I really wanted to give one final comment on the whole PZ vs. the Cracker debacle, and then I decided I wouldn’t because the whole thing just annoys me to no end and has been beaten into the ground. Then at the last second I changed my mind again. Here we go.
The reason why it’s still on my mind is because we talked about it on the most recent episode of The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, prompting a flurry of activity on the message board and in our in-boxes. In our discussion of the topic, we basically reported the facts (boy takes eucharist out of church, some Catholics freak out, PZ offers to desecrate the eucharist to prove it’s just a cracker, some Catholics freak out even more and physically threaten him) and added our commentary about how we all agree that some of the Catholics in question really did totally overreact.
The responses we’ve received fall into two basic categories:
wtf: Most people seem to think the whole thing is funny, and it’s just a cracker, and let’s all just calm down. I happen to agree.
omgrude: Some people have written to us (or on the message board) to tell the world they think PZ is rude. Most start with, “I’m not a Catholic but . . . ” and go on to say it’s just rude to go out of your way to piss off a bunch of hardcore theists. I agree, it is rude, and also sometimes necessary. But, I understand why some people find it not to their tastes.
A percentage of the omgrude crowd is upset because they do not think PZ’s words help further the skeptical movement because he won’t convince any of the hardcore group that they are crazy. I agree that he probably won’t convince many true believers, but I disagree that he doesn’t help rational people. Just about any time someone dares to point out the absurdity of irrational thinking, he does a great service to many other rational thinkers who were too scared or unsure to say so themselves.
Did Trey Parker and Matt Stone convince any true believers when they called John Edward the Biggest Douche in the Universe? Probably not many, but I bet they influenced a lot of young people who might have been on the fence. There’s no one right way to communicate skepticism, and for every Trey & Matt we need a Carl Sagan. For every PZ, we need a Julia Sweeney or a Hemant. If one isn’t to your taste, you’re free to ignore him, but it’s short-sighted to claim that person is hindering the “skeptical movement” just because he’s not your bag.
My point in all this is that there are several legitimate ways to disagree with the way I and my fellow skeptics feel about the whole deal. What really annoys me, though, are the (few) people who have written to us to tell us that we have no right at all to mock the beliefs of these Catholics. Here’s just a portion of one we got the other day:
I just endured ten minutes of you mocking a belief that, I assure you, is not solely held by “fanatical Catholics.” The (admittedly) irrational belief in Transubstantiation is ingrained and at the heart of our faith. . . . It was not pleasant to hear a group of normally irreverent-but-humorous skeptics whom I have come to enjoy engage in deliberate mocking of my faith for an extended period.
I had to read the full email several times, because I just could not comprehend it. I understand and happily accept that many readers of this site and listeners of the podcast are theists, but I suppose I always assumed that they were the most rational kind possible. People who pare away all the testable claims their particular brand of religion makes, ending up with a fuzzy, generic kind of belief in something bigger than us that cannot be tested. That’s okay with me — I have plenty of good friends and family who are into that. On Skepchick, we have people who disagree on the existence of gods, the efficacy of organic farming, the value of libertarianism, and I love that they all are are open to having their beliefs challenged.
I figured that if anyone who is a regular listener or reader holds on to an irrational belief, once it is pointed out to them they examine it critically and give it up if necessary. If they accept that their belief goes against all reason and want to keep it anyway, they could at least have the good sense to gloss over criticisms and not get involved in discussions about it.
But to admit that you hold a provably irrational belief and then to get upset when rational people joke about it on a podcast that regularly features rational people joking about irrational beliefs? That blows my mind. I can’t even understand how someone could seem so normal and yet blatantly ask that we give his weird belief special treatment. Hell, I could at least start to understand had his argument been that we should avoid tackling that weird belief because it’s so widely held (I’d still disagree, but I’d get it) . . . but no.
It’s the email quoted above that finally convinced me to write just one more time about this topic. That email convinced me that on the podcast, where we pretty much just gave an overview of what happened, we didn’t spend nearly enough time mocking the belief in transubstantiation. I’d like to correct that right now.
Transubstantiation is a ridiculous claim. Basically, the idea is that during communion, bread and wine literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus even though to all appearances it still seems awfully bready and winey. These days, “to all appearances” seems to mean that even if we put someone in an FMRI while he chows down on Jesus, we won’t be able to tell that he’s eating anything other than bread and wine. His system will digest these items at exactly the same pace as any other bread and wine, and in a few hours he will pee and poop substances that don’t look in the least bit Christ-like. But it’s still Christ! Gosh, that sounds an awful lot like every pseudoscientific claim in which the effect disappears when under a microscope because “science can’t detect it!!!” like Chi or homeopathy or The Secret or dowsing or psychic kangaroos (I made that one up but I bet someone, somewhere believes it).
You probably think that there’s no evidence for transubstantiation, but you’re wrong. See, at the Last Supper, Jesus handed his guests some bread and said, “This is my body,” and then handed them some wine and said, “This is my blood.” Had Jesus sang “I’m a Little Teapot,” then today we’d see Catholics worldwide carefully choosing communion vessels of appropriate height and stoutness, ensuring that each one has both handle and spout for the dispensing of His Holy Oolong. Metaphor: not the fundamentalist’s strong suit.
To anyone who wasn’t raised believing something like that, it’s obviously total BS. To people who are raised believing that junk, it might take them some time to mull it over before seeing that it’s total BS. Like the emailer I quoted above, it might not be pleasant to realize that your specific paranormal claim is not off limits just because it falls within the bounds of your religion. If you enjoy laughing along with us when we’re talking about other silly paranormal claims, I hope you learn to accept the fact that one day we might just spend ten minutes talking about your paranormal claim. If you can’t handle that, I suggest you find a more reverent group of people to entertain you.
*Applause*
Maybe for a lot of people, because they believe that god intervenes in their lives they feel that it is at least partially acceptable for them to intervene in other people’s lives? Although I suppose that doesn’t explain other skeptics being offended.
Seriously though, if you get offended, don’t look.
Hear, hear for the multi-prong approach though, you can never have too many prongs :P
Yeah, take down those crazy beliefs! I agree with you 100%! Except…well…why did you have to be so mean about people who believe in psychic kangaroos? Because I am pretty sure nobody has ever proved that there has never been a psychic kangaroo before. I just don’t think it is right to mock my beliefs like that even though they may be somewhat irrational.
Also, please stop mocking people who believe in unicorns. If they exist, they are very noble beasts and should not be mocked under any circumstances. Even valid ones.
*more applause*
Damn right. If someone is surprised at the “deliberately mocking faith” aspect of skepticism, they really haven’t been paying attention.
Also, “Holy Oolong!” might just overtake “Holy Zarquon Singing Fish!” as my favourite zany expletive.
rebecca, this is an issue i have struggled a bit over, but when you put it that way, i couldn’t agree more.
well said.
I, for one, am offended that these soft-skinned fools are taking offence at having their sacred cows sent off to slaughter.
P.s.: Psychic kangaroos totally exist, and I will burn down the home of anybody who says otherwise. It may be an irrational belief, but it’s my irrational belief, and I reserve the right to rain down firey destruction on anybody who denigrates it.
Rebecca, it’s posts like this that make me wish the internet could accomodate the Slow Clap.
Brava!
Here, Here! As one of those who, at the age of about 10, began doubting this nonesense, I also applaud your point of view.
Oh, please knock off all of this psychic kangaroo mumbo-jumbo.
We all know that there are no such things as telepathic marsupials.
No…it’s the monotremes that you want to look out for…
Ugh, you people… Everyone knows that psychic kangaroos are FRAUDS! The tasmanian tigers were the real psychics. That’s why the government had them all destroyed!
Just kidding :) Echoes the *applause*
I wouldn’t get too offended on behalf of the psychic kangaroos. They kick the crap out of you, then make your head explode, so they can take care of themselves.
i used to be a catholic (shh don’t tell the priest that married my wife and i a couple months ago), and i’m more recently a former jehovah’s witness (what can i say my parents switched when i was in jr. high and it was the thing to do). now i’m slightly confused. i never had the slightest religious leanings on my own. i simply went along with what my parents did, i think, mainly to avoid confrontation. i don’t think i ever really took any of it seriously. certainly not seriously enough to get upset over someone else’s beliefs/words/actions. i may have thought them to be in bad taste, but nothing to get bent out of shape over.
sometimes the rogues say things that seem to… i don’t know what word i’m looking for, but sometimes they’re rather more harsh about a subject than i think anyone has the right to be. and by right i mean no one actually knows for a fact, but the particular view fits into their general system so i understand why they feel that way. i’ve written in a couple of time, but never got any response. there could be myriad reasons and i don’t lose any sleep over it and i still listen.
personally i lean towards the live and let live. this does not mean i can’t call a spade a spade. if everyone agreed about everything we’d be living in a very dull world.
i think the problem is when a person’s religious beliefs are called out they take it personally. how could you not? at least at first. it makes you feel like an idiot that you’ve believed something that you’ve never really thought about and then realize it doesn’t make any sense. that’s hard to take. you have three options. admit that you were wrong, vehemently defend yourself, your family, your friends, or ignore it.
a lot of people seem to be unable to accept that people can disagree without hating each other. the more i see this kind of reaction the more i dislike religions, or at least the people who feel the need to respond so angrily. actually i don’t have an issue with religions, or religious people unless they try to force their belief system on me, or anyone else. trying to convince me is fine, but don’t try to legislate your religion on to the community, or scare it into compliance. if god is truly what they say sheheit is then sheheit will take care of everyone appropriately. it’s not up to his followers to do the judging. at least that is what i was taught about christianity. i know very little about other religions.
for what it’s worth skepchicks and sgu have my support. i agree with lox “you can never have too many prongs.” keep pointing out the absurdities it’s the only way to keep everyone honest. i might add they you guys seem to accept rather well one someone points out your mistakes. maybe the rest of us could learn from that attitude, if we’re not already like that. it may not be easy, but it’s the best way to be, at least imho (that no one asked for).
I hope the communion wafers don’t transubstantiate(?) into Jesus’s brains. It would a huge problem if millions of Catholics around the world suddenly developed Kuru.
“a lot of people seem to be unable to accept that people can disagree without hating each other”
Most religions (at least the monotheistic ones) seem to be based on an us vs them mentality. Naturally disagreeing causes problems since “if yer not with us, yer agin’ us!”
Hi folks. I’m a new lurker here but a long time skeptic. PZ is kind of a hero of mine for speaking his mind to the fools and then putting up with the following shitstorm. The man must clang when he walks.
It never ceases to amaze me how fragile the ‘faith’ of these religious loudmouths is. If they go apeshit every time a non-believer expresses their non-belief, they must not have much faith in their religion. What a bunch of mooks.
I grew up in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and we (Lutherans) were unique in taking this absurdity a level higher. They basically believed in a logical contradiction, which is even worse in my opinion than transubstantiation which could logical happen even though evidence says it does not.
In my congregation they taught that it is both the real body of christ and just bread at the exact same time. The pastor would contrast this to transubstantiation and say unlike them, we don’t have to worry if we spill the wine because it is still just wine. But it wasn’t symbolism either. It is just a mystery, he would say.
This drove me nuts, and I rejected both “real presence” and transubstantiation in favor of symbolism. I later had a baptist girl-friend who they would not let have communion at my church, ad I objected. It came out that I only believed it was symbolic, and my mother said, “I can’t believe I had communion next to YOU all these years”. I was then banned from communion.
Perhaps this was just my local church, district or synod, and it is not taught that way all throughout Lutheranism. It was almost as annoying as the trinity. I would be like, so it is like God has 3 role, right? Like I am a child, a christian and an American, right? That at least made logical sense. And the claim of Jesus being 100% man and 100% god made sense if you accepted that the set of gods and man are not mutual exclusive. He would respond that that is an incorrect and essentially demand that it be viewed as a logical contradiction, that 3=1. And to him that was a wonderful mystery that should how incredible god is. I could not stand that crap.
So people ask why I am not a Lutheran because I grew up in very religious family and went to Lutheran schools for 14 years. I say, it is because I grew up in a very religious family and went to Lutheran schools for 14 years. If they hadn’t rammed logical contradictions and creation science down my throat, I may never have had the pressure to look skeptically at my beliefs.
Rebecca, I’m surprised that you didn’t get more “omgrude” posts condemning the Catholics (and some other Christians) for getting so bent out of shape in the first place, not only physically assaulting the guy in the Mass who just wanted to show it to his friend, but sending PZ death threats and/or trying to get him fired — all over stupid pieces of stale bread. Unfreakingbelieveable. That’s way beyond just “rude,” and I think that anyone coming down on PZ for his caustic commentary while ignoring their behavior has some seriously distorted priorities.
“Wafergate” never would have happened if these people hadn’t been barking mad in the first place, and PZ wouldn’t have been prompted to highlight their insanity by threatening cracker desecration if they’d had any sense of proportion and reality.
I appreciate your desire to be evenhanded, and I have to admit that this was my first impulse as well. But to say that “both sides need to calm down,” as if PZ’s rudeness is anywhere near on par with the frankly criminal behavior by many sanctimonious so-called Christians, ignores the very real personal harm that has been caused and/or threatened by people on the religious side in this. That still deserves to be highlighted, and these people setting their personal customs of wafer-eating etiquette over other people’s personal rights deserve to be not just mocked for it, but sharply condemned.
~Wordplayer
I’ve always been a big fan of “judge not, lest ye be judged.” If you want to assume that everybody who doesn’t believe in your particular sky-grandpa is in the queue for eternal torture and torment, you shouldn’t be offended if the damned have a giggle at the thought of you pooping bits of your Lord and Savior.
And before the masses start screaming hypocrisy, just stop. You’re wrong. The whole point of a skeptical worldview is that my beliefs are constantly being judged. By the believers who condemn me, but also by science, by my fellow skeptics, and (if I’m doing it right) by myself. I’m willingly submitting my beliefs to constant scrutiny, so I’ve earned the right to peer critically at yours. Until you’ve got evidence of human DNA appearing in that wafer, it’s still a cracker.
Just a couple of points first I don’t think pz ever said he was speaking for anyone other than himself, so anyone offended should just man up and shut up.
And who is “our” spokesperson anyway perhaps we should figure that out so we know who to say “he/she doesn’t/does speak for me/us.”
Rebecca well put on all points, I’m sure you get some more hate mail.
And finally for any Catholics out there add me to the list because before I was tossed out of Catholic School(Our Lady of Grace in Encino California if anyone is interested) I used to drink the holywater, and once stole all the “frackin crackers” from the little room where they were kept and spent my day tossing them on to Ventura Blvd like little frisbees.
I was born and raised (sort of…long story won’t get into now) a Roman Catholic and I must have always been a skeptic. Whenever the Church did some kooky things like the Communion or what have you I never had any sort of feeling it was actually happening. It was always seen to me to be tradition. What boggles my mind is that these people really believe it, that the wafer is actually Jesus Christ. They have been waiting for all their lives for the second coming and they could just build the body from wafers and wine…
“Wafergate”
I like that! It’s way easier to say than “The PZ vs Catholics Cracker Debaucle”
LBB:
And therein lies the inconsistency of Donohue, et al. The desecrators are already going to Hell, as far as they’re concerned, so why the outrage? What about “turn the other cheek”? Where’s the confidence in their creator?
Technically Little bald bastard, wouldn’t human DNA appear on the cracker when they ate it ….
transubstantiation = drool?
Wow, thank you all for the very refreshingly un-hateful responses!
Don’t you understand? If we don’t speak with one unified and moderate voice we might be accused of thinking for ourselves!
When I was a church guy, I loved taking communion, because after Saturday night, I usually needed a little something to take the edge off, and church was only place to get a pop on Sunday before noon.
The wafers? Meh . . . .
I’m sure this has been stated before, but I think it’s important to distinguish between ridicule of a persons faith and belief in symbolism, and a person’s insistance that this cracker is srsly made of Jesus.
It’s my understanding that PZ’s main point was simply to say that the idea of transubstantiation is absurd, partially because it’s treading into the realm of scientific testability. It’s not about Catholic bashing, it’s about insisting that the average person remain grounded in reality. Symbolism is fine, irrational pseudoscientific claims are not.
Wow. I had SGU and skepchick pegged as something else entirely from the obnoxious PZ Meyers-esque bullshit. Sorry to see I was wrong.
Oh, come on. Skepchick does obnoxious better than PZ could ever dream.
And also… has anyone here eaten a eucharist lately? How do they taste? Is the blood of Christ any good, or is it like a cheap table wine?
Lox: If only there were some way for them to chew the cracker without swallowing it. Maybe then we could settle this. ;)
jtradke: “Where’s the confidence in their creator?” They could be motivated by pure ignorance and blind faith to lash out at anyone who impugns their beliefs. But I suspect it’s the same reason that vitriolic homophobes often turn out to be so deep in the closet that they’ve tripped over last year’s Halloween decorations and landed in Narnia. The folks with the loudest mouths are usually trying to silence their own doubts, along with the voices of their critics.
He said, relying purely on anecdotal evidence.
Oh Sam, no! Don’t you realize that it’s not obnoxious until it’s about your sacred cow?
LFG happened to post a comic last week that’s somewhat appropriate, and I’ll leave you with that for your consideration.
I’m all for mocking strange beliefs. If it was just “Hey, Catholics believe in Transubstantiation, isn’t that wacky, HA HA!” that would be one thing. South Park did an episode where a statue of the Virgin Mary sprayed blood all over the pope. I laughed my ass off.
But there was a line that was crossed somewhere. Webster Cook did not ask for PZ Myers to stick up for him. PZ just decided to stick his nose into someone else’s business. And if there’s one important lesson that I took from the schoolyard all those years ago, it’s that it’s not usually good form to fight someone else’s battles for them.
Don’t get me wrong; I get that Bill Donohue is being an exponentially bigger asshole, and certainly deserves a smack-down. I’m just not very comfortable with all the crossfire.
In a somewhat appropriate metaphor, I wash my hands of the whole ordeal.
People who think that anything PZ Myers has written was offensive haven’t listened to Bill Hicks or read Warren Ellis. Go, now, and recalibrate your offence-o-meter.
Namidim, you’re just going to call bullshit without anything to back it up? Not even an explanation of which bullshit you mean? Weak…
Really, is it bullshit to reject nonsense claims or is it bullshit to not be afraid of rejecting those claims when they are religious? I don’t recall anyone here going out of their way to obtain sacred wafers, so you can’t even really pull the rudeness card(at least not the same card as PZ).
Or is it that irreverence is ok as long as it’s irreverence of someone else? (I’m simply making an assumption that the issue is hitting you close to home here)
“Webster Cook did not ask for PZ Myers to stick up for him. ”
I don’t recall God asking a single Catholic to stick up for -him- either.
My sacred cow is obnoxiousness, so how does that . . . damn, I just gave myself a headache.
Also, namidim said:
That tells me absolutely nothing. Why don’t you take an extra moment to point out what part of my post you have such a problem with? I’d honestly be interested to know what is so disappointing.
There is a certain comfort in broad, generalized (security)blanket statements, Rebecca… He/she’s made his/her statement. You’ll likely get nothing more.
LBB: “The folks with the loudest mouths are usually trying to silence their own doubts, along with the voices of their critics.”
I think you’ve got it.
If I actually *believe* that my life *literally* depends on a particular worldview, and am doubting that worldview, I can get very, very angry with any pov that further extends my doubts. It – to me – becomes an issue of life ‘n death.
This guy realizes, doesn’t he, that to demand respect for his religion is to extend respect to, say, the demand not to insult Mohammed via cartoons, right?
Really.
My miracle is better. You see, I was born invisible. Light goes through me as if I just weren’t here. But would you believe, in the same moment I was born, everybody in the world acquired the miraculous faculty of being able to see invisible persons, so they could see me. Which goes to show not only that I’m invisible, but that I’m also the only invisible person in the world, for if there were others, people would see them too! So I’m special! I’m unique!
And about all that “you can mock other people’s beliefs, but not mine” thing, I think the term “Isaac Hayes Syndrome” should be more widespread.
I love it when skeptics make fun of irrational beliefs, just not when they make fun of mine. Personally, I only hold one single teeny weeny irrational belief. Just one! It is the belief that I hold only one irrational belief. Don’t mock me or I’ll cry!
My only irrational belief is that there is no such thing as irrational beliefs.
Well, Detroitus, I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt, especially in a case like this where I have to assume that something I’ve said will either be misunderstood or purposely twisted. Or, hell, I could be wrong about something entirely. It’s happened before. ;)
The blurb was well written Rebecca. Glad you decided to write more on the subject.
I’m surprised that no one has pointed out that it’s extra absurd that catholics are angry at Cook and Myers ….
After all, weren’t they just going to eat the damn thing anyway? And then, they’ll crap it out. maybe not eating the jesus was the most respectful thing Cook could have done!
**Braces himself for an angry slew of emails**
Rebecca-
While I agree with most of what you said, I have to disagree with yor analogy. The difference between South Park (and for that matter Skepchick, the SGU, Carl Sagan and Bill Hicks) and PZ is that the former are/were entertaning, informative and thought provoking, regardless of their level of irreverence.
“After all, weren’t they just going to eat the damn thing anyway? And then, they’ll crap it out.”
You make a good point. No one wants to poop Jesus.
Since you warned people they might get offended, I might as well write something politically incorrect.
(sing to the tune blue suede shoes):
Well you can take a cracker, break it in two
Throw it on the ground ,stomp it with your shoe
Drop your drawers, on the cracker take a pee
But a ha don’t high hat the monkey
Don’t you high hat the monkey
Do anything but lay off that ole monkey.
SCS- I think there’s actually something in Catholic doctrine about how Jesus wafers don’t get digested like normal food. I remember something about some sort of mystical absorption of Jesusyness… I’m not sure, I was the Worst Catholic Ever.
“I think there’s actually something in Catholic doctrine about how Jesus wafers don’t get digested like normal food”
Yeah, it’s called currie. I’ve eaten that, and trust me, it does NOT go through like normal food! It’s a bit like battery acid mixed with nightmare.
Transubstantiation is a “mystery.”
“Mystery,” in religious terms, translates into everyday English as “bullshit.”
When a religious figure means to say “bullshit,” he/she says “mystery” because it’s considered more polite. It still means the same thing.
You see, there is no “mystery of the Trinity,” there is only the “bullshit about the Trinity.” There is no “mystery of the Virgin Birth,” only the “bullshit about a Virgin Birth.”
Transubstantiation is a “mystery” in this particular religion. This is the “bulshit about transubstantiation.” In other words, those aren’t even crackers, and certainly not the “mysterious” body of Jesus. They’re 100% certified bullshit.
Essentially, what a Mass does is turn bits of bread into huge piles of bullshit that are then consumed by the credulous.
Good reason never to let a clergyman breathe on you, by the way.
You go directly to my point, Augustus. You don’t seem to like PZ, but thousands of others do, and of those I’m sure many found their very first introduction to skepticism and atheism through Pharyngula. That is precisely my point when I insist that we need different approaches to communicate to different people, and what works for you will not necessarily work for others.
Amanda, that sounds awfully like Terry Pratchet’s Ofler god consuming the sausagidity of his sacrifical sausages, before his priests “symbolically” eat them, making them taste like ashes
I go back and forth between fan of PZ and ambivilent about him, but that’s really beside the point. The deciding factor on this, though, was when I put myself in the shoes of a fence sitter I couldn’t imagine myself looking at PZ’s actions and saying “You know, he’s got a point” or “That’s a guy I want to be like.” That said, I seem to be the only one who can’t, so I’m open to the possibility, slim though it may be, that I’m wrong.
I just wanna say one last thing
“It’s a frakkin cracker” = entertaining, informative and thought provoking
“Now I’m gonna desecrate it.” = Not so much
“I don’t recall God asking a single Catholic to stick up for -him- either.”
ooxman ftw!
*more applause*
Yesterday, when I spoke of pointy, necessary assholes, PZ was on my mind (I don’tthinkhe’san asshole, but I can see how someone could)…we need more pointy assholes!
@54:”“Mystery,” in religious terms, translates into everyday English as “bullshit.”
Totally…and every time I hear (about) religious people going on about the evils of science, I wish that there were some laws of alignment or something (either you’re with science or against it) and the rational squad, like earthly repo-men, would come and take away their cars, TVs, radios, polyester clothing, elastic, etc, ad nauseum (and they would not be allowed medical care that used data from after 1 A.D.). Then see how their mysterious, benevolent god helped them out.
Sorry, is that an asshole thing to think? Well, I think that using THE INTERNET to espouse bronze-age ideas is an asshole thing to do. they shouldn’t be allowed to even use modern printing equipment. Parchment and goat’s blood for you!
Seriously, it’s always blown my mind that these total whitebread crackers in the bible belt, shopping at wal-mart and eating pig parts think they have anything to do with some (probably mentally ill) charismatic rabble-rousing Jew in the middle east 2000 years ago.
It would be like if the Zulu started being Norse Pagans.
here, here to Little Bald Bastard #19 and Protesilaus #21.
Maybe the confusion is because Jesus was a gingerbread man with wine-filled veins, and while the gnostics knew this, it has now been lost to history. If that key piece of information was not lost, there would be no confusion. Or maybe some christians really, really hate metaphors. Not sure where Occam’s razor will fall here.
@Amanda i think i could give you a run for your money as worst catholic ever assuming it counts if you did everything ’cause you were told to and you sat at mass tracing over the words in the worship book with a pigeon feather you picked up on your walk to the church. and the only reason you ended up at the church was that you made too much noise when you got up to watch cartoons and woke up your parents.
@ SCS curries are the best meals ever invented; evar! the fact that curries exist force me to be an agnostic instead of an outright atheist.
I was suddenly reminded of this.
I have to wonder if deep down people know they are just pretending that something is true because it makes them feel good. When someone speaks out it’s like pointing out that the emperor has no clothes and they don’t want to admit how foolish they appear. For example they will credit prayer to god for petty things (finding lost keys) up to major things (cancer goes into remission) that could happen without prayer but how many will pray for things such as amputee sprouting new limb or raising of the dead. The dead were raised in the bible so why not pray for it. Wouldn’t you like to visit with your greatgreat grandparents even for a limited time? No one prays for this because they know it will not happen but god can waste his/her time to help you find your lost keys. As for the clergy , they do not want criticism because they enjoy power and status.
@ Amanda and Frankiemouse:
Nonsense. We all know that the Worst Catholic Ever is the Pope.
I cringed a little when I first read PZ’s post soliciting a wafer to “abuse” (as a former Catholic, wafer is more descriptive than cracker), because I had a feeling the fur would fly (as it subsequently did.)
However, Rebecca’s post here sums it up quite nicely. Don’t like what PZ says? Change the channel.
I, for one, will continue to read his blog, even if I wouldn’t use the inflammatory language that he did.
To the person wondering what the wafer tastes like – it’s about the blandest thing you can imagine. It’s very thin (not cracker-like at all) and isn’t much different than putting a piece of paper in your mouth.
Finally, “Wafergate” is the perfect term for this. :)
Rebecca:
It isn’t my sacred cow. I’m not and have never been catholic or even religious.I don’t disagree with the fundamentals of the argument. I just thought SGU and skepchick were trying to tone down the jackass and encourage a reasonably respectable discussion.
I was under the impression that you in particular were all for skeptical groups being more welcoming and less asinine, not simply ranting. I don’t see how this discussion moves in that direction.
So I’m disappointed. I would also note that getting majority OK from an internet comments section is a pretty low bar for determining if you’re being an ass.
@ JOHNEA13, I don’t quite think it works that way, at least consciously. I think it’d be more fair to say that the belief in prayer is most probably re-enforced by the phenomenon of confirmation bias. Pray for your car keys and you eventually find them, therefore prayer -clearly- works. Pray for your Dad’s cancer to go away and it doesn’t, but you don’t hold God accountable… for some reason.
namidim, once again you have failed to point out what in my post has you so upset. What about this post is less reasonable or respectable than any of my previous posts about any other paranormal topic? Where was I asinine? Where was I merely ranting? Where am I being an ass, and why?
It sounds as if namidim is suggesting Rebecca has a responsibility to tone down or counter P.Z.’s “bad atheist” behavior, to “set a good example”. Perhaps anything short of denouncing P.Z.’s “bad behavior” would be unacceptable to him/her. But Rebecca is right, that it is hard to tell from this post. THe only sentence that indicates what he/she is upset about is
In connection with SkepGeeks comments about his Lutheran church…My parents-in-law are charismatic Lutheran (faith healing, speaking in tongues, etc.). The say that Christ is “in, with, and under” the cracker. How’s that for not making any damn sense.
Maybe that’s why we can never find molecules of Jesus…they’re always under the other ones. Jesus molecules are shy.
I dunno. Whatever.
I was just reading in Simon Singh’s The Big Bang that George Gamow lost his religion when he stole a wafer, took it home and checked it under a microscope for non-breadness. If one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century couldn’t find Jesus in a wafer, I’ll consider that a valuable data point.
I’m thinking Phil Plait, PZ and Rebecca can be my new and cooler Trinity, and put me on the list as a pro-desecration iconoclast.
See? That’s a “mystery.”
Jesus always stands 3 feet to the left of any given cracker. You see, both Jesus and crackers have a slightly positive charge. The thing is that nobody who is holding a cracker, or who has been exposed to cracker-magnetism, can ever encounter him. Like many birds, Jesus has hollow bones (hence his ability to walk on water), and the repulsive force of the like charges is enough to move him in a straight line away from it.
See? I can make stuff up, too.
Tact is severely overrated. When I notice that people are choosing their words carefully so as to not insult or belittle the audience, I feel as if they are talking down to me. The thing I like about Rebecca (and Penn, Randi, Bill Hicks and others) is that they don’t pull punches or soften their words just to make the message easier to digest (no pun intended). Being polite in the name of ‘fairness’ or ‘respect’ or ‘intellectual honesty’ is not as important as being accurate, truthful or honest.
But don’t get me wrong, tact has it’s place. My mom is a Christian, but I don’t yell at her for it. I just tell her in no uncertain terms that I disagree with her, and we have wonderful discussions as a result of it.
But srsly, the internet was invented so assholes could shout offensive things. Everyone knows this.
I think they should take some of the blood from the Shroud of Turin and continuously clone it so every Christian congregation can have their own Jesus.
Quick question: Does the anti-christ ALSO turn into a cracker, or does he become an anti-cracker? And as a follow-up, if a Christ Cracker and an Anti-Christ Cracker collide, do they annihilate each other?
New to this so be kind.
My favourite comment on the whole transubstantiation thing comes from V for Vendetta by the peerless Alan Moore (if you’ll forgive the sidestep into comic book geekery).
The scene: Masked anarchist vigilante V is assassinating his way through the ranks of the establishment in a post-apocalypse fascist Britain. Having trapped the perverted Arch-Bishop of Canterbury V offers him a host with the words: “And at the moment it enters your mouth it becomes the flesh of the saviour?”
Bishop: Yes. Yes. Look, please…
V: And whatever it is made of now it will become the body of Christ?
Bishop: Yes. Whatever it is now. Whatever.
V: I want you to swallow it.
Cut to – Detective Finch the next day: We just had the path reports through… The host was full of cyanide.
Nah, he pretty much remains Bill Donohue no matter who has him in their mouth. Just ask the altar boys at St. Patrick’s.
” Webster Cook did not ask for PZ Myers to stick up for him.”
Isn’t that a little bit like saying that every one should have minded their own business when Rosa Parks was asked to move to the back of the bus?
I can’t think of a single good social change that ever took place because people were polite or minded their own business. The meek are not going to inherit the earth. They are just going to be pushed around by every one else.
There are times I cringe when I read the things that PZ and other “new atheists” say. But I also realize that they are needed. Because that is the only way that the issues get brought up and looked at.
Well said Rebecca.
” Webster Cook did not ask for PZ Myers to stick up for him.”
I’m with ddr. Does the above point of view mean that no one should ever voice outrage when someone is mistreated? How ridiculous is that? As far as I know, PZ didn’t write the blog “to stick up for” Webster Cook. It really wasn’t about Webster Cook. It was about the horrifying response of the church.
What does minding your own business even mean in this context? It was a news story. Should the press have minded their own business and not reported it? Oh, wait, that is their businees…reporting things other people do. And after reading this publicly covered information, no one should voice an opinion about it? If so, that should follow for any news report. And if so, why the hell report it?
PZ is not fighting for the Webster. I don’t know of anything he’s doing for Webster at all, other than getting him more publicity.
The whole idea is just silly.
Did anyone ever find out why exactly Webster took the cracker? It seems like no one has really bothered to ask.
To make nachos?
This whole debate is fairly interesting….I can’t wait to catch up to the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe commentary, but I’m about a hundred shows away from that. :(
I myself have tried about every religion in the gumball machine, and for the most part they all taste the same. I’m also the sort of person who joked about The Bible game for the 360 being an awesome opportunity to see Big J getting crucified in high-def (yes my humor is not only edgy but as dark as a Nigerian in the shade).