Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   P.Z. Myers in the news (the catholic church communion wafer incident)
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 16 of 104 (474927)
07-12-2008 11:19 AM


How is mocking anyone a proper response? What does it do to gain respect and acceptance of ones own views? Talking down to people never works. It is easy to see the absurdity in many of these beliefs but mocking people who hold these beliefs does nothing but increase animosity and distrust on both sides of the issues. Antagonizing those people that one wants to convince is neither rational or prudent.
Time and time again atheists and agnostics who reject theism and organized religion state we only want respect, acceptance, and a public voice.
We then see a main public voice who is also a prominent academic respond as such:
"Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers?....if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web.”
To see a prominent academic lose his composure like this is embarrassing. If I did not know who this was I would think it was a high school student posting at Dawkins.net. This type of rhetoric goes a long way in increasing the public understanding of science and acceptance of atheists as mature and productive members of society who have a lot to offer civilization. When this type of polemic comes from the forefront of the effort, from those who are supposed to be the main figures, there is a problem. We are supposed to be the ones who show we are motivated by reason and do not let our emotions lead us into such outbursts.
We demand respect and state that you do not have to agree with me but please at least give me the respect I deserve as a fellow citizen and human being. Unfortunately, we do not appear to be willing to give it. What Catholic Scientist has stated is true -- we are hypocrites. We simply deny it.
This is the part about the 'post-modern' atheist humanist movement that I just do not get and I care not to be associated with. Quite frankly, it is an embarrassment. Juvenile name calling is for weak-minded individuals who have let reason, common sense, and any sense of decorum fly out the window. The majority of the 'Debate' in the public arena has appeared to degrade into nothing more than a volley of repetitive insults being tossed back and forth. If it wasn't for moderation, even this forum would be your typical Dawkins or Myers forum with sophomoric insults being tossed back and forth ad infinitum. It appears the belief is if I can publicly insult you enough then you will eventually come around to my position. Bible thumping on the forehead has been replaced with brow-beating with reason.
The militant elements have thoroughly indoctrinated a new cadre of individuals who are looking for purpose and meaning to their lives. They have been initiated into a new tribalism of the mind where one is indoctrinated to judge an individual's worth as a human being based solely on his or her intellectual and rational capabilities. Being accepted into this club now offers fulfillment and a sense of belonging. One is commanded to go forth and conquer knowing that we are the master race and they are the inferior race that needs to be eradicated like a virus. Mankind has found yet another way to manufacture prejudice and create further divisions and discord.
Dawkins and company in-your-face brand of proselytization will not work. Telling people they are stupid deluded fools is not going to win any converts or gain acceptance. Anyone who thinks it will is out of touch with reality. Many public figures withint the athiest/humanist movement are slowly falling to the same level of those we condemn for emotional outbursts and tirades. Our arrogance and contempt for others and a failure to try to comprehend the human and emotional reasons for acceptance of these beliefs is the reason I believe the atheist position will never be fully accepted within mainstream American society.
End of rant. Let the insults begin.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by bluegenes, posted 07-12-2008 12:22 PM Grizz has replied
 Message 27 by Granny Magda, posted 07-12-2008 7:24 PM Grizz has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 17 of 104 (474930)
07-12-2008 12:03 PM


Unsolicited Criticism
My mum is an RC. I can tell you that real hurt is caused to these people by such a desecration. I don't understand it either. It's a flippin' wafer. They don't even taste good. If there was ever a sacrilege it was dropping the Body of Christ down my gob for seven years. But I'd not tell my mum that for no good reason. If she insisted upon dropping the BoC down my kid's gobs that'd be another matter altogether. Then she'd have it coming.
What was being defended that warranted such an insult?
Edited by lyx2no, : Tense.

Kindly
Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.
‘—

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 18 of 104 (474931)
07-12-2008 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Grizz
07-12-2008 11:19 AM


Grizz writes:
How is mocking anyone a proper response?
You mean, for example, claiming that people are immature or "sophomoric" because you dislike something they've said?
Myers is ridiculing the ridiculous. Protecting ridiculous beliefs from the ridicule that they deserve is what religion depends on for its survival. One of the ways this is done in modern times is the "we are offended" cry. The other is threatening behaviour, right up to the point of death threats.
Neither Myers nor his supporters are promoting or threatening violence, so far as I know, let alone issuing death threats.
Juvenile name calling is for weak-minded individuals who have let reason, common sense, and any sense of decorum fly out the window.
Well, you said it.
End of rant. Let the insults begin.
Begin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Grizz, posted 07-12-2008 11:19 AM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Grizz, posted 07-12-2008 3:55 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 104 (474961)
07-12-2008 3:32 PM


Well, in my opinion, anyone is entitled to their delusional beliefs. However, when those delusions cause you to harass and threaten other people and generally cause you to betray sociopathic tendencies that make it impossible for you to live peaceably in society, the usual response is to confine you and forcibly medicate you.
Personally, I think Donahue and the Catholic League are being let off pretty leniently by only having some crackers "desecrated".

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 20 of 104 (474964)
07-12-2008 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by bluegenes
07-12-2008 12:22 PM


You mean, for example, claiming that people are immature or "sophomoric" because you dislike something they've said?
"Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers?....if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web.”
One would be hard-pressed to find any truly objective individual who would not categorize the response as anything but sophomoric, immature, and unbecoming of a man of his academic stature and position. One would also be hard-pressed to find anyone who, had they not known the author of such a comment, would think that it came from a distinguished academic and university professor who is at the forefront of the public push for reason and the advancement of science.
He has embarrassed himself by lowering himself to the same level of fanatical polemic that usually comes from the mouths of religious kooks. How about resolving the issue by having a spitball fight with Donohue or perhaps invite to kick his ass after school?
You don't need to damage your own professional reputation by engaging in a tit-for-tat with the irrational. You will only succeed in dragging yourself down into the mud with those who sling the dirt. Myers response sounds more like what one would expect from an emotionally charged fanatic rather than a man of reason. Why nobody else can see this(perhaps they have lost their objectivity and don't want to see this), is beyond me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by bluegenes, posted 07-12-2008 12:22 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by cavediver, posted 07-12-2008 4:12 PM Grizz has replied
 Message 32 by bluegenes, posted 07-13-2008 12:09 PM Grizz has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 21 of 104 (474969)
07-12-2008 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Grizz
07-12-2008 3:55 PM


Myers response sounds more like what one would expect from an emotionally charged fanatic rather than a man of reason.
In a sense, yes. Myers has just heard that the kid who 'borrowed' the wafer has been threatened with death. Myers is beside himself with fury, and vents with the paragraph you quote. You seem to be reading it as if he's trying to be funny... read it again from this perspective and it makes pefect sense. He has my full support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Grizz, posted 07-12-2008 3:55 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Grizz, posted 07-12-2008 4:45 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 35 by Dr Jack, posted 07-15-2008 5:18 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 22 of 104 (474975)
07-12-2008 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by cavediver
07-12-2008 4:12 PM


In a sense, yes. Myers has just heard that the kid who 'borrowed' the wafer has been threatened with death. Myers is beside himself with fury, and vents with the paragraph you quote. You seem to be reading it as if he's trying to be funny... read it again from this perspective and it makes pefect sense. He has my full support.
I understand; however, Myers is a prominent figure at the forefront and people are watching. He is also an established academic with a pofessional reputation to uphold. Those with opposing views are looking for anything they can possibly use to portray atheists, agnostics, and humanists in a negative light. They enjoy potraying athiests as angry fanatics who do not make productive, responsibile and respectfull members of society. Stuff like this just gives them all the ammunition they need. It also does a bit of damage to his personal reputation in the eyes of even some who support him.
One cannot call for a society guided by reason and rationality then fly off the handle in public like this. This just looks really silly. This has nothing to do with free speech. It's about how the public views you. If the goal is to gain respect and acceptance this is not the way to do it. This type of public expression is totally beneath a man of his stature -- inflamed or not.
I once heard an African American talk about the problems minorities faced in the professional work force. He said one has to always dress twice as sharp and always maintin your public apperance and composure, regardless of the circumstances. People are always watching and always trying to find something to judge you by.
The same reasoning, I believe, applies to those who hold a minority worldview. One can never put on a public face that reinforces any negative stereotypes. You just can't do it -- suck it up and move forward. There are many ways to get a point accross.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by cavediver, posted 07-12-2008 4:12 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 07-12-2008 5:34 PM Grizz has not replied
 Message 24 by anglagard, posted 07-12-2008 5:50 PM Grizz has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 23 of 104 (474984)
07-12-2008 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Grizz
07-12-2008 4:45 PM


Grizz,
One cannot call for a society guided by reason and rationality then fly off the handle in public like this. This just looks really silly.
If you can't fly off the handle because someone is getting death threats because someone else believes a cooky is a human/god, then when can you?
It seems to me that flying off the handle moments should be reserved for exactly this sort of situation, because these people are acting so unreasonably & so irrationally.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Grizz, posted 07-12-2008 4:45 PM Grizz has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 24 of 104 (474986)
07-12-2008 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Grizz
07-12-2008 4:45 PM


Truth and Honor
Grizz writes:
I understand; however, Myers is a prominent figure at the forefront and people are watching. He is also an established academic with a pofessional reputation to uphold. Those with opposing views are looking for anything they can possibly use to portray atheists, agnostics, and humanists in a negative light. They enjoy potraying athiests as angry fanatics who do not make productive, responsibile and respectfull members of society. Stuff like this just gives them all the ammunition they need. It also does a bit of damage to his personal reputation in the eyes of even some who support him.
This stance is the enemy of truth.
So what would have happened in history had Spartacus been concerned about being "portrayed in a negative light" before leading that slave revolt? Should Galileo have denied that there were moons orbiting Jupiter so as not to offend the Pope? Should Garrison been more sensitive to the plight of the slave owners before publishing that abolitionist newspaper? Perhaps Eisenhower should have been nice to the German people and not forced them to provide the victims of the concentration camps a proper burial.
Need I go on? I can provide literally thousands of examples including whether Jesus should have checked with those Pharisees to ensure his message was politically correct.
Anyone who tears out the pages in the Bible concerning the Sermon on the Mount and uses them as toilet paper as in defending pedophile priests or issuing death threats over a cracker deserves to be exposed for what they are - the enemy of Christianity and Civilization.
One cannot call for a society guided by reason and rationality then fly off the handle in public like this. This just looks really silly. This has nothing to do with free speech. It's about how the public views you. If the goal is to gain respect and acceptance this is not the way to do it. This type of public expression is totally beneath a man of his stature -- inflamed or not.
Death threats have everything to do with free speech. Death threats are what kept abolitionist sentiments out of the South. The threat of death is what keeps Mugabe in power. The threat of death is what makes good people do nothing in the face of evil.
Thank God there have always been individuals who stand up for what is right in the face of death threats, from Solon to PZ Meyers.
I once heard an African American talk about the problems minorities faced in the professional work force. He said one has to always dress twice as sharp and always maintin your public apperance and composure, regardless of the circumstances. People are always watching and always trying to find something to judge you by.
That strategy may apply to some who prefer to accept the world as it is, fair or unfair. However, it does not apply to anyone who has made a positive change in the world despite the discomfort of the masses. Need an example - try Malcolm X.
I have many more should that example prove unsuitable.
The same reasoning, I believe, applies to those who hold a minority worldview. One can never put on a public face that reinforces any negative stereotypes. You just can't do it -- suck it up and move forward. There are many ways to get a point accross.
There is no way to just "suck up" injustice and lies without it damaging your psyche. The world requires brave and honest people to fight for truth and equality regardless of 'political correctness.'
Edited by anglagard, : Gospel on the mount? glad I caught that one quick

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Grizz, posted 07-12-2008 4:45 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 25 of 104 (474989)
07-12-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
07-11-2008 11:39 PM


Re: your "different view"
this was a "hate crime", well... it would have been if there had there been a criminal offense.
...and if Grandmother had had a beard she would have been a grandfather. As it is, there was no criminal offence, because the wafers are given to the congregation.
There is another problem with calling this a hate crime and it is the same one that answers your implied accusations of anti-Catholicism from myself. Let's look at your definition;
quote:
A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against a person or property motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a racial group, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, or disability.
Well no offence was committed against any person and the only property affected was the wafer, which was effectively Cook's property, since it was given to him without condition. So definitely no crime.
So let's look at hate. It is quite possible to hate the religion without hating the worshippers. That is my position and I would have no problem with you changing my words to refer to any ethnic or religious group that shared such ridiculous beliefs as Catholicism. In general, I respect Catholics as much as any other people, but I have no respect for beliefs such as transubstantiation. Why should I?
Mr Cook says he only took the wafer to show his friend. That doesn't sound like he was motivated by hatred of Catholics or prejudice against them.
Perhaps he did it to satirise the religion, as I have alluded to. That is not motivated by hatred of Catholics or prejudice against them.
Maybe he just did it for a laugh, with no particular thought for the consequences of his actions. Again, no hatred or prejudice necessary there.
You don't know whether Cook hates Catholics or not. You have little idea what motivated this act, beyond Cook's own version and a whole lot of speculation. So to sum up, it was not a criminal offence and you can't demonstrate that it was motivated by anti-Catholic (or even anti-Catholicism) sentiments, yet you still want to bandy about the term "hate crime".
I think that any description of this incident as a hate crime is hyperbole. When you use the term "hate crime" what springs to my mind is something slightly more serious than the mistreatment of bread. Comments such as this gem from the aptly named Susan Fani, a spokesperson with the local diocese in question.
quote:
We don't know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was, however, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it.
As though this is more clear cut case of a hate crime than countless racist murders! This is pretty offensive in my view. It trivialises hate crime. Also note that Ms Fani feels able to categorise this as a hate crime despite admitting that she admits that she does not know Mr Cook's motivation.
Some phrases should be left for serious situations, or they lose their impact. "Hate crime" is one such phrase.
CS writes:
Now, its not a cause for death threats, but there's cause to view it more than:
he stole a small piece of bread
For Catholics indeed there is, and I understand your annoyance, but I'm afraid I do not sympathise with it. For outsiders, there is no reason to view this incident as anything other than what it is; the theft of a small piece of bread.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2008 11:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Coragyps, posted 07-12-2008 7:07 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 26 of 104 (474991)
07-12-2008 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Granny Magda
07-12-2008 6:21 PM


Re: your "different view"
the theft of a small piece of bread.
And not even theft! He was given the wafer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Granny Magda, posted 07-12-2008 6:21 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 27 of 104 (474994)
07-12-2008 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Grizz
07-12-2008 11:19 AM


Mockery is a Valid Form of Criticism
Hi Grizz,
How is mocking anyone a proper response?
There is a noble tradition in both my country and yours, of mocking those in positions of Power. This stretches all the way back to ancient Greece, with writers such as Aristophanes and continues to this day, with magazines like Private Eye and programmes like The Daily Show. Satire is mockery and I don't think that we would be better off without it.
Mockery is a necessary way of pricking the egos of the self-important and the deluded and I feel that anyone who thinks that they are physically consuming the body of Christ of a weekend falls into both categories.
Sometimes, making people laugh at an idea helps them to see how ridiculous it really is. This was Mel Brooks' intention when he encouraged us all to laugh at the Nazis in his wonderful film The Producers. Chaplin had the same intent in The Great Dictator. Is it somehow wrong to ridicule Nazis? (Please note, I am not trying to compare Catholics to the Nazis, I'm just trying to establish a baseline of what you consider acceptable.)
Just how idiotic does someone have to be before we can call them an idiot? Is there any circumstance where it would be appropriate? Is religion somehow more protected against mockery than politics?
What does it do to gain respect and acceptance of ones own views?
Nothing. But sometimes an opposing view point must be worn down at the same time as one's own view is promoted.
To see a prominent academic lose his composure like this is embarrassing.
Perhaps you might consider it an own goal, but it is Myers' mistake to make. We have no real way of knowing the effects. He remains free to argue in his way and you in yours.
This is the part about the 'post-modern' atheist humanist movement that I just do not get and I care not to be associated with. Quite frankly, it is an embarrassment.
I would agree with this if hurling insults were all that the theism/atheism debate consisted of, but that isn't the case. Mud-slinging may not be very nice, but it is part of human nature and an unfortunate inevitability in any debate or argument.
Dawkins and company in-your-face brand of proselytization will not work. Telling people they are stupid deluded fools is not going to win any converts or gain acceptance. Anyone who thinks it will is out of touch with reality.
Calling someone a fool is unlikely to persuade them, for sure. Some people however, cannot be persuaded. There is no point in trying to reason with His Holiness and persuade him that God is a silly fiction and that he might as well give up the whole gig. Pointing out how ridiculous he is on the other hand, might just persuade someone else to reappraise their beliefs. For some it might have the opposite effect, but it's up to each individual to phrase their argument as they please.
The problem here is, what exactly can one say to a person when it is your honest opinion that their beliefs are foolish? (I prefer to think that religious believers have some foolish beliefs, rather then that they themselves are fools.)
If I believe that a person is deluded, then it is my duty to argue that (in the appropriate forum of course, I'm not talking about lurking outside the local Church waiting to browbeat the congregation.). To make any other argument would be dishonest.
There is no nice way to say "You are deluded", but sometimes, that is what must be said. To do otherwise would be patronising.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Grizz, posted 07-12-2008 11:19 AM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Grizz, posted 07-12-2008 10:46 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 28 of 104 (475017)
07-12-2008 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Granny Magda
07-12-2008 7:24 PM


Re: Mockery is a Valid Form of Criticism
If I believe that a person is deluded, then it is my duty to argue that (in the appropriate forum of course, I'm not talking about lurking outside the local Church waiting to browbeat the congregation.). To make any other argument would be dishonest.
There is no nice way to say "You are deluded", but sometimes, that is what must be said. To do otherwise would be patronising.
Hi Granny,
I certainly am not taking the position that Myers or anyone else should remain silent in the face of death threats over such matters or that the absurdity of some beliefs should not be publicly discussed or take the spotlight. I also believe the idea that some are calling for his dismissal is way over the top. He has the freedom to express himself in any way he sees fit.
I just think Myers wen too far on this and it will hurt his cause more than help. If he would have focused entirely on the travesty of the situation regarding the death threats and intelligently and calmly pointed out the absurdity of such a situation, all of the negative PR would have been on the shoulders of the fools who went bonkers over the incident.
Living in a very conservative area and being surrounded by a conservative Christian community, I do understand what it is like to have people thumb their nose at me and treat me like Damien from the Omen. I am the constant target of attempted conversions and prosletyzations. I have been insulted and have experienced animosity directed towards me. Frustrated at lack of success, their goal then becomes to get a rise out of me. Why give them the satisfaction of seeing me melt down and go off?
I simply believe there are much more productive and rational ways of getting a point across than taunting or being belligerent in response to such wackery. It serves no rational purpose that I can think of and only increases distrust and animosity. This further emboldens the convictions of those who hold an opposing view that you are everything negative they think you are. Any potential for future civil discussion then becomes even more difficult. One cannot humiliate or brow-beat someone into accepting a world view. If reasoning and presentation of facts does not do the trick, taunting and insult certainly won't succeed.
As a matter of personal experience, I have found individuals with opposing world views are much more willing to listen to me and discuss my viewpoints if I do not approach them with a condescending attitude. I may not convince them but they will be open to future dialogue and they may shed some of the stereotypes and prejudices they once held.
They slowly learn that my lack of acceptance of Christianity does not mean I am the anti-Christ. I do not worship the devil and I do not do drugs. I have absolutely no desire to murder, rape, or run amok. I have a sense of morals and values that have been instilled in me by my parents who taught me right from wrong. I do believe in the Constitution and believe everyone has the right to religious freedom and expression. In short, the best way to find acceptance is to show others that I am not a threat to them by displaying that I may not agree with your world view but I am willing to respect you as long as you are willing to do the same in return.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Granny Magda, posted 07-12-2008 7:24 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 29 of 104 (475035)
07-13-2008 4:57 AM


All this over a freakin biscuit!
It does make the Incan gold the RCC stole pale into insignificance.
And all those other priceless treasures that the vatican has stolen from the peoples of the world, the RCs don't seem too upset about that, but a scabby little biscuit!
They don't even taste good, maybe if you put a bit cheese on it or had a cup of tea with it that might help.

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 30 of 104 (475063)
07-13-2008 8:35 AM


If It Had Been The Muslims...
If such an act had been done to ridicule Islam, you can bet that the response would have been stronger.
Yes, its just a wafer. Symbolically, it is the Body of Christ, but that action is between Christ and His malefactors.
Perhaps the Catholic Church would have garnered more respect and empathy were they to have forgiven the brazen thief, thus deflating his whole intention of public response.
Edited by Phat, : spelling

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024