta- 3 times in 6 years. Too bad to, it seemed like a fairly nice place. Why did you make a such a silly assumption? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
most folks who claim to "have lived in georgia" actually lived in atlanta.
care to share what part of the state you resided in?
i've lived on both coasts and a bit in the middle.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 12 2008,20:37
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 13 2008,02:13) | The kid's cake was cheap, and they shouldn't pray when it offends you. Right? It was a public park and they were being offensive to your tender emotions. They deserved it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nice strawman by the way, care to elaborate on which one of my posts that's indicative of that type of attitude?
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 12 2008,20:38
Quote (steve_h @ July 12 2008,18:18) | I just reviwed the page before submitting this and badger3k seems to have got in ahead of me. Damn you, badger.
--
Let's say there are two cakes. The cake dumped upon the ground could be shown, scientifically, to be contaminated by real life bacteria. You could take swabs and show a difference: Germ-laden cake .... nice cake --- not the same! You can't recommence proceedings with the contaminated cake. You can still feed the other, pristine, cake to your guests with a clear conscience, but if one guest gleefully devours the cake, while another "saves a piece for later", you don't get to demand the death of that person. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Badger's point is much clearer. I think the question goes to intent. What is the intent of the act.
There are some lame arguments offered that the cost of the cracker/Host is an issue. That is stupid, as I have stated and then tried to expose by analogy. The cost of the cracker, or the singed lawn, or some paint is irrelevant.
Then there was "the burnt cross" is an implied threat. We then looked at laws on threat and definitions of hate crimes. A threat is to claim you will cause harm to someone. In extortion cases, the threat is all that is needed. In assault cases a threat (in California) might be all that is needed. In California, there is some leeway in the law about how a threat is perceived, and what you can do about it.
I was once involved in a case where fellow A was in a fight with fellow B. Fellow A was stabbed with a knife several times by fellow B. Fellow B was arrested. Fellow B was found innocent because Fellow A had caused the fight by threatening fellow B. Fellow A was then arrested, and charges were dropped on 5th ammendment grounds (basicly there were no witnesses not used in the trial of B, including A, and no evidence in the trial of A could be used without self incrimination (IIRC).
Does the theft of a Host for the purpose of desecration cause emotional harm to others?
I would say it does, and that the act had no other purpose than to cause emotional suffering to others. Is emotional harm a legally recognized thing? You talk to any lawyer.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 12 2008,20:43
Quote (rhmc @ July 12 2008,18:27) | Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,20:57) | I rarely ever went to Atlanta- 3 times in 6 years. Too bad to, it seemed like a fairly nice place. Why did you make a such a silly assumption? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
most folks who claim to "have lived in georgia" actually lived in atlanta.
care to share what part of the state you resided in?
i've lived on both coasts and a bit in the middle. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Augusta. I taught at the medical college there. I also taught at Paine College, a private school that is a "historic Black institution," and Augusta College, the local campus of the University of Georgia. I had an adjunct professorship at Georgia State University, but I never actually had to go there- they sent a few students to me.
Posted by: keiths on July 12 2008,20:57
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,17:40) | Does that distain allow you to disrupt a religious observance? Does that distain allow you to take church property? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My comments above concern blasphemy and desecration in general, and not just the desecration of communion wafers. There are plenty of instances of blasphemy, such as the case of the Danish cartoonists, where property doesn't figure into the issue in the slightest.
Second, as others have already pointed out, to walk out of a Catholic church with an uneaten communion wafer hardly amounts to "disrupting a religious observance." Nor does the actual act of desecration. As for whether the former constitutes theft, I'll leave that to people who know more about the law than I do. Either way, it's clear that Catholics are not upset about the purported theft per se -- they wouldn't be this worked up over someone stealing a few paperclips from the bishop's office, after all. They're upset about the desecration that follows the "theft". If it were somehow possible for PZ to buy his own pre-consecrated wafers before desecrating them, Catholics would be just as upset at the desecration.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Let's imagine that there is a child's birthday party in a public park- The family is deeply religious and they have their eyes closed in prayer. You are more wise than they are and so you dump the birthday cake on the ground. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As others have already explained, that scenario bears absolutely no resemblance to the act of walking out of church with an uneaten communion wafer. To produce an equivalent disruption, you'd have to bust into Mass and dump the wine and wafers on the floor before storming back out.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 12 2008,21:03
If you still don't see the difference between burning a cross and walking away with a wafer there's really nothing I can say. What is the implied threat of the wafer scenario?
As for intent, one of the two is intended to terrorize, the other to be an asshole and possibly make some kind of point.
And what's up with the "I have seen things on the streets" shit? No amount of street cred can save a tortured analogy.
Posted by: steve_h on July 12 2008,21:47
People in receipt of burning crosses, often ended up dead at the hands of the KKK.
People who found their walls daubed with Nazi symbols, often turned up dead at the hand of the Nazis.
People who found their crackers disrepected, often ended up being killed by killing, or threatening to kill their oppressors people whose "religion" is that crackers are just crackers.
The similarities are just frightening.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 12 2008,21:54
Quote (steve_h @ July 12 2008,19:47) | People in receipt of burning crosses, often ended up dead at the hands of the KKK.
People who found their walls daubed with Nazi symbols, often turned up dead at the hand of the Nazis.
People who found their crackers disrepected, often ended up being killed by killing, or threatening to kill their oppressors people whose "religion" is that crackers are just crackers.
The similarities are just frightening. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know of many recent examples?
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 12 2008,21:59
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 12 2008,19:03) | If you still don't see the difference between burning a cross and walking away with a wafer there's really nothing I can say. What is the implied threat of the wafer scenario?
As for intent, one of the two is intended to terrorize, the other to be an asshole and possibly make some kind of point.
And what's up with the "I have seen things on the streets" shit? No amount of street cred can save a tortured analogy. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Catholics seem to feel they are being terrorized. You either think they have no real emotional response, or that because you have a superior grasp of reality their emotional response is unjustified.
Or maybe they have no right to have an emotional response just because ___?
Posted by: steve_h on July 12 2008,22:21
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 13 2008,03:54) | Quote (steve_h @ July 12 2008,19:47) | People in receipt of burning crosses, often ended up dead at the hands of the KKK.
People who found their walls daubed with Nazi symbols, often turned up dead at the hand of the Nazis.
People who found their crackers disrepected, often ended up being killed by killing, or threatening to kill their oppressors people whose "religion" is that crackers are just crackers.
The similarities are just frightening. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know of many recent examples? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No I don't, unless you count the recent death threats against PZ, but I'm sure that such incidents live on in the thoughts of previous victims and the people that know them. The symbols would be just as shocking today. I am neither a Jew nor an African-American. If such symbols have been relegated to the trashcan of history as you seem to imply, I would be delighted to hear about it. I haven't heard of any specific incidents recently but I think it would be unwise to assume that racial extremist are no longer a concern.
For the sake of argument, I will take you at your word. Cracker abuse is the last taboo. Nazis are gone, Racists are gone, but how do we handle the PZ-cracker situation? How do we, or should we, respect the rights of people who think crackers are just crackers? I say we agree to disagree with kill them express our regret that people with similar outlooks to ours might do something we don't exactly sanction but do sort of understand.
Edited by Steve_h on 2008-07-13
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 12 2008,22:30
Quote (steve_h @ July 12 2008,20:21) | Quote (Dr.GH @ July 13 2008,03:54) | Quote (steve_h @ July 12 2008,19:47) | People in receipt of burning crosses, often ended up dead at the hands of the KKK.
People who found their walls daubed with Nazi symbols, often turned up dead at the hand of the Nazis.
People who found their crackers disrepected, often ended up being killed by killing, or threatening to kill their oppressors people whose "religion" is that crackers are just crackers.
The similarities are just frightening. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know of many recent examples? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No I don't, unless you count the recent death threats against PZ, but I'm sure that such incidents live on in the thoughts of previous victims and the people that know them. The symbols would be just as shocking today. I am neither a Jew nor an African-American. If such symbols have been relegated to the trashcan of history as you seem to imply, I would be delighted to hear about it. I haven't heard of any specific incidents recently but I think it would be unwise to assume that racial extremist are no longer a concern.
For the sake of argument, I will take you at your word. Cracker abuse is the last taboo. Nazis are gone, Racists are gone, but how do we handle the PZ-cracker situation? How do we, or should we, respect the rights of people who think crackers are just crackers? I say we agree to disagree with kill them express our regret that people with similar outlooks to ours might do something we don't exactly sanction but do sort of understand.
Edited 2008-07-13 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I sort of imagine something with Ritz and grape juice- but the rest of the details are murky.
Cheesewiz, there has got to be cheeswiz and big pointy hats.
Posted by: Badger3k on July 12 2008,22:47
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,21:59) | Quote (dnmlthr @ July 12 2008,19:03) | If you still don't see the difference between burning a cross and walking away with a wafer there's really nothing I can say. What is the implied threat of the wafer scenario?
As for intent, one of the two is intended to terrorize, the other to be an asshole and possibly make some kind of point.
And what's up with the "I have seen things on the streets" shit? No amount of street cred can save a tortured analogy. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Catholics seem to feel they are being terrorized. You either think they have no real emotional response, or that because you have a superior grasp of reality their emotional response is unjustified.
Or maybe they have no right to have an emotional response just because ___? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you have it.
The catholics think that they are being terrorized.
Fear. They are fearful that their beliefs will be exposed for the ridiculous garbage they are.
Really, I hope that none of them feel like they are being terrorized. Because if they are, they need to really get their heads out of their posteriors and join the real world. People around the world are actually being terrorized, threatened, and assaulted, and those people have legitimate issues. These nutcases don't. I grew up in the Roman Catholic tradition, and I never really could buy that type of fear and, to use their own words, idolatry, that is reflected by these people's actions.
Do they really think that their god is small enough to be held hostage in a piece of mass-produced wafer, like some of the emailers to PZ have said?
Posted by: dvunkannon on July 12 2008,23:00
With respect to Dr. GH's interest in a test case, I think that Mr. Woods' actions are already that case. He's admitted that he went to Mass, took the wafer after it was consecrated, and left with it. If the Catholic diocese wanted to engage in legal action, that was the opportunity. No need to wait for PZ's squidy ninjas to drop from the rafters.
In asking to "score" a wafer, all PZ was asking for was that someone repeat Mr Woods' actions.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 13 2008,02:44
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 13 2008,03:59) | Quote (dnmlthr @ July 12 2008,19:03) | If you still don't see the difference between burning a cross and walking away with a wafer there's really nothing I can say. What is the implied threat of the wafer scenario?
As for intent, one of the two is intended to terrorize, the other to be an asshole and possibly make some kind of point.
And what's up with the "I have seen things on the streets" shit? No amount of street cred can save a tortured analogy. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Catholics seem to feel they are being terrorized.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What reason do catholics have to fear for their lives because of the wafer incident? Name a precedent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You either think they have no real emotional response, or that because you have a superior grasp of reality their emotional response is unjustified.
Or maybe they have no right to have an emotional response just because ___?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The "you think you're an übermensch" strawman is getting really old and crusty by now, it's time you make up a new one.
Posted by: Amadan on July 13 2008,07:39
I recall a church painting in somewhere in Portugal that depicted a miracle said to have taken place in the 17th or 18th century.
A woman was somehow obliged to a (quelle surprise!) (or should that be que surpresa?) Jew. To discharge this obligation, she had to bring him a consecrated host. Having received it, she surreptitiously put it in her handkerchief. But as she was leaving the church, blood was seen to be issuing from the handkerchief and the sacrilege was disclosed. History does not relate the consequences, but regular readers will surely be able to fill them in fairly accurately.
All this tells us much more about Portuguese Catholicism than about the truth or otherwise of the reported events.
Having grown up an Irish Catholic in reasonably liberal family, I can understand the outrage devout Catholics feel at what is being portrayed, rightly or wrongly, as an incitement to sacrilege motivated by an atheist's derision. I imagine that all religions venerate their martyrs and make a point of recalling real persecution when it did happen to them, and the Catholic Church has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to it. The two buttons labelled Persecution and Sacrilege are big, RED and very easily pushed. But I thought PZ's comments were pretty infantile. It's not as if someone was trying to make Communion compulsory for biology professors.
That said, portraying this as persecution is going miles over the top. It's also more than slightly ironic hearing the chorus of tut-tutting on UD given that at least half of the goons there would consider Catholics about as Christian as Maoist Scientologists.
Posted by: Louis on July 13 2008,07:48
Gary, I am very curious to know why you are chucking such a huge quantity of straw around on this issue.
Not only are the views you seem keen to attatch to others demonstrably and manifestly not the ones they are espressing, but the anecdotes, analogies and crimes you are associating with the actual events and arguments are so wide of the mark as to be almost deliberately so.
Louis
Posted by: Quidam on July 13 2008,10:24
I'm amazed at how puny and ineffective Chistians believe their God to be. If you truly believe that the cracker is God, then it should be perfectly capable of looking after itself and would need no help from mere mortals.
Pity the infidel who ate a genuine Jesus-inhabited cracker
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 13 2008,14:09
Quote (Quidam @ July 13 2008,08:24) | I'm amazed at how puny and ineffective Chistians believe their God to be. If you truly believe that the cracker is God, then it should be perfectly capable of looking after itself and would need no help from mere mortals.
Pity the infidel who ate a genuine Jesus-inhabited cracker
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heheh
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 13 2008,14:15
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,20:30) | I sort of imagine something with Ritz and grape juice- but the rest of the details are murky.
Cheesewiz, there has got to be cheeswiz and big pointy hats. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I got it. Wearing big pointy hats, pass out crackers with cheesewiz and grapejuice while chanting "Don't be a cannibal."
No threats, an artistic expression (depending on the big pointy hats) that clearly derides the ritual of communion.
Be my guest.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 13 2008,14:33
Quote (Louis @ July 13 2008,05:48) | Gary, I am very curious to know why you are chucking such a huge quantity of straw around on this issue.
Not only are the views you seem keen to attatch to others demonstrably and manifestly not the ones they are espressing, but the anecdotes, analogies and crimes you are associating with the actual events and arguments are so wide of the mark as to be almost deliberately so.
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, there were several things about this that make me angry. First, I have a politically liberal respect for the rights of others to partisipte unmolested in the religion of their choice. Second, I have a professional respect for the rights of others to partisipte unmolested in the religion of their choice. Third, it is cowardly to ask other people to do your dirty work for you. Fourth, PZ was dismissive about the attack against Mirecki.
Finally, I presented a number of scenarios that you would agree are "bad things." The Catholics view desecration of their ritual objects as a bad thing, on a par with the things I have mentioned. You (and the rest) deny they have valid emotions which is dehumanizing. You deny that they have a right to their practice unmolested and that it is fine to threaten them with the disruption of their religious practice. That makes you a bigot.
Posted by: Louis on July 13 2008,14:43
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 13 2008,20:33) | Quote (Louis @ July 13 2008,05:48) | Gary, I am very curious to know why you are chucking such a huge quantity of straw around on this issue.
Not only are the views you seem keen to attatch to others demonstrably and manifestly not the ones they are espressing, but the anecdotes, analogies and crimes you are associating with the actual events and arguments are so wide of the mark as to be almost deliberately so.
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, there were several things about this that make me angry. First, I have a politically liberal respect for the rights of others to partisipte unmolested in the religion of their choice. Second, I have a professional respect for the rights of others to partisipte unmolested in the religion of their choice. Third, it is cowardly to ask other people to do your dirty work for you. Fourth, PZ was dismissive about the attack against Mirecki.
Finally, I presented a number of scenarios that you would agree are "bad things." The Catholics view desecration of their ritual objects as a bad thing, on a par with the things I have mentioned. You (and the rest) deny they have valid emotions which is dehumanizing. You deny that they have a right to their practice unmolested and that it is fine to threaten them with the disruption of their religious practice. That makes you a bigot. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't think I agree with any of those things you claim I do.
That makes you mistaken. Try reading what someone actually writes as opposed to what you think they write.
Louis
ETA: Oh and Gary, before you accuse people of bigotry, especially bigotry they demonstrably do not advocate (for example I challenge you to provide one example where I do not support and advocate the free exercise of religion), I'd check your facts. I'll await your apology.
Posted by: rhmc on July 13 2008,16:15
i fail to see how making fun of catholics and their closely held beliefs is any worse (or any better) than making fun of IDiots and their closely held beliefs.
perhaps the joke was taken a bit further than necessary but quite honestly, a lot of religious beliefs are held up to ridicule on many threads in this forum.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 13 2008,16:22
Quote (rhmc @ July 13 2008,14:15) | i fail to see how making fun of catholics and their closely held beliefs is any worse (or any better) than making fun of IDiots and their closely held beliefs.
perhaps the joke was taken a bit further than necessary but quite honestly, a lot of religious beliefs are held up to ridicule on many threads in this forum. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think it is fine and dandy to ridicule people for believing absurd things. It is rude, and generally unnecessary, but it is certainly First Amendment protected speech.
In the case of ID and creationism in general, they are trying to inflict their beliefs on the public, and use legal tricks to do it. That is a violation of the Constitution.
Posted by: rhmc on July 13 2008,16:42
i'll just go eat a peach. :)
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 13 2008,16:56
Since you refuse to actually read what's written in the thread I see no reason to continue this conversation. Have fun in the hay.
Edit: this/the
Posted by: khan on July 13 2008,17:47
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 13 2008,17:22) | Quote (rhmc @ July 13 2008,14:15) | i fail to see how making fun of catholics and their closely held beliefs is any worse (or any better) than making fun of IDiots and their closely held beliefs.
perhaps the joke was taken a bit further than necessary but quite honestly, a lot of religious beliefs are held up to ridicule on many threads in this forum. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think it is fine and dandy to ridicule people for believing absurd things. It is rude, and generally unnecessary, but it is certainly First Amendment protected speech.
In the case of ID and creationism in general, they are trying to inflict their beliefs on the public, and use legal tricks to do it. That is a violation of the Constitution. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you diss the biscuit The jebus will hits ya
Posted by: Chayanov on July 13 2008,19:11
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 13 2008,16:22) | Quote (rhmc @ July 13 2008,14:15) | i fail to see how making fun of catholics and their closely held beliefs is any worse (or any better) than making fun of IDiots and their closely held beliefs.
perhaps the joke was taken a bit further than necessary but quite honestly, a lot of religious beliefs are held up to ridicule on many threads in this forum. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think it is fine and dandy to ridicule people for believing absurd things. It is rude, and generally unnecessary, but it is certainly First Amendment protected speech.
In the case of ID and creationism in general, they are trying to inflict their beliefs on the public, and use legal tricks to do it. That is a violation of the Constitution. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In other words, it's bigotry when you don't agree with it. When you do, it's perfectly reasonable free speech. Gotcha. I'm done here, too. There are enough irrational, unreasonable people out there as it is.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 13 2008,19:56
Was it illegal?
The answer seems clear, No.
If it is not illegal then the rest of the objections to this activity are irrelevant, although they may be interesting and even hilarious, to the discussion.
the claim that a communion wafer actually transforms into the body of christ is an empirical claim. Of course, there is no empirical evidence for this claim, and it is unclear to me what sort of evidence could possibly even entail demonstrating the claim.
So in that respect, this claim is as ridiculous as the claim that 'information increases are impossible by RM+NS', because in this case 'transforms' and 'body of christ' are as ill-defined and arbitrary (as clauses in the claim) as 'information'.
I am just catching up here after having been away from the circus for a few days. looking forward to seeing the fallout on pharyngula.
Posted by: QED on July 13 2008,21:08
The fallout at present is PZ's posting of two of the more serious threats against him via emails, complete with headers. One of the respondents was foolish enough to post from his/her workplace. Although it looks to me like someone left their computer account open before leaving for vacation and was set up, that someone is in for one nasty Monday morning when they return.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 13 2008,23:07
Quote (QED @ July 13 2008,22:08) | The fallout at present is PZ's posting of two of the more serious threats against him via emails, complete with headers. One of the respondents was foolish enough to post from his/her workplace. Although it looks to me like someone left their computer account open before leaving for vacation and was set up, that someone is in for one nasty Monday morning when they return. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love that it came from 1800flowers.
Posted by: Texas Teach on July 13 2008,23:15
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 13 2008,23:07) | Quote (QED @ July 13 2008,22:08) | The fallout at present is PZ's posting of two of the more serious threats against him via emails, complete with headers. One of the respondents was foolish enough to post from his/her workplace. Although it looks to me like someone left their computer account open before leaving for vacation and was set up, that someone is in for one nasty Monday morning when they return. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love that it came from 1800flowers. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Makes you wonder what the "Burn in Hell, Atheist Scum" Bouquet runs for. (And whether next day shipping is extra.)
Posted by: QED on July 14 2008,00:16
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 13 2008,23:15) | Quote (Lou FCD @ July 13 2008,23:07) | Quote (QED @ July 13 2008,22:08) | The fallout at present is PZ's posting of two of the more serious threats against him via emails, complete with headers. One of the respondents was foolish enough to post from his/her workplace. Although it looks to me like someone left their computer account open before leaving for vacation and was set up, that someone is in for one nasty Monday morning when they return. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love that it came from 1800flowers. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Makes you wonder what the "Burn in Hell, Atheist Scum" Bouquet runs for. (And whether next day shipping is extra.) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"For more than 30 years, our passion has been to help you connect and express yourself to the important people in your life..."
There's a "PZ Special" this week for a dozen Rosa anthraxis.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 14 2008,07:20
Heated discussion and vehement disagreement: good.
Gratuitous insults and comparisons to Ftk: not so much.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- < Hillbilly Heaven >, by Jan Tik ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Louis on July 14 2008,07:39
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 14 2008,13:20) | Heated discussion and vehement disagreement: good.
Gratuitous insults and comparisons to Ftk: not so much.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- < Hillbilly Heaven >, by Jan Tik ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry Lou but that I disagree with. I disagree with your portage also.
Gary has done his damnedest to do EXACTLY what FTK (and her ilk) do:
a) He has chucked around strawmen b) Falsely accused people of bias they demonstrably do not possess or exhibit. c) Failed to deal with any argument actually made by anyone, and still adhered to his strawmen as if they were real.
Sorry but WHOEVER does that deserves calling on it. The comparisons made are to FTK's BEHAVIOUR and Gary's BEHAVIOUR not their character. Is it so hard to tell the difference?
Is it also hard to tell the difference between a gratuitous and unsupportable insult and a relatively mild expression of surprise that an otherwise sensible person has to resort to the tactics of the intellectually bereft?
Please restore those posts, they were on topic and not what you appear to think they were.
Louis
ETA: Issue resolved, post restored, inappropriate comment redacted. Guilty innocence or innocent guilt aside.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 14 2008,08:31
Louis,
Check your PM box, and let me remind everyone:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Moderation messages not entered by the moderator are NOT appropriate on the board. Responses to moderation messages will be made via email, not on the board. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Email" would extend to PMs, obviously.
Posted by: Louis on July 14 2008,08:38
1) PM Box checked.
2) Issue resolved.
3) I can has cockups on my part.
4) Ignore the man behind the curtain and the cock ups in front of it.
5) Editted repost permitted:
[Graffiti removed from Bathroom Wall. -Louis]
It's always nice to see that what could be a perfectly useful discussion about the one controversial topic surrounding this issue (i.e. tactics) is stymied by hurling around of unsupportable accusations and egregious strawmen.
I wonder what Gary thinks seperates his behaviour from that of, say, FTK.
Louis
ETA: I love how the majority of the "arguments" from the generally hysterical PZ decriers commonly fall into two broad categories: a) the moral equivalent of "Hey, she was wearing a short skirt, she was asking for it!" or b) "I'm offended, therefore I can do anything I like!".
Posted by: lcd on July 14 2008,09:21
While I do not agree with many of the Catholic beliefs, I would not desecrate their beliefs.
Catholics only real problem is they follow the papacy who unfortunately support evolution over the Bible.
So for those of you who have no religious beliefs, do you believe in something else? What if those beliefs were desecrated? What would you do?
Posted by: Nerull on July 14 2008,09:26
Not threaten to kill people?
Posted by: mitschlag on July 14 2008,09:28
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,09:21) | So for those of you who have no religious beliefs, do you believe in something else? What if those beliefs were desecrated? What would you do? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe in Truth, Justice and the American Way.
My beliefs have been desecrated by the Bush administration.
What I will do is vote Democratic.
Posted by: J-Dog on July 14 2008,09:29
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,09:21) | While I do not agree with many of the Catholic beliefs, I would not desecrate their beliefs.
Catholics only real problem is they follow the papacy who unfortunately support evolution over the Bible.
So for those of you who have no religious beliefs, do you believe in something else? What if those beliefs were desecrated? What would you do? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you rephrase your non sequitur so it makes some sense?
Substituting an actual belief, gives us as you phrased it, "How would I feel if The Law Of Gravity were desecrated"?
Doesn't make a lot of sense. Sort of like a belief in Magical Sky Fathers and Moldy Old Books from the Iron Age.
Posted by: Nerull on July 14 2008,09:37
In other crackergate news, anyone seen PZs stalker, Jason, spouting off anywhere? He apparently came to the pharyngula chatroom and got 'dirt'. What that would be I've no idea.
Our tongue-in-cheek topic? (Wacky cult wants magic biscuit back.) Some friends joking around? Those those not used to it, that can seem kind of odd to come in to. It can be kind of like the joking that goes on here.
I really can't think of anything that was discussed that counts as "dirt", unless they're just going to try and embarrass Skatje again over out of context jokes.
Posted by: lcd on July 14 2008,10:05
Excuse me if I am a little short fused but I have a terrible headache.
What I was trying to say is why is it ok to belittle, demean or otherwise make fun of a person's beliefs? Why is Christianity such a source of amusement?
As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned? Isn't what this is all about? Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?
Posted by: Nerull on July 14 2008,10:10
lcd, do you believe the Earth is flat, pi equals 3, and the sun goes around the earth? Those are all the "Word of God".
Do you believe children should be stoned to death if they don't obey their parents? Do you ever wear mixed fabrics? Those are the Word of God.
You seem to have no problem ignoring the bits of the word of god you don't like, or that are obviously wrong. It's only when something comes along that means you, personally, are not all that special, that you resist it.
Posted by: Louis on July 14 2008,10:11
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,15:21) | While I do not agree with many of the Catholic beliefs, I would not desecrate their beliefs.
Catholics only real problem is they follow the papacy who unfortunately support evolution over the Bible.
So for those of you who have no religious beliefs, do you believe in something else? What if those beliefs were desecrated? What would you do? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The issue that has caused me to comment is not whether or not some catholics have got upset, or have a right to be upset (they have and do if they so chose). The issue is not whether PZ's comments or that young chap's (Woods, Cook, what the bloody hell was his name again?) actions were offensive, inoffensive, rude, not-rude, tasteless or not tasteless (your decision will vary according to your subjective tastes as much as anything...how logically consistent those tastes are and your actions based on them is a different issue). The issue that concerns me is that so many people seem to be keen to "justify" (very illogically) the worst kinds of hyperbole, threats, perhaps even violence, and demonstrably terrible argumentation because they claim to be "offended" or "offended for someone else".
And to answer your question, since I don't have "beliefs" in anything like the same sense that a standard catholic belief in the sanctity of the host might be construed, feel free to go ahead an desecrate away. I expect my ideas and claims to be challenged (in a rational, evidence based way, not merely as some form of gainsaying for example). In fact I demand that they are so challenged, I desire that challenge for only under the intense scrutiny of such challenges can the ideas I have be honed to accuracy. I possess no sacred cows, no ideas that are off limits and certainly no idea that I am incapable or unwilling to defend on a rational, evidenciary basis. If it turns out that some of my ideas are wrong, as it has on the past and undoubtedly will again in the future, then I change those ideas based on the evidence.
I realise this is quite probably anathema to you, and evidently something you don't understand based on your behaviour here.
My issue with Dr GH performance on this issue is not that I disagree with his conclusions or claims per se (some of them I vehemently do as it happens, some I don't) but that I disagree with his tactics. He has seen fit to distort what other people have said, flat out lie about other people's arguments and refused to engage in something I know him to be capable of, i.e. civil, reasoned, rational discourse. Whatever his reasons for doing so, that is unacceptable, just like your own idiocy on another thread is. Not because it is offensive, far from it (it takes a monumental amount to offend me, and even then offense is no excuse for anything) but because it destroys any opportunity for anything approaching a rational discourse about any of the subjects relevant to the topic. It muddies waters that need no more muddying.
Louis
Posted by: Louis on July 14 2008,10:14
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,16:05) | Excuse me if I am a little short fused but I have a terrible headache.
What I was trying to say is why is it ok to belittle, demean or otherwise make fun of a person's beliefs? Why is Christianity such a source of amusement?
As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned? Isn't what this is all about? Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No.
One does not "believe" in science. Belief is not necessary.
And there is no emotional investment in the sense you are claiming. If all of science was overturned tomorrow I'd be just as happy as if it weren't. If god exists I'm perfectly happy, just as happy as if he/she/it/they doesn't. It makes no difference WHAT is real. The only thing that's important is how we claim to know what is real. Look at the sig, it might explain it a little better.
So feel free to take a crack at any aspect of science you like. Just make sure you do it well and with evidence. Nullius in verbia.
Louis
ETA: Try to understand that science is provisional,not absolute.
Posted by: Louis on July 14 2008,10:15
Quote (Nerull @ July 14 2008,15:26) | Not threaten to kill people? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, that would be a good start.......
;-)
Louis
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 14 2008,10:30
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05) | As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned? Isn't what this is all about? Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak).
Posted by: lcd on July 14 2008,12:03
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2008,10:30) | Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05) | As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned? Isn't what this is all about? Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your rather interesting way to describe how a scientist would feel overturning science.
Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board. I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science?
Posted by: Nerull on July 14 2008,12:05
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,13:03) | Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2008,10:30) | Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05) | As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned? Isn't what this is all about? Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your rather interesting way to describe how a scientist would feel overturning science.
Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board. I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because your aren't trying to replace it with evidence. Your trying to replace it with religious decree.
As you've found, there is no evidence. ID has lots of buzzwords, and none of which the proponents even know what they mean. There are no experiments. There are no test cases. There is nothing.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 14 2008,12:11
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,12:03) | Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2008,10:30) | Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05) | As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned? Isn't what this is all about? Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your rather interesting way to describe how a scientist would feel overturning science.
Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board. I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
stranglehold over science = failure of any information to provide evidentiary support for another theory
got it. stranglehold aside, you are still missing the bus my friend.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the fight, dear lowest common denominator, is not over new ideas that threaten darwinism. the fight, good sir, is over old rehashed debunked ideas that threaten the machinery of science itself, and that have no evidentiary support for any other theory, whatsoever.
irreducible complexity? it appears that complexity, as far as has been explored, is often reducible. in the big picture this futile exercise of finding 'IC' systems is just chasing Zeno down the rabbit hole.
explanatory filter? can't even yield a robust conclusion that a peanut butter sandwich is designed. also begs the question of design, chasing Bertrand Russell down the rabbit hole waving a fuzzy proposition.
so, when it comes to cracker, O LCD, do you think it should be against the law to point out that crackers are in no way whatsoever pieces of the flesh and blood of Jesus or any other god?
should we privilege this nonsense and place criticism of such a nonsense proposition beyond the pale?
don't you think that the fact that people are willing to threaten PZs life for ridiculing cracker belief is a testament to how stupid those claims are to begin with?
you are being rather silly, and i suspect that it is due to your desire to maintain unanimity under the big tent, that makes you fellow travellers with those who wish death threats upon social critics. Nice One.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on July 14 2008,12:13
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,12:03) | [quote=carlsonjok,July 14 2008,10:30] Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board. I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are no new ideas that threaten "Darwinism." The fight is to keep religion out of public schools. If you (or anyone else you know of) comes up with a new idea that threatens "Darwinism," please let us know.
Posted by: Louis on July 14 2008,12:24
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,18:03) | Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2008,10:30) | Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05) | As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned? Isn't what this is all about? Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your rather interesting way to describe how a scientist would feel overturning science.
Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board. I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LCD,
The problem is that creationist ideas are:
a) Demonstrably not new ideas. Go back to the older creationist "generations" like the "scientific creationism" of George McReady Price for example, or the Natural Theology of Rev William Paley.
b) Demonstrably not scientific ideas. Even though describing what science is can be a very technical and complex philosophical enterprise, we have a huge series of things we know fail to be science. Creationisms of all known types fail the basic criteria needed to be science. Little things like having evidence supporting them, being falsifiable in the Popperian sense, providing a testable, coherent model of the observed universe. Tiny insignificant things like that.
c) Almost exclusively ideas that demonstrably arise from a very narrow set of specific religious traditions. Taking the species of creationism that infects the USA, it is most commonly of christian fundamentalist origin, but you guys also get Harun Yahya's islamic creationism (which differs slightly) fairly frequently. Further afield the vedic creationism of hindus is wildly different from its judeo-christian-islamic counterparts, yet still unsupported by the evidence, i.e. demonstrably wrong.
d) Demonstrably wrong. I.e. in the vast majority of cases creationist ideas don't merely fail to have the support of the available evidence, they are actively contradicted by it.
e) Frequently espoused by people trying to legislate religious claims as science. No one really cares if someone believes creationism in the privacy of their own head. What people DO care about is creationists trying force their demonstrably erroneous and non scientific claims into the scientific and educational arenas AS SCIENCE. Read (the very nice) book "The Creationists" by Ron Numbers. He's infinitely more charitable to the creationist cause than I would be, and far more dispassionate. You'll learn quite a bit about the history of US creationism.
It's advisable to check your facts before spouting off. The (false) canard of "darwinism having a stranglehold over science" is a lie sold to the religiously motivated/gullible. You've been lied to by whoever told you that. And the good thing is, if you go out and find the evidence, you can demonstrate this beyond reasonable doubt. Start working.
Louis
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 14 2008,12:35
If this thread ends up centering around LCD, may I suggest a title change in order to maintain a non-hostile atmosphere?
Edit: I write like yoda sometimes.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 14 2008,12:39
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,13:03) | Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2008,10:30) | Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05) | As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned? Isn't what this is all about? Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your rather interesting way to describe how a scientist would feel overturning science.
Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board. I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"new ideas"
What do you even say to that?
The ideas you're talking about are new ideas in the same sense that astrology is "a new idea".
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 14 2008,12:40
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 14 2008,13:35) | If this thread ends up centering around LCD, may I suggest a title change in order to maintain a non-hostile atmosphere?
Edit: I write like yoda sometimes. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quite right. Let's move the discussion back to something interesting, like the original topic.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 14 2008,12:41
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,12:03) | Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2008,10:30) | Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05) | As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned? Isn't what this is all about? Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your rather interesting way to describe how a scientist would feel overturning science. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "overturning science", now doesn't it? Science is not a thing that can be lost or destroyed. It is a process by which our world is investigated. That process results in a body of knowledge that, as Louis pointed out earlier, is provisional. When I speak of overturning science, I speak of the process by which that investigation leads to new, and better, explanations for our world. I suspect that you do not share that definition and I have to wonder if you are operating from the idea that science and religion are locked in a conflict from which one must emerge victorious (thus overthrowing the other). So, why don't you be a little less circumspect and define what it is you mean?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinism? You know, there is about 150 years of additional science that you might want to farmiliarize yourself with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Others have addressed this more parsimoniously than I could, but the direct answer is there is no such fight when the idea has merit as a better explanation. But ID has no merit. It is a rhetorically sophisticated God-of-the-gaps argument (life is sooooo complex, it just must have been designed). The only thing ID explains is the dogmatic grasping at the idea of a personal god* and, secondarily, the lack of curiousity about the workings of our world in the mind of the proponent.
* Before you get your knickers in a twist, I am a deist not an atheist.
Posted by: George on July 14 2008,12:52
My $0.02 as a Catholic environmental scientist. Desecrating the communion host is rude and offensive to me and to other Catholics. Not because God is somehow threatened, but because it shows disrespect to me. Is this illegal? No. Is it a hate crime? No. Should people be allowed to do or say such offensive things? Of course, and I'll defend their right to do so while criticising their choice to do so. In my opinion, people who threaten violence on the offensive person have the lower moral ground.
Should people be highly offensive in ridiculing religious beliefs? Depends on what you want to achieve. If you only want to entertain yourself and like minded readers, fire ahead. But I think highly offensive ridiculing of beliefs is not the best way to convince people about evolutionary biology. Emphasis on *highly offensive*, as some mild ridicule can be a good thing I reckon. Also caveats on the convinceability of people - some are just lost causes.
I suppose my main point is on tactics. PZ and others often acts like assholes on religious matters, which is sometimes funny and perfectly fine up to a point. But I don't think they're winning us any friends.
PS I've only been really offended by another poster once in my time in this place, and that was a misunderstanding.
PPS As a native of Tennessee, I also thought "kick the cracker" referred to Georgians before I started reading the content of this thread.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 14 2008,13:05
Quote (George @ July 14 2008,10:52) | PPS As a native of Tennessee, I also thought "kick the cracker" referred to Georgians before I started reading the content of this thread. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is a pun. Having lived in Georgia some years, I qualify as a honorary" cracker." Although, more than one friend said, "Are you sure you aren't 'passin'?" or words to that effect. So the racist undertone, and the fact that I am fully aware that my opinion is opposed by PZ's fanclub (and that they would not look in the mirror), and that the last host I ever saw as a Christian (~40? years ago) was literally a soda cracker, made the title inevitable.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 14 2008,13:10
Quote (George @ July 14 2008,12:52) | Should people be highly offensive in ridiculing religious beliefs? Depends on what you want to achieve. If you only want to entertain yourself and like minded readers, fire ahead. But I think highly offensive ridiculing of beliefs is not the best way to convince people about evolutionary biology. Emphasis on *highly offensive*, as some mild ridicule can be a good thing I reckon. Also caveats on the convinceability of people - some are just lost causes.
I suppose my main point is on tactics. PZ and others often acts like assholes on religious matters, which is sometimes funny and perfectly fine up to a point. But I don't think they're winning us any friends. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thank you for putting into words what I have been struggling with. The beauty of free speech is that everyone is free to be as loud and idiotic as they want. And I say God bless both PZ and Bill Donohue for taking full advantage of that freedom.
Posted by: Louis on July 14 2008,13:26
Quote (George @ July 14 2008,18:52) | My $0.02 as a Catholic environmental scientist. Desecrating the communion host is rude and offensive to me and to other Catholics. Not because God is somehow threatened, but because it shows disrespect to me. Is this illegal? No. Is it a hate crime? No. Should people be allowed to do or say such offensive things? Of course, and I'll defend their right to do so while criticising their choice to do so. In my opinion, people who threaten violence on the offensive person have the lower moral ground.
Should people be highly offensive in ridiculing religious beliefs? Depends on what you want to achieve. If you only want to entertain yourself and like minded readers, fire ahead. But I think highly offensive ridiculing of beliefs is not the best way to convince people about evolutionary biology. Emphasis on *highly offensive*, as some mild ridicule can be a good thing I reckon. Also caveats on the convinceability of people - some are just lost causes.
I suppose my main point is on tactics. PZ and others often acts like assholes on religious matters, which is sometimes funny and perfectly fine up to a point. But I don't think they're winning us any friends.
PS I've only been really offended by another poster once in my time in this place, and that was a misunderstanding.
PPS As a native of Tennessee, I also thought "kick the cracker" referred to Georgians before I started reading the content of this thread. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well as an atheist, chemical scientist there isn't really much of your $0.02 that I would disagree with.
At least not too strongly, and even then I reckon it would be an "ironing out of details" rather than a disagreement. ;-)
Although the tendancy to claim that you have been personally insulted by someone not cherishing the ideas and things you do in the manner you do is, to be blunt, a very destructive error however heartfelt. An error we ALL are liable to commit (myself included) but nonetheless, to some extent, an error.
Like I said above, the thing that interested me was/is the hyperbole, poor argumentation and strawmen being chucked about. Whosoever is chucking it about. Ascribing positions to people that they simply do not hold, and dogmatically insisting on adhering to that misattribution is the hallmark of intellectual dishonesty.
Do I sympathise with PZ's comments? Perhaps in some instances. Would I do the same thing the same way? Perhaps in some instances. It rather depends on whether or not it needs to be done. Does this mean I agree with every word and nuance. NO! And I suppose that is the crux of it all.
One of the things that PZ has 100% correct though is that there is a carapace of protection surrounding religious ideas and claims. The cry of "offense" is terribly easy to make and so often made that any power it has is lost on those of us who have sussed the trick. Is such protection needed? Will revealing the Emperor's nudity cause cataclysmic social decoherence? I'm not sure. But what I AM sure of is that that protection, and those ideas, demand challenge like any other idea. They need to evolve. No pun intended.
Louis
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 14 2008,13:28
I like it George.
The questions in my mind are "Is it alright to kick the lost cause" and "Does kicking the lost cause lose you any friends". Of course "Who needs friends like those" is also a valid question.
I would suggest that these are all questions that are asked in particular contexts and in no way are generalized robust deductions may be made from their answers.
In this case, although PZ has a rhetorical style that I may find abrasive (actually, it is the braying den of squid that I usually ignore, just like Tony Rice is awesome but his disciples I wish to never meet another), I think pointing out the absurdity of cracker worship (in the theological sense, and not in the personal sense of "Haha, george worships a cracker) is an activity with desired ends not orthogonal to the desired ends of pointing out the absurdity of the claims made by anti-evolutionists.
The social context of consecrated communion may have other benefits real or perceived, but at the intersection of the faith claim and empirical reality we should not obscure reason behind warm fuzzy feelings about place and family or whatever is comforting.
The wafer either is or is not God (although there has been some interesting dualist theology waffling about on the internetz since this event). To me it seems obvious that there is a connection between this sort of compartmentalization and the sort that goes with the argument regarding design.
ETA negatives
Posted by: George on July 14 2008,14:13
Quote (Louis @ July 14 2008,13:26) | Well as an atheist, chemical scientist there isn't really much of your $0.02 that I would disagree with.
At least not too strongly, and even then I reckon it would be an "ironing out of details" rather than a disagreement. ;-)
Although the tendancy to claim that you have been personally insulted by someone not cherishing the ideas and things you do in the manner you do is, to be blunt, a very destructive error however heartfelt. An error we ALL are liable to commit (myself included) but nonetheless, to some extent, an error.
Like I said above, the thing that interested me was/is the hyperbole, poor argumentation and strawmen being chucked about. Whosoever is chucking it about. Ascribing positions to people that they simply do not hold, and dogmatically insisting on adhering to that misattribution is the hallmark of intellectual dishonesty.
Do I sympathise with PZ's comments? Perhaps in some instances. Would I do the same thing the same way? Perhaps in some instances. It rather depends on whether or not it needs to be done. Does this mean I agree with every word and nuance. NO! And I suppose that is the crux of it all.
One of the things that PZ has 100% correct though is that there is a carapace of protection surrounding religious ideas and claims. The cry of "offense" is terribly easy to make and so often made that any power it has is lost on those of us who have sussed the trick. Is such protection needed? Will revealing the Emperor's nudity cause cataclysmic social decoherence? I'm not sure. But what I AM sure of is that that protection, and those ideas, demand challenge like any other idea. They need to evolve. No pun intended.
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To clarify, it's not the "not cherishing" that's insulting, it's the action or the words coupled with intent. And really, if someone's intent is to insult, then in one sense, the "incorrect" one, it's definitely not an error to feel insulted. But in the "mistake" sense, I would agree that it's best not to take things personally. I've thick enough skin in that way.
I'd agree with your and PZ's view of the privileged position of religion wrt the defense of "offense". I'd widen it to say that those claiming moral offense without explicitly bringing religion into it are similarly privileged. Why is it that the most prudish and squeamish members of society get to make the rules on things like "foul" language and "indecent" dress? Goes without saying here at least that any religious based empirical claims should be examined just as rigourously as secular ones.
Posted by: George on July 14 2008,14:36
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 14 2008,13:28) | I like it George.
The questions in my mind are "Is it alright to kick the lost cause" ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Depends on who the lost cause is, where you kick 'em and what your footwear of choice is. For those like DaveScot and Sal, the metaphorical steel-toed Doc to the wobblies is called for.
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 14 2008,13:28) | and "Does kicking the lost cause lose you any friends". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Depends on who's watching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|