Your attention please: Anyone still pissing their pants over the cracker de communion needs to be given something to cry about.

That is all.

Arky – Lasped R.C.

So we know Kleiman hearts Megan because Megan links to him? Huh?

And, I’m sorry, PZ used to be a pretty entertaining read, but apparently he’s found that being a complete asshole gets him more page views. A belief in transubstantiation, while silly, does no harm to non-Catholics, so for PZ to do this is just asinine.

So we know Kleiman hearts Megan because Megan links to him?

Read the damn links.

A belief in transubstantiation, while silly, does no harm to non-Catholics

Why do I get the feeling you haven’t been following this very closely?

Whoops, I should, as they say, read the whole thing.

I’ve been working my way through Michael Martin’s “Atheism, Morality and Meaning” – interesting but heavy going – and I have to say that the catagory “total fucking pukeface asshelmet fucktardious shitsicle” should have been included. Thank you, HTLM.
…

EJ: PZ’s beef isn’t with transubstantiation, but instead with the very real fact that someone was physically threatened for putting a cracker in a plastic bag.

I liked Alan Moore’s take in the comic V for Vendetta, in which V engaged the Archbishop of Canterbury, his prisoner, in a discussion on transubstantiation. They discussed the Bishop’s faith that the wafer, whatever it was when it entered the bishop’s mouth, would transform to the Body and Blood of Christ.

The police detective, standing over the Bishop’s body, noted that when it reached the Bishop’s stomach, it was still cyanide.

A belief in transubstantiation, while silly, does no harm to non-Catholics, so for PZ to do this is just asinine.

in the words of Peggy Hill: trans-substanta-whatnow ?

PZ mockingly threatened to do something unspecified to a cracker after a person was threatened with death for taking one of those crackers out of church. in response, PZ was himself threatened with death, loss of job, etc..

i have to squint reeeeeealllllly hard to find the daylight between the people who shat themselves over the Mohammad cartoons and the people who are shitting themselves over a threat to a cracker.

The funniest part, to me, is in the inevitable second post on the topic by Megan, where she adds a comment that includes the following

Catholics do not believe that the bread is transformed into the same sorts of molecules that would have composed the actual flesh of Christ. What they believe is “meat” is not the most important attribute of the concept of “body”–that the word has a deeper, more essential sense, and that under the right circumstances, bread can take on all the necessary and important attributes of the flesh of Christ. This is also the sense in which they look for the resurrection of the body–no one things [sic] that God is going to bring back the exact same corruptible flesh.

Actual Catholics should feel free to correct me, but that’s kinda massively fucking wrong, as I understand it.

Thanks, Megan!

It all makes sense now!

Oh, n thanks for the blogrollin, HTML. FMM remains mostly a lark, but when folk like you n DDay list us I know we aren’t total eff-ups.

Myers and Donohue deserve each other; but what did the rest of us do to deserve either of them?

Note to Kleiman: in the future, you can save time by simply saying “there are strong feelings on both sides.” This is known as a “Howard Kurtz,” and invoking it guarantees that you are impartial and correct always and forever.

What I was told during CCD classes is the wafer becomes the body of Christ and the wine becomes his blood. End of story. Questions were not encouraged.

McCurdle is going to get in trouble with the people she’s trying to defend if she doesn’t watch out.

Of course, when I was little adults were 100% no excuses supposed to drink the wine. Then there was a lot of uncessary confusion over how HIV was transmitted, people balked at risking cooties from the person who went before them and taking the wine became optional.

Catholics do not believe that the bread is transformed into the same sorts of molecules that would have composed the actual flesh of Christ.

uh…They’re supposed to believe it’s the body of Christ. The wine, the blood.

Now, few do. My grandmother, for instance, knew it wasn’t that and she probably believed it along the lines of symbolic action and things like that — but the dogma is a consecrated wafer IS Jesus. Which is why the kid received death threats.

Here’s the thing, I’ve been around Catholics my entire life. And I just don’t know the kind of Catholics who would literally believe such things. But we all know they’re out there. My cafeteria catholic family represents, however, the vast majority of the faith.

That’s something these hardcore, pre-Vatican II types just can’t reconcile with.

I don’t support torture. I just think it’s, um, a witch hunt what you’re doing to John Yoo, who is a great American because he supports tort…um, the executive branch, which is a thing that should be supported until Obama ruins it because he has an oozing sense of entitlement based on what Mickey Kaus said about him, which is right because Mickey Kaus Mickey Kaus Mickey Kaus.

I don’t support assissination, I just think we should assissinate people who don’t agree with us because we’ve been at war with Iran for like 30 years or something that Michael Barone said.

Of course, when I was little adults were 100% no excuses supposed to drink the wine. Then there was a lot of uncessary confusion over how HIV was transmitted, people balked at risking cooties from the person who went before them and taking the wine became optional.

Fear of Teh Ghey officially surpasses love of Jesus among Catholic values!

I liked Alan Moore’s take in the comic V for Vendetta, in which V engaged the Archbishop of Canterbury, his prisoner, in a discussion on transubstantiation. They discussed the Bishop’s faith that the wafer, whatever it was when it entered the bishop’s mouth, would transform to the Body and Blood of Christ.

The police detective, standing over the Bishop’s body, noted that when it reached the Bishop’s stomach, it was still cyanide.

The problem there is that Anglicans don’t believe in transubstantiation.

Actually, HTML, we are several indecent people at FMM. Oh you were talking about her….

According to Myers, Donahue has now responded to Myers’ offer to “desecrate” a Koran (something suggested ad nauseum by the Donahue-bots) along with the Holy Cracker by saying he’s faxed Myers’ columns to CAIR so Myers can be the beneficiary of some “real” religious intolerance, presumably by getting Myers suicide-bombed.

So far, the response from CAIR has been [*crickets*] and hopefully they’re smart enough to keep it that way, thereby proving that Donahue and his ilk are the intolerant crazies.

I’m not saying that Barack Obama is just like Hitler, but Barack Obama is just like Hitler.

I’m thinking of declaring August “Grow the hell up, internet people” month. Who will join me in my crusade?

MEGAN McARDLE said this?!?

But you liberals can’t see that and now you will accuse me of saying Barack Oabam is just like Hitler when I clearly said that I’m not saying Barack Obama is just like Hitler.

Liberals. Hmf.

The problem there is that Anglicans don’t believe in transubstantiation.

Don’t tell me, tell Alan Moore, he wrote it.

I don’t think it’s the best explanation but it’s basically correct — it has to do with the difference between Substance and Accidents, and also how perfectly ordinary words get used differently in a religious context, like how a “mystery” isn’t something you try to solve (“hey, it was Old Man Withers using this sterno-smeared asbestos bush!”) and an “option” really means “a strong moral obligation”.

Well really Substance and Accident are Aristotelian, and the term “accident” has a specific meaning in philosophy, but whatever. The point is that pretty much everything you can actually observe about a thing, like its shape, texture, taste, weight, armaments(!), and presumably including its molecular structure, are accidents. “Substance” (ousia) similarly has a specific philosophical meaning, which to my understanding could be expressed as “what something is at the most basic level of reality”, I guess. So nobody’s worried that, for example, PZ Meyers is going to extract DNA from the transubstantiated host and use it to clone a Jesus army. (I say nobody, but of course someone’s thinking it).

If you were saying that about the “resurrection of the body” bit, I have no idea. Everything Jesus says in the Bible about it is something like this:

Disciple: LORD, when I’m resurrected, will I have to get back together with my late first wife?

Jesus: Ugh, you totally don’t get resurrection (does not attempt to explain).

Anyway, it’s probably best not to ask actual Catholics but to look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Most Catholics learn a very dumbed-down version before they were 13 and then just sort of pay attention to political or social stuff, if that — theology is boring and unsatisfying unless you’re really into it.

Catholics do not believe that the bread is transformed into the same sorts of molecules that would have composed the actual flesh of Christ. What they believe is “meat” is not the most important attribute of the concept of “body”–that the word has a deeper, more essential sense, and that under the right circumstances, bread can take on all the necessary and important attributes of the flesh of Christ. This is also the sense in which they look for the resurrection of the body–no one things [sic] that God is going to bring back the exact same corruptible flesh

OK.

Imagine this with Bela Lugosi saying it, from an Ed Wood movie, with Tor Johnson standing nearby.

I’ll be laughing at that image for days.

It’s flour and water. The only thing it has any chance of becoming is a very small, very crappy tortilla. Come on, we’re grownups in the 21st century. If you want to eat a cracker in an ancient ritual ’cause it makes you feel all spiritual and shit, great. Go right ahead. But any harm that comes to the cracker is not a problem for you. And if you find you are reacting emotionally to the destruction of a cracker, especially if capital punishment or the deaths of “insurgents” in far-away lands doesn’t bother you one bit, you probably could stand to re-examine your humanity.

As they say in one of those internet traditions

That is all…

mikey

“I shall create an army of atomic super-Jesuses, and RULE THE WORLD! Heh heh heh!”

Shorter Mark A. Kleiman:
Manners count for more than morals.

Interesting, Doctorb, but the greater context, which I didn’t mention, was Megan talking about symbolic versus literal value. Underlying her words there is the argument that the Eucharist is symbolic. She wasn’t being nuanced so much as self-serving.

I’m thinking of declaring August “Grow the hell up, internet people” month. Who will join me in my crusade?

MEGAN McARDLE said this?!?

Wow – if so, we’d better have a quick “Physician, Heal Thyself” Week for the rest of July.

Also Anglicans can believe a lot of things — I think mainly High Church and Anglo-Catholic (not Catholic) Anglicans believe in transubstantiation. As a church they decided not to enforce a particular doctrine, I guess.

‘S’okay, Gavin.

It is better to have Giant Green Slimy Goat Balls and go hungry than it is to…

Uh…

Dammit.

I’m SURE there’s a quote in there somewhere. One that will be remembered for generations….

Help?

mikey

As a church they decided not to enforce a particular doctrine, I guess.

Didn’t Eddie Izzard describe the C of E as a lot of limp-armed people?

Cake or death!

Jake H-

It’s more of a hobby, really.

HALLLLL-AAAAYYYY-LLOOOOO-YUHHHH HALL-AYYYY-LOOOO-YUHHHH

Bite me.

The thing is, to someone who really believes it, it’s not “symbolic versus literal” but more like “real versus apparent”. I could say AS AN ANALOGY FOR THIS BELIEF that everything you can perceive, Accidents, are like the fancy-clothes illusion of The Matrix, and Substance is the sickly people in goo-filled pods reality.

Now of course someone who believes in the change in the Substance of a bland cracker to that of the incorruptible, eternal Creator and Ruler of the entire universe (because Jesus and God are of homoousious, the same substance) … well, really, they can’t be worried about His safety, and are just concerned that they and their beliefs are being made fun of by some beardy guy with a college degree.

Wow, leaving out hyphens has resulted in Swank-like typing!

“sickly-people-in-goo-filled-pods reality”

Might want to check this out–a raised-Catholic person explains a variety of other sins in this episode . . . NOT committe by PZ or even by the wafer-carrier.

“total fucking pukeface asshelmet fucktardious shitsicle”

I’m going to start a band just so I can call it that.

I believe fafnir has a pretty good last work on the Jesus episode. God-damned gorillas!

last word… fuck

Has Donohue ever been on the right side of an issue? Has he ever not been full-throttle in favor of serving the cause of evil instead of good?

Comparing Donohue to Myers is like saying an adorable puppy is exactly as gross as the clock spider because, hey, sometimes, puppies make a poo.

Give us a cracker!

there’s still a lot of poor tortured souls who literally believe the wafer actually, physically becomes meat and blood. i’d wager that a good part of my extended family does. they are also very stupid silly people, so there you go.

as my dear dear basque friends say: me cago en las tetas de la virgen para que el niño dios mame mierda.

just reading that will condemn you to hell, i think.

It doesn’t really count, since it’s so far after the fact, but she DID eventually…kind of sort of…refer to the event in a way that could be twisted into an apology

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/lets_get_this_out_of_the_way.php

This is also the sense in which they look for the resurrection of the body–no one things [sic] that God is going to bring back the exact same corruptible flesh.

This medievalist says she’s wrong on this, unless there’s been a radical change to this point since, say, the 15th century. Or maybe she’s not Catholic?

In my period, however, it’s definitely the exact same flesh (see, for example, Augustine Enchiridion). Of course the flesh will be perfected in various ways, but it’s still the exact same flesh. Hence the worry about what happens when someone eats a pork sandwich, since the logic suggests that said person will arise partly pig.

Regarding V for Vendetta: Bishop Lillman is a Party operative, but I don’t think the comic describes him as the Archbishop of Canterbury– in fact, I’m pretty sure it’s not brought up whether he’s Anglican or Catholic.

Brandon-

That post is full of shit. She original wrote that she was going to gain pleasure by having someone teach the protestors “how very effective violence can be when it’s applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner.” The key point is pre-emptive.

Also, she wrote “I was more than a tad overemotional at the thought of my city getting another dose of random ideological violence,” as if to explain why she reacted the way she did. Keep in mind she has no problem with random ideological violence when it is against her enemies, the DFH.

Brandon said,

It doesn’t really count, since it’s so far after the fact, but she DID eventually…kind of sort of…refer to the event in a way that could be twisted into an apology

Feh. Of course she has to qualify it by saying that anyone who has ever linked to that post did so because they were big poopyheads and unworthy of her brilliance anyway. So there.

And, did you know that Megan weighs 130 pounds? She mentions it twice, so I’m guessing it really means a lot to her that people know that. Stupid twit.

And, what rickm said, too.

In the post Brandon links, McMegan whines:

Those who link it never, ever mention that it referred to violent protesters, even when they have to do some exceptionally creative editing to avoid that fairly central fact. Indeed, they often explicitly state that it referred to peaceful protesters, even though there is no possible reasonable reading of that post which interprets it as randomly exhorting violence against people who were lawfully marching in protest of the war.

While in the original post, she mused (my emphases, obviosly):

I can’t be mad at these little dweebs. I’m too busy laughing. And I think some in New York are going to laugh even harder when they try to unleash some civil disobedience, Lenin style, and some New Yorker who understands the horrors of war all too well picks up a two-by-four and teaches them how very effective violence can be when it’s applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner.

I am, of course, being utterly unreasonable, uncouth, and uncivil in quoting these two paragraphs out of context.

In other words, what rickm and commie atheist said while I was struggling with WordPress.

It’s also the 3rd or 4th excuse Megan has come up with for the post. In the past she’s even claimed she didn’t know how big a 2×4 is.

And let me emphasize what Bistroist quoted.

Megan wanted to beat people with 2×4’s who were expressing “civil disobedience.” Civil disobedience is not rioting. Rioting is the opposite of civil disobedience. Rioting is uncivil disobedience. So Megan’s assertion that she only wanted to beat the shit out of people with 2×4’s who were about to riot is patent bullshit.

A belief in transubstantiation, while silly, does no harm to non-Catholics

Well. That’s actually debatable on a few levels, which is one of the salient reasons we of the reality-based community continue to pick and prod at the ancient, ancient wine our brothers and sisters tote around in the bottles with “21st Century” freshly-stamped on the side, going “Whyzat? Whozat? Howzat? Are you serious? Are you? You’re kidding, right? Whazzat? Whyzat?” as we do so.

(And yes, I admit that that torured analogy gives the reader a clue as to why I rarely roll up my sleeves and blog heavily on the subject. Like Darwin, I must be a very bad explainer.)

In the past she’s even claimed she didn’t know how big a 2×4 is.

Ya know, I wouldn’t be surprised if she didn’t. She is dumb as a bag of shit, after all.

Regarding V for Vendetta: Bishop Lillman is a Party operative, but I don’t think the comic describes him as the Archbishop of Canterbury– in fact, I’m pretty sure it’s not brought up whether he’s Anglican or Catholic.

I stand corrected. The point is, when the wafer got to his stomach, it was still cyanide.

There’s a letter missing in my previous comment, here it is: u

Also, it might be worth noting that while I emphasized a few extra words in the quote above, the key word, “pre-emptive“, was actually already in italics in the original post.

civil disobedience, Lenin style

And as everyone knows, Lenin just worshipped the ground Thoreau walked on.

Ignorant slut.

My favorite part was where she said Catholics didn’t really believe Jesus’ actual body rose from the dead. She has absolutely no idea what Catholics believe, yet feels free to just throw crap out there.

She also ignores corrections, or says she was “misunderstood.” She’s misunderstood a lot.

Gavin, can’t you just reject & denounce Giant Green Slimy Goat Balls?

Shorter Mark A. Kleiman:
Manners count for more than morals.

Neoconservatism in a nutshell.

Mass murder – no big deal.

Stealing – A-OK

Incivility – a capital offense

The thing about Megan’s mea culpa in regards to the 2 x 4 post is that it wasn’t an apology or admission of guilt at all. It was one big, fat excuse disgustingly framed in the context of the WTC attacks. If she expected sympathy or forgiveness, the thing she should have said was “I shouldn’t have written it. It was a stupid, awful thing to do.” Period. Full stop. Not another word. She shouldn’t have invoked the ghosts of her dead friends that were killed. She shouldn’t have used the aftermath of fear that followed the attacks to suggest that there was a context to her irrational comments.

And honestly, as crappy as she writes, she probably sincerely does think that post says exactly what she defends it for saying.

In the past she’s even claimed she didn’t know how big a 2×4 is.

A toothpick is 2mm by 4mm.

So there!

Imagine this with Bela Lugosi saying it, from an Ed Wood movie, with Tor Johnson standing nearby.
I prefer to imagine Tor Johnson saying it, with Bela Lugosi standing by.

Tor believe that “meat” is not the most important attribute of the concept of “body”! Tor believe that the word has a deeper, more essential sense, and that under the right circumstances, bread can take on all the necessary and important attributes of the flesh of Christ!

Tor believe that the word has a deeper, more essential sense, and that under the right circumstances, bread can take on all the necessary and important attributes of the flesh of Christ!

BREAD GOOD!

Favorite Bela moment in a movie: When he’s asked if he had a nice trip, he replies, “I always have a nice trip!

Score one for Bela.

I guess I’ve got old-fashioned ideas about this “decency” you’re going on about. I’ll agree that the decent thing to do when someone outside your faith mocks an article of that faith, the decent thing to do is ignore it.

But then, I also think that making threats to defile a harmless symbol of someone else’s faith, knowing full well that said defilement would make people of that faith furious, is indecent in addition to uncivil.

So yes, I think the wingnuts who declare their intentions to pee on the Koran and so on are being indecent, not just uncivil.

Maybe I’ve got outdated notions of what “religious tolerance” means.

Slimy?

I beg your pardon!

Grampaw – The Qur’an is a book. Even if it’s not a good book, I can at least understand getting upset about the mistreatment of a book. That line about burning books and men following, etc.

The sly attempt at conflating the circumstances of catholics and muslims, and on the other hand bringing the holy instruction book into the same “harmless symbol” faith as the magic biscuit, however, causes my eyes to roll. See? Well, if we were talking face to face, you would.

It bears repeating; it’s a goddamned cracker. If people are “furious” over that for the reasons stated, then the fact that they swallow the stated reasons (“it turns into the flesh of our saviour, see, but we’ll waffle about deep meanings and sublime analogies if somebody calls us on that”) so uncritically and wholeheartedly makes SOMEBODY look bad, and it ain’t the mistreaters of baked goods.

When I was in college I went to Mass with my Aunt Patricia. After she took communion she had a sneezing fit and horked out the wafer. Seizing the opportunity, I snagged the cracker and took it down to the Chem Lab. Several days later the DNA results were in: Jesus was a 53 year-old Irish woman.

Who knew?

…when someone outside your faith mocks an article of that faith, the decent thing to do is ignore it.

Agreed.

I also think that making threats to defile a harmless symbol of someone else’s faith, knowing full well that said defilement would make people of that faith furious, is indecent in addition to uncivil … I think the wingnuts who declare their intentions to pee on the Koran and so on are being indecent, not just uncivil.

I disagree; I think in both cases they’re being very uncivil but not indecent.

I guess I’ve got old-fashioned ideas about this “decency” you’re going on about.

Are you sure you speak for the entire past?

I never knew you could be so articulate, Monster.

Ha!

I can speak or write just fine right after a good jolt to the bolts in my neck or when I forget to change my nickname.

That 2×4 was intended for people who might have been thinking of rioting. You know, that same strict standard we use for torturing detainees.

as my dear dear basque friends say: me cago en las tetas de la virgen para que el niño dios mame mierda.

Would they not have said it in Basque?

Myers is being a complete arsehole though. I don’t see why disrespecting someone else’s beliefs, however silly, is something that should be applauded. I think Catholics believe some preposterous nonsense, but why would I want to go on a fucking crusade to make them feel bad about it?

Myers isn’t being an arsehole. The arseholes are the people who are threatening to kill him over a FUCKING CRACKER.

Right, so the reason Myers was saying that shit in the first place was that someone was being harassed and threatened over the wafer thing. It’s pretty different from just deciding, unprovoked, to mock a belief (that seriously, five out of seven Catholics probably couldn’t explain clearly).

Also, Megan McArdle doesn’t know what “civil disobedience” means.

Megan, you don’t know what words mean, do you?

I was raised Catholic. One of the things that pissed me off was the way that Communion, which is supposed to be a sort of redo of the last supper, is just a cracker and some very cheap watered-down red wine. WTF?

I think the Church could gain more adherents if it actually gave out real, good food and drink during Mass. Since the Eucharist is supposed to be unleavened bread, how about a gyro, with lamb, feta and arugula, glazed with a nice salad dressing? Or Jesus pizza. And get some good wine. I think a merlot should be appropriate for the blood of Christ, but I’d also seriously consider a Jesus pinot noir.

Please post recipes for Jesus sandwiches and beverages if you’ve got any good ideas.

Say, didn’t this whole Myers crackr business start because some Catholic kid was at mass and got a wafer and was gonna show it to his non-Catholic buddy and some asshole in the church was a douchebag about it? And hasn’t all this noise been started by that noted not-actually-connected-to-the-Catholic-Church-in-any-official-sense douchebag Bill “Yes, I Am” Donohue. Good rule of thumb: whichever side that guy’s on is the wrong side to be on. Prove me wrong and I’ll own up, but I betcha can’t.

Also, I don’t know why all these Catholics are so mad at the good professor for. If there’s anything at all to their religon, his ass is long since in Hell. Lay off the poor guy, you bastards.

Final also and then I’m gonna get back to At The Circus, I wonder what the hardcore Protestants are thinking about all this. Those good Southern Baptists I grew up with, for example. I can just see Brother Frank speaking to the faithful about how this is a fine example of how Catholics worship icons and saints instead of SWEET JEE-ZUS! and, thus, aren’t real Christians. That ever occur to any of y’all?

I don’t see why disrespecting someone else’s beliefs, however silly, is something that should be applauded.

Because the notion that something must be respected because it is somebody’s “belief”, because they have “faith” in it, is an inherently fallacious and (if you ask me) downright noxious one.

As to why people should be called to account for believing preposterous nonsense, do I REALLY need to spell that one out?

#

Dr Zen said,

July 23, 2008 at 2:13

Myers is being a complete arsehole though. I don’t see why disrespecting someone else’s beliefs, however silly, is something that should be applauded. I think Catholics believe some preposterous nonsense, but why would I want to go on a fucking crusade to make them feel bad about it?

Ok. Let’s be REAL clear about this. Here’s the thing. I’ve been an atheist for a long time. I was always happy to “live and let live”, y’know? You can believe whatever you want, fairies, zombies, talking snakes, pregnant virgins, prophets, trinities that really weren’t, whatever. I don’t give a shit. Seems like you oughta be embarrassed, but then, what do I know.

But then you started in on me. Your very stringent morality started impingeing on my life. People who loved each other couldn’t get married. People were dying because they couldn’t get condoms. You wanted to fuck around in public education, public buildings, public policy. Suddenly your very private “relationship with jesus christ” was fucking up my life. And it was intentional. You genuinely felt that you had some kind of right to inflict your silly fantasies on me, no matter what I chose to believe or not.

Well, sorry, dickwad. You started it. You could very well have just lived by your rules, and let me be. But you couldn’t find that kind of humanity in your shriveled soul, could you? You had to make sure I adhered to your twisted guidelines or you couldn’t feel good about your time on this planet. Pretty sure we can read all we need to know about your actual commitment to your beliefs in that, but whatevs. Fuck you. It’s on.

I will NOT live by the imaginary rules spelled out by your snake and your bush. You can line up and bite me. You wanna make this a contest? Fine. I am a member of the most hated minority in the US, and I’ll still take the deal straight up.

But you. Do NOT tell me I’m being strident or shitty or unfair. You wanna know who’s back is against the wall? You wanna know who is fighting for YOUR freedoms even as you piss on our heads for being loud and uncivil? Think it through. You really wanna end up in a world where the old testament is the law of the land. Ok, it’s not gonna end up there, but every step in that direction is a loss of freedom and diversity.

I will not let that happen without a fight. So break out your terrible swift sword or shove it up your ass…

mikey

Jesus at @21:33 for the win!

uhmmm, mikey, chill out dude; it’s not like catholics would burn you alive if you were not to believe in their stuff… oh wait…

anyhoo, all I am sayin’ is that if some people want to believe that a cracker is the blood and soul of jesus H you should just be more respectful of that. It’s not like beliving that man evolved from monkeys or other crazy shit like that. That’s all I’m sayin…

There ain’t no chill out.

I didn’t choose the game. And I didn’t set the rules.

Oh, and for whatever it’s worth, I’m starting at a great disadvantage.

And I’ll still roll, straight up. ‘Cause you wanna know why?

Here’s why. I got science, and facts, and obvious truth. These assclowns can fight any kind of holding action they want, but they are BOUND to have to shut it down and walk away embarrassed with their heads hung. ‘Cause their story is STUPID. And you don’t have to be any kind of PhD to get that.

It’s 2008. Superstition against empiricism? I’ll take that fight anytime…

mikey

Jesus said, July 22, 2008 at 21:33: Bite me.

Oh fer — No! That’s not what I said! What I said was “Eat me!” and “Drink me!” Get it right or you’re all goin’ ta hay-ell in my loving Name!

And did we hear a peep out of Donahue when non-Catholic Sally Quinn crashed the communion line at Pumpkinhead’s funeral?

I did so say “Bite me!”

Don’t listen to that other Jesus.

I’m the real Jesus.

Just have faith.

I think Catholics believe some preposterous nonsense, but why would I want to go on a fucking crusade to make them feel bad about it?

Oh, I dunno. Maybe because, for one of so many MANY reasons, Catholics historically have made it their mission in life to terrorize the rest of the world into believing that if they’re not Catholics they’re going to burn in hell forever? This is what the nuns at my niece’s elementary school told her when her non-Catholic grandmother died. The Love of Christ, who taketh away the sin of the world. Lord protect me from your believers.

Oopsie! Forgot to change my costume.

PZ’s beef isn’t with transubstantiation, but instead with the very real fact that someone was physically threatened for putting a cracker in a plastic bag.

This was no ordinary cracker!

Dear,

I’m a korean living in seoul.(name: Oh Minseok)
Korean special investigative team investigated samsung
corporation.
But they did not work right.
Suspicious to have been bought off.
Samsung corporation had many crimes.
And the team investigated samsung corporation.
It contained korean companies samsung,hyundai,sk CEOs’ illegal issuing
stocks or bonds. ( previous CEOs or present CEOs )
The quantity are plenty.
(Three company CEOs did(and are doing) many crimes to me.
Many koreans are knowing it.
But many koreans are bought off by illegal issuing stocks or bonds.
Korean prosecutors and judges and bureaucracy are also guilty.)
The team knew it.
Korean special investigative team must investigated this.
But they concealed it.
I ask for asking for this criminal investigation to prosecutors and presidents in any
country and THE WHITE HOUSE(http://www.whitehouse.gov ) and INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE(http://www.icj-cij.org/ ) and INTERNATIONAL CRIME COURT(http://www.un.org/law/icc/) and UN SECURITY COUNCIL(http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/).
And help the shareholders and me.
P.S)
Three companies are hacking me and trying to kill me.
And are suspicious to use my name and email illegally.
If you receive another message that I dictated above are not true,
it is not from me, but from three companies.
The things I dictated above are true.

Interesting, Doctorb, but the greater context, which I didn’t mention, was Megan talking about symbolic versus literal value. Underlying her words there is the argument that the Eucharist is symbolic.

Flannery O’Connor: “Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.”

Or words to that effect.

(Personally I say to hell with it either way, but no one cares what I think.)

all I am sayin’ is that if some people want to believe that a cracker is the blood and soul of jesus H you should just be more respectful of that.

Why? I believe that that belief is insane. I demand that Catholics respect my belief that their belief is insane. What? Why not?

As to the burning at the stake thing, Krassen, timing is everything. Just not socially acceptable anymore, or your sort would do it in a heartbeat today.

Besides which, every damn thing mikey said.

Holy Virgin Mary on a burned toast, mikey and MzNicky! I was being snarky. mikey’s comment was in fact too weak. Historically the catholic (and other christian) bullshit has been rammed down the throats of non-believvers in a most brutal way, while up till this day reasonable, reality-backed theories such as evolution are being assaulted and villified.

I am a scientist by training and I strongly disaprove of the noble aloofness with which we have – for so many years – responded to all this bullshit. It is totally a matter of taking it to these retarded perverts.

Eh. I’ll take a pass on Myers’ redneck-tweaking and Kleiman’s treacly spirituality alike.

There’s a word for this whole sacramental wafer ritual – & that word is fetishism.

Oh boo hoo, some geek on the Interwebs is disrespecting the power & the glory of our sacred baked-goods! Yet more proof of how heinously oppressed Christians are in this horrible secular world! It’s the Holocaust all over again! WAAAAAAAAHHHH!
Is that perchance karma coming back to bite the RCs in their nether regions for all their long brutal centuries of cruelty & arrogance? Why yes, I do believe it is. Very very gently, might I add.

I say let the bloody communal wafers defend themselves.

…I strongly disaprove of the noble aloofness with which we have – for so many years – responded to all this bullshit.

I wonder if that noble aloofness is a vestige of how scientists had to act when gainsaying the Church could get them burned at the stake and not just telephoned death threats.

Eh. I’ll take a pass on Myers’ redneck-tweaking and Kleiman’s treacly spirituality alike.

Likewise. My brother is a huge Myers fan and keeps sending me links – my response to Myers’ stuff is generally agreement with the message and embarrassment at the presentation (and the commenters, oy).

FOOLS!!!!!!!

CRACKERS AND WINE ARE WE!!!!!!!

AS TRANSMOGRIFIED THROUGH ME AND MY SON AND ALSO THE HOLY GHOST!!!!!!!

ALL THREE OF US TOGETHER!!!!!!!

WHEN YOU EAT US IN CHURCH!!!!!!!

THE CONSECRATED FLESH AND BLOOD OF OUR GODS!!!!!!!

AFTER CRAZY OLD DUDES HAVE DONE STRANGE THINGS TO IT AND US!!!!!!!

OTHERWISE WE’RE JUST CRACKERS AND WINE!!!!!!!

“Catholics do not believe that the bread is transformed into the same sorts of molecules that would have composed the actual flesh of Christ. What they believe is “meat” is not the most important attribute of the concept of “body”–that the word has a deeper, more essential sense, and that under the right circumstances, bread can take on all the necessary and important attributes of the flesh of Christ.”

According to what I was taught during theology classes in my Roman Catholic high school, this kind of logic-chopping is what got Martin Luthor in all that trouble with the Pope. The good nuns were careful to specify it was only a rural legend that Luthor the Apostate’s long history of painful hemmerhoids was a result of his narcissistic enchantment with his own sophistry…

I don’t know about the Catholics, but in the weird-ass Lutheranism I grew up in, the wafer tasted like ass.

Pelican ass.

And the wine tasted like badger wee.

eff that. Atheism says I don’t have to eat or drink anything that doesn’t taste good to me.

Not all of us a catholic priests, you know…

I got pretty involved in the thread, and a couple of belligerent Internet Tough Guys’ posturing aside, there was a general agreement between me and another one of the posters:

a) Catholicism isn’t any better or worse than any other kind of Christianity, on the balance – in fact, they’ve got a sound enough grasp of basic logic (a few irrational hangups aside) that it’s actually possible to hold a coherent conversation with them. On the other hand, evangelicals believe that because gluon theory doesn’t quite work as currently formulated, it must be Jesus that holds the atom together.

b) What the kid did was offensive and pointless; he had to have known it was; and the reaction to him was completely inappropriate. The proper reaction would have been a few nasty letters and maybe some kind of church interdict; instead, the Catholic Leaguers actively attempted to ruin his life (and a lot of evangelical dickwanks jumped aboard, eager for any chance to act hysterical – in spite of the offended party being a church they normally despise)

c) This is a really, really unimportant issue; totemistic behavior like this will accomplish nothing. (And PZ’s post immediately after that, about hardline Protestants and charismatics infiltrating the military, was important.) The kid’s several excuses for stealing the wafer were at odds with each other; it seems like it was just some kind of stupid prank.

d) While the belief in communion is irrational, affecting to disprove it by a means like this is rather like responding to an old wives’ tale by holding the teller down and pissing in their face: it would be wrong, it would be vaguely disgusting, and them responding by kneecapping you would be even worse.

Count me in with those who think that PZ is being dickish here, in the way that kids at Catholic school are dickish about Communion. But prankster kids at Catholic school don’t get that kind of response, and neither should the host-appropriator or PZ.

The smart response is to use the institutional heft of the Catholic hierarchy against that rich, self-appointed blowhole of a publicity whore of an insufferable front-row Papist. Once every bishop in the country is forced to defend or repudiate Donohue on the record, his power fades the fuck away.

Two men say they’re Jesus. One of them must be wrong…

Sometimes I’ll read something that makes me seethe, but it takes a while to figure out why it makes me seethe. In this case it’s McMegan’s pseudo-apology.

So, she wrote the article because of the grief she got for advocated the slamming of protesters in the head on a preemptive basis — before they could become rioters. But, of course, her critics are acting in bad faith because “there is no possible reasonable reading of that post which interprets it as randomly exhorting violence against people who were lawfully marching in protest of the war.”

She’s only admitting that the joke was bad, because “[t]o the extent that either the state or private citizens are forced to use violence to prevent violence, it should always be more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger.”

But this is the part that stuck with me, and my disdain centered on one word: warbloggers.

Why did I write it? In part, because blogging was a new medium for the warbloggers, and many of us had an unfortunate tendency to say the kind of ridiculous things that one says without meaning them at bars in 3 am, except in print where everyone can enjoy them forever. If you’ve ever declared that people who jump queues should be shot, you have some sense of what I mean.

So, to this day she labels herself a warblogger and tosses off an admission that warbloggers sometimes said silly things with no hint of self-examination. What else did warbloggers do besides declare that people be shot, bombed and nuked, along with their children and families, preemptively, in order to “prevent violence?” In her own mind, how does she distinguish this 3-am-in-a-bar-silliness from her 12-noon-very-very-serious warmongering? From where I sit, it’s all exactly the same, and all exceedingly disgusting.

According to what I was taught during theology classes in my Roman Catholic high school, this kind of logic-chopping is what got Martin Luthor in all that trouble with the Pope.

Actually, it’s what got Lex Luther in all that trouble with Superman.

Same basic story.

[…] without charges, with torturing people, and myriad of other assaults on core American values. As HTML Mencken puts it, they care about incivility, but not indecency. As many liberal bloggers have put it in […]