P.Z. Myers in the news (the catholic church communion wafer incident)

A woman was sacked for sending P.Z. Myers a death threat from her work email address. Actually, it was her husband who used the address. Story here and here

What a toolbox!Glad to see there be reprecussions, even if this guy deserves more than just getting his wife fired.lol But for the rest of his life he has to live with the fact that he got his wife fired from a job for sending a death threat from her email. And their names are all in the news. Insane.

And, once again, I'm not talking about him ridiculing ridiculous beliefs - I'm talking about him being deliberately offensive. Calling a cracker a cracker - fair enough. The bit about torturing the cracker - not fair enough. No shit, Sherlock.

Imagine for a moment that the spiritual/physical duality that the Catholic church believes in is real - yes, I know that duality doesn't really exist, but just pretend for a moment that it does - the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation states that the spiritual existence of the wafer is transformed into the spiritual being of Jesus; while the physical existence is unchanged. This, if you accept the duality, makes perfect sense.

Offensive? If someone is offended by anyone saying that they are going to torture a piece of food, then that someone needs treatment.That's what I mean by special privilege for religion. Obvious lunacy goes unremarked if it's part of a big established religion, when it would be accurately described as madness if it involved only one individual, or a small cult/sect.A cracker is a cracker, and only delusional mad people could possibly be offended by what anyone says about crackers on a blog.It is not rude to tell someone who thinks he is Napoleon that he is not Napoleon. It's honest.

Aye, god forbid that we treat the irrational foibles of people as important. Instead we should simply assume that everyone is a rational, emotionless box who's emotional attachments to symbols and ideas is utterly irrelevant to everything.Really, it'll make the world a better place.And, once again, there is no special privilege for religion here. I also think we should respect people's irrational emotional attachment to, say, their home, their school, the flag of their country, a certain band or their local football team with respect. Because, quite fundamentally, a society in which people's foibles are treated with respect is a better society to live in.I'm honestly amazed that the principles of Tolerance and a Secular society are so completely lost on you.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

To what extent do you want organizations which are intolerant by their nature to be tolerated? Myers was reacting to death threats on a kid. You took sides quickly, criticizing him, and now you claim the high ground of tolerance.

It's a difficult question. There is, I think, a divide between actions taken by the Catholic church as an organisation, the typical Catholic in the street and the crazed lunies within the Catholic church. The problem with Myers is that his actions are in no way targetted towards the problematic elements.As for "intolerant by nature", yes, the Catholic church has a massively bad track record on that front, but that doesn't mean that all Catholics fall into that category (q.v. Quest) or that there isn't potential for change.Tolerance isn't about organisations; it's about people. I did not "take sides". I said Myers behaved badly. This does not mean I think the "other side" has behaved well. The world does not consist of simple binary categories like that.

So the crackers are not the actual body of Christ even as far as Catholics are concerned?
They just contain the spirit of Christ?
So those taking communion are eating physical crackers that contain the spirit of Christ?
Is that right?It seems more mad the more I am told about this.

Of course most Catholics are benign, as are most people in all religions. He knows very well who Donohue is, and what he represents. Most of Myer's conflict with religion is with the protestant creationists, but Donohue is the Catholic equivalent, and refers to the "King Kong theory of origins". I agree. Membership of organizations like the Catholic Church is voluntary, I'm sure you'll agree. We all have our differing views on what is and isn't bad behaviour. I agree that we're emotional creatures, as you implied in the post before, and I think that Myers was certainly showing emotion.I have to say that I've lived in the U.S., and I can understand how its religiosity can get to people like Myers.I think a bit more verbal "intolerance" of religion would be a good thing all round, and especially in the U.S., and perhaps this is where we differ. But I don't mean intolerance between the religions, or the victimization of the smaller ones.I think that a bit of controversy that might lead some to examine what they really are believing about crackers tends to do more good than harm, and that these small spats help a society to evolve culturally and politically. Lots of little changes make evolution, so that, hopefully, revolutions are never necessary.Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

No, they are the actual body of Christ. The Spritual is not less actual than the Physical.That's as I understand it.

Are human bodies also spiritual or only physical?
Can I eat the body of a fellow human being but claim that I am only eating them in a spiritual, as opposed to a canibalistic, sense?Or is this privelige reserved for Jesus?

Humans are both spiritual and physical.I don't believe the rest of your post is a serious question.

Straggler writes Mr Jack writes I do find the idea that crackers are somehow able to be the body (either spiritual or physical) of Christ quite absurd but I don't think my question was as trivially silly as you have taken it to be. In an admittedly faecetious manner I am asking if the logic of the communion wafers is consistent.
If the wafer of communion is considered to be the actual body of Christ but only in a spiritual sense then is that the 'actual' body in any way that means anything at all?Where is the division between physical and spiritual? Why is it Ok to eat the spiritual yet abhorrant or offensive to suggest eating the physical? Why does anybody's 'body' have to be eaten by anybody else at all? Does the eating of bodies apply only to Jesus or do we all have the opportunity to be eaten? And, as already asked, if a cracker can be considered the spiritual body can a real physical human body be transmuted such that it too is a spiritual body?It seems inconsistent to me.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Whilst browsing Pharyngula, I cam upon this following comment from Myers, which I think neatly clarifies his position on this matter. It dates from Jan 2006, so I think it demonstrates that P.Z. is not setting out to offend Catholics or anyone else, but rather he is consistently opposing irrationality in the way he thinks best.

quote:

---

You would be surprised at how much email is sent to me telling me to stop being so derisive, that harsh language and ridicule turn people off and repel the very ones we're trying to persuade. My reply is like the one above; by refusing to ridicule the ridiculous, by watering down every criticism into a mannered circumlocution, we have created an environment where idiots thrive unchallenged. We have a twit for a president because so many people made apologies for his ludicrous lack of qualifications”we need more people unabashedly pointing out fools.

---

Source

---

Mutate and Survive