Both are actions designed to offend a hated group.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes you are. Knock yourself out. There’s no comparison, though. Myers did not say anything about Catholics or tell them what they had to do.
Shodan,
Your assertion that Myers actions were “designed to offend a hated group” are based on nothing more than your feelings, it seems to me. If you actually read his posts about the subject, then his motives seem much closer to my explanation.
Out of curiosity, if you were to assume that my explanation for his motives is correct, would that change your opinion about the “wrongness” of the actions?
The only serious hate or discrimination that Catholics have ever gotten is from other Christians, and even they have never enslaved Catholics, imposed Jim Crow laws on them, lynched them or otherwise persecuted them the way black Americans have been historically persecuted or subjected to violence by hate groups like the Klan.
You can burn all the crosses you want. I don’t care, and won’t be offended, but comparing that action - with its allusions to real acts of historical terrorism - to somebody poking a hole in a cracker is preposterous.
I agree with this. It really suprises me that anyone takes PZ Meyers seriously on religious topics. It is clear that he doesn’t understand the beliefs of religious people, nor does he care to know. His “courtier’s reply” to criticism of Richard Dawkins is suprising only in the anti-intellectual position it stakes out. It basically just boils down to saying that “he don’t need no fancy book learnin’ to know that God ain’t real”.
With this stunt I don’t think that it is clear that he was making any kind of point at all. It is not as though Roman Catholics teach that if anyone tries to desecrate a host that God will smite them before they are able. It was perfectly obvious before this stunt that:
- PZ Meyers is capable of dececrating a consecrated host
- That Roman Catholics, because they consider the consecrated host the physical embodyment of Christ, would be offended by him doing so.
I can’t see how this stunt demonstrates anything that was not already well known.
I think the purpose of this really was not to make any sort of rational argument against Roman Catholicism, but simply to mock it. And in doing so I think the real message of PZ Meyers actions is the intellectual shallowness of the “New Atheist” position of Meyers, Dawkins, Hitchens, ect. That despite the lip service that these people pay to rationality and evidence, when it comes down to it much of their case does not rely on them. Instead it relies on simply mocking those that disagree with them and making emotional appeals to the absurdity of religion. Religious people who do think rationally will simply reject this as the crass trolling that it is.
Calculon.
Well I respectfully disagree. They look to me like a difference in scale, and implied physical threat.
A cross burning is a symbol of lynchings, beatings, rape, suppression, and ultimately slavery intended to spread fear and hate.
A nail in a communion cracker is a symbol of not taking their beliefs seriously.
He wasn’t trying to make any kind of statement “against Catholicism” per se, but against the whole notion of sanctifying inanimate objects. It seems to be escaping people that Myers also performed similar actions with a Qu’ran and with a copy of Dawkins’ God Delusion. He was making a point about the whole notion of making anything “sacred.” He wasn’t singling out Catholics, it was just an example. The reality remains that he did not harm, harrass, intimidate, discriminate against or otherwise injure any Catholics, and even calling it “trolling” (an accusation that just sounds like whining) isn’t really sutainable since nobody is forced to read his blog.
Cite for any of these writers actually doing this? It’s definitely not true of Dawkins or Hitchens, though I’m not as familiar with Myers. Have you actually read Hitchens or Dawkins?
You obviously aren’t aware of the backstory: a college student in Florida attended a Catholic service that was on-campus, and he smuggled a wafer out of the service. The Catholics went nuts, and he even received death threats as a result. They called it a hate crime - they compared it to kidnapping. Bill Donohue said it was beyond hate speech. The university made the kid go through an administrative hearing, all of this because of a fuckin’ cracker.
Myers wasn’t doing something bigoted - he was giving the finger to the bigots.
This is late to the party, but I don’t think anyone has given this precise answer.
“Hypocrisy”, as it is commonly defined, means doing something against your own beliefs. So it is only hypocritical for someone to complain about Meyers desecrating the host if they themselves believe that it is wrong to destroy the sacred objects of others.
It is not a common Christian belief that all Saints were sinless, so the actions of past Saints are not in of themselves normative lists for how Christians should act. So if Abraham destroyed idols in the past, that is neither here nor there for what Christians should do.
There is also a distinction to be made between your own sacred objects and the sacred objects of others. It is possible to believe that it is OK to destroy your own sacred objects while it is not OK to destroy the sacred objects of others. So for instance when people in SE Asia from local animist beliefs to Christianity, it is not uncommon for them to have an “idol smashing” party where they destroy their previous idols that now mean nothing to them. In this Christian culture this is seen as acceptable, where as stealing a bunch of other people’s idols and smashing them would not.
In Meyers case he in some way fradulently obtained the host, since the Roman Catholic church does not allow them to be taken away from the church building. Therefore this is more in common with taking other people’s idols and destroying them rather than simply destroying your own. I think a number of Christians (although not all admittedly) would think that it is wrond to take other’s sacred objects and destroy them. If that is the case then I don’t think it would be hypocritical of them to be upset by what Meyers has done.
Calculon.
Wow did you ever miss the point.
Yeah, I think this is a pretty hollow gesture and somewhat childish, as well. I mean, we get it, you don’t believe Catholic dogma, nor do you have respect for it. So what? There’s no argument, there’s no trying to convince me of anything at all. It’s lame.
As is the insistence on calling the thing a “cracker,” which always amuses me greatly. Of course the Church refers to the unconsecrated bread as a “wafer,” so calling it a “cracker” just adds that little extra element of flippancy, just to be sure we all get it just a little more. Clever way to subtly rile people up, I guess, but not terribly effective in terms of convincing people they’re wrong.
Aha, Calculon, but many of these Saints are celebrated precisely for those acts of desecration. They most certainly are not considered sins.
Desecration of someone elses’ religious ceremonies is pretty well universally frowned upon.
Clever but ridiculous. It is hypocritical to expect different rules for yourself than for everybody else. By your logic, if I say it’s wrong for everybody but me to drink beer then I’m not a hypocrite if I drink beer. You don’t escape from hypocrisy by declaring an arbitrary loophole for yourself.
He didn’t do anything to their ceremony, and calling it a “hate crime” shows contempt for real victims of hate crimes. Do Catholics think that somebody smuggling out a communion wafer is exactly the same as dragging somebody behind a truck? Give me a break? I mean “kidnapping?” Is anyone here going to seriously contend that it’s “kidnapping?” It’s theft of a smudge of baked flour and water. It’s probably less than a penny’s worth of real value.
Yes he did. He snuck in under false pretenses and stole a sacred object.
Where did I say anything about any of that stuff?
What I said was:
… which is true.
I have actaully read “The God delusion”, and been very unimpressed with the types of aguments that Dawkins makes. I think his argument is very emotional in that he is incredibly biased against religion. Despite the many positive and uncontroversial things that religion has contributed to society, to my memory Dawkins mentions none of them. Instead he fills his book full of all of the bad things that he claims religion has caused while simultaneously excusing non-religious ideologies for the bad things they have done.
There are also a number of logical fallacies that he falls into in the book. For instance his chapter on memes and belief in God clearly falls foul of the genetic fallacy. Where a belief comes from says nothing about the truth of that belief. Even if religion is a meme, it doesn’t logically follow that it is not true. Worse still the argument is self-refuting because it could be said that the idea of memes itself is just another “mind-virus” that Dawkins himself has been infected by.
I haven’t read Hitchens, mostly because I am unimpressed with the thesis that his book “God is not great” tries to defend. Even if religious people have done lots of awful things it doesn’t logically follow that the religion is therefore untrue. Indeed Christian theology states that people, even when Christian, are still sinful and will therefore do a lot evil things. Given Hitchens stated position I also doubt that he is truly objective in the historical events he portrays. If I wanted to learn about the history of religious faith I would read proper historians, not polemicists.
Some of the reviews of the book also note the emotional argumentation in Hitchen’s book. So for instance Bobby Muphy argues that “Hitchens’ argument, although well written, is an argument that is based more in emotion than logic”.
Calculon.
Actually, it was given to him, and it had no effect on their ceremony.
You posted that as your sole response to CurtC’s link to the backstory about a student receiving death threats and being accused of “hate crimes” and “kidnapping” for sneaking a communion wafer out of a mass rather than eating it. The implication was that you were defending those responses.
Furthermore, he did not disturb their ceremony.
This is a false statement.
Regards,
Shodan
So what do you see the point of the “Courtier’s reply” being?