PZ Myers and the Desecration

  • Thread starter Thread starter CGDouglas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to PZ Myers’ blog and you’’’ see HUNDREDS of replies to his act (by now there should be almost a thousand) Around half denounces him, and around half praises/supports him. You can guess what kind of people who do the praising/supporting 😉
 
yesukristus said:
Go to PZ Myers’ blog and you’’’ see HUNDREDS of replies to his act (by now there should be almost a thousand) Around half denounces him, and around half praises/supports him. You can guess what kind of people who do the praising/supporting 😉
Click to expand...
Yep, those of us who believe in free speech and who are agaisnt granting dogma special privilages who seek to censor it.
 
Isambard said:
Yep, those of us who believe in free speech and who are agaisnt granting dogma special privilages who seek to censor it.
Click to expand...
The issue was never one of free speech. It was one of decency, respect, and tolerance, which are all qualities I would have expected from every single one of my college professors, not least because they all taught at a public and state-funded institution.

It appals me that people would continue to say, “Well, he didn’t do anything illegal,” and claim that this somehow excuses Myers from the rules of respectful, intelligent discourse – particularly if Myers’ goal is to get people to agree with him about the Eucharist.
 
GJx86 said:
The issue was never one of free speech. It was one of decency, respect, and tolerance, which are all qualities I would have expected from every single one of my college professors, not least because they all taught at a public and state-funded institution.
Click to expand...
That’s nice, but he did the deed on his own blog
GJx86 said:
It appals me that people would continue to say, “Well, he didn’t do anything illegal,” and claim that this somehow excuses Myers from the rules of respectful, intelligent discourse – particularly if Myers’ goal is to get people to agree with him about the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
It was done as a form of protest agaisnt what happened with that kid who received death threats for taking the Eucharist home. You don’t threaten someone, then demand respect.
 
Isambard said:
That’s nice, but he did the deed on his own blog
Click to expand...
This doesn’t excuse him from being a reasonable human being. As a professor for the Minnesota system, Myers is a representative of the University at all times, whether he is acting in an official capacity for them or not.

Moreover, the fact that he could be so bigoted speaks poorly of his ability to competently do his job, which includes the elements of respect I have spoken of and which the University expects from its employees.
Isambard said:
It was done as a form of protest agaisnt what happened with that kid who received death threats for taking the Eucharist home. You don’t threaten someone, then demand respect.
Click to expand...
Who did I threaten?
 
GJx86 said:
This doesn’t excuse him from being a reasonable human being. As a professor for the Minnesota system, Myers is a representative of the University at all times, whether he is acting in an official capacity for them or not.
Click to expand...
Protesting is something proffs do. He broke no rules as he did it at home.
GJx86 said:
Moreover, the fact that he could be so bigoted speaks poorly of his ability to competently do his job, which includes the elements of respect I have spoken of and which the University expects from its employees.
Click to expand...
Bigoted in what way?
GJx86 said:
Who did I threaten?
Click to expand...
I was speaking in general terms. The reactions both Myers and the kid got were insane and bordering on idolitry. You seriously can’t demand respect of people are literally have their lives threatened because of their desire to express free speech.

What I found ironic about this whole incident, is that in the Catholic League’s efforts to get Myers fired, they simply gave him publicity, and now you have many immitators on youtube. You would’ve thought that acting insanely and demanding respect would’ve died with the Muhammed cartoons and how that totally backfired.
 
Isambard said:
Protesting is something proffs do. He broke no rules as he did it at home.
Click to expand...
Protesting is one thing. Doing it the way Myers did it is quite another, which is the point. It is possible to disagree with someone’s beliefs without going out of your way to offend that person. We’re doing exactly that in this thread.

What Myers said is nothing new. People have denied the Eucharist for centuries. He erred in how he said it.
I was speaking in general terms. The reactions both Myers and the kid got were insane and bordering on idolitry. You seriously can’t demand respect of people are literally have their lives threatened because of their desire to express free speech.
Click to expand...
This, again, is not about free speech. I did not threaten anyone, and neither did the vast majority of Catholics. Because of that, we can demand respect. To claim otherwise is to both hastily generalize (“All Catholics are angry people who will threaten with death and restrict free speech at the drop of a hat”) and divide (“Even those Catholics who did not threaten anyone should face consequences because they are Catholics, who are generally angry people who will threaten with death…”).

Look, I don’t care whether Myers disagrees with Catholic doctrine. Lots of people do. I also don’t care if he thinks that religion, in general, is stupid. Lots of people do that, too. I don’t even care if he wants to write a blog about it. Plenty of atheists have blogs where they share their opinions. Some of them even write books, and I don’t care if they publish and sell them. This is not about whether Myers is free to express his opinions.

What I do care about is that Myers clearly went out of his way to be offensive, and that some people seem to think that this is okay because of some combination of the statements that (1) “it wasn’t illegal,” (2) “he did it on his own blog,” and (3) “someone else started it.” When did intentionally offending and provoking people become an acceptable, reasonable form of discourse?

I have always assumed that Myers’ goal in doing this was to prove something about the falsity of Catholic doctrine. Leaving aside the fact that his experiment was incapable of doing any such thing, do you really, truly think that any “theist,” Catholic or not, will be convinced to abandon their faith after reading the invective that Myers prepared for those he disagreed with?
 
  • Theif
  • Vandal
  • Inciter
He committed theft. He stole, or enlisted someone to steal an object that was not his.

He proceeded to vandalize said object that was not his.

He committed said act in order to intentionally insult a group to encourage them to react in an extreme manner. (He WAS NOT trying to encourage reasoned debate.)
 
You’ve confused his intention. His intetion was to demonstate that (some) catholics are so idolitrous in respects to the Eucharist, that they would resort to insane behaviour.

Given the death threats he’s received, I think he’s demostrated his point.
 
Isambard said:
You’ve confused his intention. His intetion was to demonstate that (some) catholics are so idolitrous in respects to the Eucharist, that they would resort to insane behaviour.

Given the death threats he’s received, I think he’s demostrated his point.
Click to expand...
Trying to prove a point does not make it okay to go out of your way to be as offensive as possible.

And really, if this was Myers’ goal, he had nothing to prove – some Catholics had already broken both American and Church law by threatening Webster Cook over the incident at UCF, so it was already evident that some people were and are crazy. Why go out of your way to provoke more of them?
 
I_A said:
IslamBard,

Is he a theif and a vandal?
Click to expand...
Nope and nope.

Its kinda hard to steal something that is freely given. Doubly hard to do it if someone freely mails you item in question fully knowing what you intend.

An allegation of vandal would be even harder to proof if you remember what exactly happens to the Eucharist once you receive it (you eat it, gets disgested, comes out the other end). The little things arn’t statues to be places on display. They were meant for public consumption.

PS. Why did you add an L to my screen name?
 
GJx86 said:
Trying to prove a point does not make it okay to go out of your way to be as offensive as possible.
Click to expand...
I can think of at least two dozen ways he could’ve made it more offensive tbh. lol
GJx86 said:
And really, if this was Myers’ goal, he had nothing to prove – some Catholics had already broken both American and Church law by threatening Webster Cook over the incident at UCF, so it was already evident that some people were and are crazy. Why go out of your way to provoke more of them?
Click to expand...
To drive the point home that Islamists arn’t the only ones to be worried about.
 
IsamBard,

So if I were a famous movie villian (the Joker) and I announced to the whole city I wanted a man dead (Wayne Corp. Employee who Knew Batman’s Identiy) and I would reimburse that man with money would he be accountable for murder?

If I enlisted an accomplice to rob a bank, they’d be the ones who were to go in, take the money, but the accomplice I previously arranged to reimburse were to send it to me freely, would I be a bank robber?

If I talked an aquantice into going into somebody’s house to take a beloved object so they could take some delight in watching me taunt the owner as I destroy it would I be responsible for that aquantice taking it?

If I were to request somebody steal an object, so they could take some twisted delight in my mutilation of it, I would be directly responsible for that theft with my intent to reimburse the accomplice with satiating his twisted desires to see what millions worship as God pierced with a nail.

In the previous examples the inciter would be charged with the act. The “I just offered to pay the hitman money, I didn’t murder him myself” excuse doesn’t fly in criminal court. That is essentially the defense your offering. (Note I am not saying defiling the eucharist is murder, I am setting up conditions for participating in an illegal act.)

Edit: Sorry about the “L.” Misread your name.
 
Isambard said:
To drive the point home that Islamists arn’t the only ones to be worried about.
Click to expand...
I dunno. Are you worried about me? I’m not particularly dangerous… 😉

I know a lot of atheists see religion as a danger to society, and frankly, I’ve seen a lot of writing and words from theists of all stripes that make me understand why someone would be more inclined to hold that view.

But I also think that if we – and I’m speaking of everyone, atheist or not – want to make intellectual progress, we have to think, speak, and write in intelligent, respectful ways. Those who hold truly disagreeable, ignorant opinions and those who are violent and disrespectful in the name of their faith do need to be dealt with, but I maintain that this can only be done with a voice of reason and a spirit of charity, and I feel that Myers showed neither of these qualities in what he did and said. Rather than raise the level of discourse, he lowered it, and unnecessarily offended a lot of people in the process.

If the goal is to remove intolerance and idiocy from society, then one cannot stoop to intolerance and idiocy by trying to provoke people. That’s all I’m getting at here. Myers’ comments offended me personally even though I’m not a dangerous person and didn’t threaten him (or anyone else) over this incident. As his fellow humans and thinkers, we should reprimand him for stooping so low, not because any specific person’s feelings were hurt, but because he has fallen into exactly that which he wanted to speak out against.
 
Well I guess this means the Church is still relevent. Can’t remember the last time a statue of Apollo or Zeus was desecrated. Thanks professor… I guess. :confused:
Athiests sure spend a lot of time worrying about these, what they call, “silly superstitions”.

God bless
 
Isambard said:
Nope and nope.

Its kinda hard to steal something that is freely given.
Click to expand...
Although I find talk of theft unconstructive, this is untrue. The Church places requirements on receiving the Eucharist and there are times when I as a Catholic cannot receive Communion. Just because there is no economic exchange does not mean it is “freely given”.
 
Roman_Catholic said:
Well I guess this means the Church is still relevent. Can’t remember the last time a statue of Apollo or Zeus was desecrated. Thanks professor… I guess. :confused:
Athiests sure spend a lot of time worrying about these, what they call, “silly superstitions”.

God bless
Click to expand...
I saw hundreds of comments on his blogs from his fellow “atheists” who said that by committing this act that he was being hypocritical and actually promoting these “silly superstitions” insteading of showing them to be “silly”.

I just think he’s a very hateful and angry lost soul, who really has no idea what he believes.I would think that someone who believes there is no God, wouldn’t spend nearly the time worrying about Him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top