PZ Myers and the Desecration

[Christophorus72]

That’s nice, but he did the deed on his own blog

the blog was tied to the University of Minnesota-Morris, and could be accessed from their website, until they removed the link, AFTER he made the threats. the treats he made go against the University of Minnesota’s mission statement.

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.

these claims of the kid getting “death threats” have never been proven true to this day. how can you protest against an event that never took place? I don’t know, but shouldn’t a science professor be using factual evidence to back up his claims? of course, he doesn’t. he would rather rely upon the media and statements made by a kid who just got kicked off the university senate.

Myers saw an opportunity to try and promote an agenda, one in which I’m not fully convinced he believes in given the comments left by his fellow “atheists”. Maybe you should go read some of his previous blog entries prior to this event to get a true picture of what this guy supposedly “represents”.

You don’t demand respect by being disrespectful.

 

[Teelynn]

Why people are still insisting this pertains to freedom of speech, I will never know. Once he enlisted someone to steal consecrated hosts from a Catholic Mass, he was an accomplice to theft. (and incitement, and hatred which might or might not be tough to prove) He crossed the line from freedom of speech into action. Regardless of the distribution of The Eucharist, (handing the Host out to “the public”) it seems to me there is an implied intent of the Church that if you are to receive The Eucharist, you are to do with it what the Church intends. Possibly, now, The Church is going to have to post signs in Church that say something like"Only Roman Catholics are eligible to receive Communion, the Consecrated Host is not to be removed from the Church for the intent of destruction or harm. **Anyone removing the consecrated Host from the Church that intends destruction and/or malicious intent is guilty of theft. **Seems crazy, and very sad, but in this day and age? I know in my diocese the legal team is almost unbeatable…would it be legal to do this? I dunno. Have to ask the lawyers. I don’t know why this would be any different than illegally pirating DVD’s etc. I would think that the recent desecrations by both the FLA. and MN. people might initiate some kind of protective measure. I would only hope.

 

[jman507]

How lame. I’m sure he thinks he’s “avant garde” now and really “provocative.” Now he goes on about how people are trying to get him fired, or at least disciplined due to the University PC rule. I mean at least Turnbuckle was willing to fight Ian in a duel in Chesterton’s The Ball and the Cross not that I’d advise anyone to fight a duel. If this whole thing hasn’t been played out before, I just don’t think I’d be so lame. I’m sure most realize when we say the consecrated host is Jesus, we do not mean that if you take it out and analyze it your going to see Jesus. If we say it is Jesus, we are not saying that in a strict materialistic sense.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Yep, those of us who believe in free speech and who are agaisnt granting dogma special privilages who seek to censor it.

You might want to spellcheck your profile ignostic does not compute.

**

quote=Isambard
Religion

:
ignostic

**
The fact is that anyone and everyone can and should have free speech. But, going out of your way to offend a religion is just not socially acceptable and in this case goes beyond speech.

 

[muehlbau]

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?

Myers incited people to steal the hosts; they didn’t just “freely mail them to him.” And, for your information, there are certain requirements for rightfully receiving the Eucharist. One is being a Catholic, and another is being in a state of grace. No one who would steal the Eucharist for the purpose of sending it to someone to be defiled could possibly be in a state of grace. In essence, the person who took the Holy Eucharist for this purpose, took it without fulfilling the necessary requirements to lawfully receive it. That’s stealing, and for PZ Myers to encourage it, means he was an accomplice to that theft. it doesn’t matter whether you, PZ Myers, or a million other atheist thugs place any value on it, what matters is that it was taken without fulfilling the obligations for rightfully receiving it.

 

[Teelynn]

Myers incited people to steal the hosts; they didn’t just “freely mail them to him.” And, for your information, there are certain requirements for rightfully receiving the Eucharist. One is being a Catholic, and another is being in a state of grace. No one who would steal the Eucharist for the purpose of sending it to someone to be defiled could possibly be in a state of grace. In essence, the person who took the Holy Eucharist for this purpose, took it without fulfilling the necessary requirements to lawfully receive it. That’s stealing, and for PZ Myers to encourage it, means he was an accomplice to that theft. it doesn’t matter whether you, PZ Myers, or a million other atheist thugs place any value on it, what matters is that it was taken without fulfilling the obligations for rightfully receiving it.

Exactly! Wouldn’t it be the same thing as “pirating” DVD’s? They “intend” for you to watch this only…it’s freely bought but once you get it into your house they tell you it is ILLEGAL to copy it. I don’t know, this may or may not be a good analogy.

 

[Benedictus]

You might want to spellcheck your profile ignostic does not compute.

No, ignosticism is an actual philosophical position.

 

[ribozyme]

How lame. I’m sure he thinks he’s “avant garde” now and really “provocative.” Now he goes on about how people are trying to get him fired, or at least disciplined due to the University PC rule. I mean at least Turnbuckle was willing to fight Ian in a duel in Chesterton’s The Ball and the Cross not that I’d advise anyone to fight a duel. If this whole thing hasn’t been played out before, I just don’t think I’d be so lame. I’m sure most realize when we say the consecrated host is Jesus, we do not mean that if you take it out and analyze it your going to see Jesus. If we say it is Jesus, we are not saying that in a strict materialistic sense.

One can say that transubstantiation is Aristotelian essentialist nonsense. But that is just me after I read Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies where he argues against their essentialism and advocates nominalism. To a nominalist, it looks like a piece of bread so let’s call it bread. Essentalism doesn’t tell the empirical mind anything meaningful about the world.

How is essentialism useful in describing the world?

 

[Eden]

One can say that transubstantiation is Aristotelian essentialist nonsense. But that is just me after I read Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies where he argues against their essentialism and advocates nominalism. To a nominalist, it looks like a piece of bread so let’s call it bread. Essentalism doesn’t tell the empirical mind anything meaningful about the world.

How is essentialism useful in describing the world?

Haven’t we already been over this? The understanding that the consecrated Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Christ was present in the earliest days of the Church. Just read the Church Fathers. Why you are hung up on St. Thomas Aquinas’s 13th century explanation of the process of transubstantiation using Aristotelian philosophy is beyond me. You may not be aware of this, but no one had any interest in Aristotle in the first 12 centuries of Christianity. And the eastern Fathers, before the sixth century, used the Greek expression metaousiosis, or “change of being,” which is essentially the same idea. In other words, transubstantiation was a reality for over 1,000 before Aquinas attempted to explain how it occurred using Aristotelian philosophy. You seem to have fallen victim to the myth that transubstantiation is dependent upon Aristotelian philosophy. It’s not.

 

[ribozyme]

Using the word “being” in that context is basically “essentialism.”

 

[Dale_M]

In essence, the person who took the Holy Eucharist for this purpose, took it without fulfilling the necessary requirements to lawfully receive it. That’s stealing, and for PZ Myers to encourage it, means he was an accomplice to that theft.

Well, under Church law it may have been “theft” (I am not sure that charge is actually in the canons), but it wasn’t theft under civil law. A person who hands you a playbill intends for you to read it, but it is legal for you to blow your nose on it if you so choose - socially revolting, perhaps, but legal. Similarly, the Church wants you to consume the Eucharist, but after giving it to you, you are legally free to take it home. Again, revolting behavior, but legal.

 

[strngrnrth]

There is no possible noble aspect to Myers’ behavior. If he had wanted to demonstrate his baseless idea that Catholics are violent, he had many ways at his disposal to test that theory, which he rejected out of hand because he knew any actual test of such a statement would result in the answer, “No, Catholics are not a particularly violent group, quite the contrary they are much less likely to commit unwarranted violence than are atheists e.g.” Instead, he chose to test the theory “insulting behavior, if displayed publicly, can get attention”, and of course he proved it can, but then we knew that. So he accomplished what?

 

[jman507]

One can say that transubstantiation is Aristotelian essentialist nonsense. But that is just me after I read Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies where he argues against their essentialism and advocates nominalism. To a nominalist, it looks like a piece of bread so let’s call it bread. Essentalism doesn’t tell the empirical mind anything meaningful about the world.

How is essentialism useful in describing the world?

It might not be useful to you, but regardless of if you categorize it this way or that way doesn’t automatically mean that it is accurate.

 

[Isambard]

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.

I don’t believe (and neither does Myers from what Ive read) that religion is inherently dangerous. What is dangerous to society, it religious idea of the sacred. Something,doctrine, or belief, that should never be questioned, mocked, critisized, or desecrated in any way.

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.

I think naked satire, both literal and in the physical sense, tends to demonstrate the reality of a strong presence of dogma in an ideology.

I mean, it was one thing to say that fundamentalist Islam is dangerous and desires to censor freespeech at all costs, but seeing what happens when someone published a cartoon satirizing the fundy ideology is much more powerful.

This is similar to seeing what was done to the kid following the alledged Eucharist heist, and Myers own little experiment. Or Mahr’s pope comments.

 

[Isambard]

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.

I don’t believe (and neither does Myers from what Ive read) that religion is inherently dangerous. What is dangerous to society, it religious idea of the sacred. Something,doctrine, or belief, that should never be questioned, mocked, critisized, or desecrated in any way.

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.

I think naked satire, both literal and in the physical sense, tends to demonstrate the reality of a strong presence of dogma in an ideology.

I mean, it was one thing to say that fundamentalist Islam is dangerous and desires to censor freespeech at all costs, but seeing what happens when someone published a cartoon satirizing the fundy ideology is much more powerful.

This is similar to seeing what was done to the kid following the alledged Eucharist heist, and Myers own little experiment. Or Mahr’s pope comments.

 

[Isambard]

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.

I don’t believe (and neither does Myers from what Ive read) that religion is inherently dangerous. What is dangerous to society, it religious idea of the sacred. Something,doctrine, or belief, that should never be questioned, mocked, critisized, or desecrated in any way.

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.

I think naked satire, both literal and in the physical sense, tends to demonstrate the reality of a strong presence of dogma in an ideology.

I mean, it was one thing to say that fundamentalist Islam is dangerous and desires to censor freespeech at all costs, but seeing what happens when someone published a cartoon satirizing the fundy ideology is much more powerful.

This is similar to seeing what was done to the kid following the alledged Eucharist heist, and Myers own little experiment. Or Mahr’s pope comments.

 

[jman507]

Well, under Church law it may have been “theft” (I am not sure that charge is actually in the canons), but it wasn’t theft under civil law. A person who hands you a playbill intends for you to read it, but it is legal for you to blow your nose on it if you so choose - socially revolting, perhaps, but legal. Similarly, the Church wants you to consume the Eucharist, but after giving it to you, you are legally free to take it home. Again, revolting behavior, but legal.

I’m sure if you really want to you can make an argument to mean that it is theft by civil law, but exactly what one can accomplish by taking it to court I don’t know? Take it to small claims court, and the Church gets a replacement host?

The whole act is uncivil, and intellectually arrogant. If he wants to do an act of a bad third-rate Socrates, that’s his problem. I can understand being offended over a a person who purposely profanes what other’s find is sacred just to provoke a response. Among other things, it’s an offence to civility. You can make your protest, but over that there is only so much you can do. The rest you have to leave to God. Even if he thinks his action to be humorous, and does a good job of making his point. Hopefully he’ll look back at his actions, and realize the harm they made.

 

[KathleenElsie]

No, ignosticism is an actual philosophical position.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Ambox_content.png
An editor has expressed concern that this article may be documenting a neologism.
This new term needs more reliable sources.

[" is itself a neologism and its use should be avoided.)
**
**Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. ****Protologisms%between%protologisms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism)

 

[Isambard]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

****

Yes, its a relatively new philosophical position that is still being hammered out. What’s your point?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Yes, its a relatively new philosophical position that is still being hammered out. What’s your point?

That new words that have no universal meanings and can be made to “mean” anything should be used with a disclaimer.

Also, as others on other threads have been asking “Why are you here?” It does not seem it is to learn or even to ask questions you want answers for. You IMHO seem to be proselytizing for your religion of Atheism.