Boy, you are testy, aren’t you? First you “refuse” to answer a yes or no question - then you demand I answer your questions (which I do) - and now you “refuse to go along with this asociation game of yours”.
Who cares whether you “refuse”? Argument by analogy is perfectly valid. Perhaps you’d have better success if you made logical arguments of your own as to why you are right, rather than huffily attempting to “refuse” the arguments of others? Just a thought.
You wanted my answer and I gave it. If you wish to substitute your own, feel free - but I’m not sure what you think to prove thereby.
Just pointing out that "“personally-directed act of contempt and hatred” is only what you are calling it, and not an established fact. That is why I am trying to avoid the use of hyperbole and bad analogy-while they are good for stirring up base passion, they tend to hinder actual discussion and/or debate.
It’s what I called it because you asked - solicited - my opinion. Normally, when you ask someone’s opinion, they respond in their own words, right?
What’s up with you getting pissed at what other people choose to say? Have you seen me getting pissy at you using the derisive “it’s just a cracker” language to refer to the consecrated host?
Should I refer to it as a “consecrated host” if I don’t believe it to be so? When there is a difference in the use of terminology between the religious and the non-religious, should deference always be given to the religious?
Edited to add-It is a bit of wafer or cracker to all who come across it. Whether it is also a “consecrated host” is a belief that is only held by some, and thus that belief is secondary to fact that is accepted by all.
When was the student “physically assaulted” at the Student Union and if so, why didn’t he have the police lock up whoever attacked him?
Why would Dio have been upset about a kid wearing a T-shirt with a Leviticus quote on the National Day of Silence?
He earlier insisted that there is no homophobia in the Bible, not even in Leviticus, whereas, according to him, “the whole religion of Islam” is extremely homophobic and he strongly implied that if one is a Muslim one has to be homophobic.
Granted he earlier spent several pages insisting that the term “Catholic” applied to just about all Christians, said people who disagreed with him on this should “shut up” and then made his previous statements look laughably hypocritical by claiming that “Catholics have only been discriminated against by other Christians” showing he’s either grossly ignorant of the way Christians were historically treated and still are treated in Muslim countries as well as present day Israel or, the more likely answer, when he uses the term “Catholic” he’s only referring to Roman Catholics.
I’m not sure what you mean exactly. Myers intended to demonstrate his contempt for the irrational beliefs of others, yes? Was there a more specific message? (I think that was pretty much the one that was conveyed to the people he directed the act towards.) What good was accomplished?
Myers’ act was dependent on the religious belief. We wouldn’t be talking about it if he hadn’t been acting upon that understanding, whether he shared it or not, so it seems pretty primary in the circumstances.
I just reread Myers’ own explanation linked in the OP.
Certainly anyone who was interested in Myers’ opinion of the religious beliefs involved could have discerned that readily enough without his taking the time to contemptuously demonstrate it. He writes well, is versed in history–no one can imagine that he didn’t have a pretty good idea how the insult would be received.
Does anybody imagine that anybody’s mind has been changed about the belief upon which the act was based? So what’s the point?
Myers might as well have driven by a church as services let out, holding up a middle finger and screaming “screw you ignorant retards!” Except I suppose this way he managed to reach more people.
The “assault” consisted of the people there grabbing him, restraining him, and trying to pry his hand open. He did file an official abuse complaint with the university.
Actually “consecrated host” is the more widely accepted and therefore correct term. “Cracker” is only used to express hate and bigotry by people like Jack Chick and Fred Phelps. Why you want to align yourself with people like that is hard to understand.
Maybe fundamentalist atheists have more in common with fundamentalists of other stripes than you want to recognize.
Regards,
Shodan
This is getting to be a stupid argument since I don’t even remember whatever incident you’re referring to, but as a matter of law, you’re wrong. This is also a hijack from the topic.
This has been answered. He was assaulted on the spot when he tried to carry the cracker back to his seat. He did file a complaint. It is not within his power to have the police lock anybody up.
Cite?
Not challenging you, I just haven’t heard it mentioned.
Also, if multiple people attacked him and tried to grab the wafer out of his hand(as you’re saying) how did he get it out of there?
Was this really multiple people attacking him or was it more like one person saying to him, “Hey you’re not supposed to leave with it. Either eat it, or leave it” as Dio said he saw happen earlier when someone said they wanted to eat it at home?
Cite?
Also, your last sentence implies that the police refused to arrest people who assaulted him. Please provide evidence of this assertion.
“Disdain” does not equal “hate and bigotry.”
We look at their beliefs as silly and childish, but not hate like Chick and Phelps do.
It was widely reported at the time. From http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html :
While I largely agree with this assessment, I’d dispute the contention that Myers is “versed in history” if he’s so embarrassingly ignorant that he thinks Germany was “a Catholic nation” he can’t be all that versed in history. Either that or he knows what Germany’s religious composition was, but decided to lie for the sake of supporting his argument.
“Crackers” are literally what communion wafers are - little circles of baked, unleavened bread. “Cracker” is an accurate, physical descritor. The purpose of using the word is to draw attention to what the wafres actually are and away from magical language. The comparison to Jack Chick is asinine since calling an object by a literal, physical descriptor is not a slander on anyone.
There is no such thing as a “fundamentalist atheist.” “Fundamentalism” is defined by a strict adherence to a scared text or doctrine. Atheism is not a belief, contains no doctrine and has no scared text.
It is a hateful term used to express contempt of the belief in Transubstantiation. You’re not stupid. You know this. It seems that you are purposefully using it in this way.