P. Z. Myers Must Be Fired

I am not going to provide an extensive response to P. Z. Myers' recent desecration of the Eucharist, along with pages from the Qur'an.

I will simply say that he must be fired.

Although he carried out his action. in his words, to support the idea that "Nothing must be held sacred" (also trashing a few pages of The God Delusion, a book with which he is in sympathy), he did not merely tell people that nothing must be held sacred. Nor did he argue for it. Claiming that nothing must be held sacred or proposing arguments for this proposition are a subject that can be discussed in a civil, respectful manner.

Instead, P. Z. Myers surreptitiously obtained and then desecrated something that is held most sacred by numerous individuals. He went out of his way to offend, to provoke the most deeply held sentiments of others, and he did so in full knowledge of what he was doing, as witnessed by the fact that he complains repeatedly on his blog about all of the outraged complaints he has been receiving from Catholics via e-mail.

In desecrating what Catholics hold most sacred--and what Muslims hold sacred as well--P. Z. Myers has fundamentally compromised himself as an educator.

He has made himself unsuitable for employment as an educator.

In particular, he has made himself unsuitable for employment as an educator at a state-run school, such as the University of Minnesota Morris.

It would be one thing if an employee of a private school--say, Bob Jones University--had desecrated the Eucharist. But state schools have a special responsibility to the citizens of the state to employ educators who will be respectful in their conduct towards the students, parents, alumni, and citizens of the state--including the Catholic and Muslim ones.

P. Z. Myers has demonstrated that he will go out of his way to offend the sensibilities of anybody who holds anything sacred, to treat whatever they hold sacred with public contempt. The problem thus is not limited to Catholics and Muslims. Since, in Myers own words, "Nothing must be held sacred," and since he is willing to desecrate anything that others do hold sacred, the university must conclude that Myers is willing not only to outrage Catholic and Muslim students, parents, alumni, and citizens but members of any other group as well.

 

Myers is thus incapable of effectively carrying out his mission as an educator and his position must be terminated.

He also is in violation of the University of Minnesota Code of Conduct, which holds that faculty members "must be committed to the highest ethical standards of conduct" (II:2) and that "Ethical conduct is a fundamental expectation for every community member. In practicing and modeling ethical conduct, community members are expected to: act according to the highest ethical and professional standards of conduct [and] be personally accountable for individual actions" (III:1).

It also stresses that faculty members must "Be Fair and Respectful to Others. The University is committed to tolerance, diversity, and respect for differences. When dealing with others, community members are expected to: be respectful, fair, and civil . . . avoid all forms of harassment . . . [and] threats . . . [and] promote conflict resolution."

P. Z. Myers has done none of these things. He is in fundamental breach of the University of Minnesota's Code of Conduct and must be discharged.

To voice your opinion on this subject, contact the offices of the president and the chancellor:

President Robert H. Bruininks
202 Morrill Hall
100 Church Street S.E.
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455

Via phone: 612-626-1616
Via fax: 612-625-3875
Via e-mail: upres@umn.edu

Chancellor Jacqueline Johnson
309 Behmler Hall
600 East 4th Street
Morris, MN 56267

320-589-6020
E-mail: grussing@morris.umn.edu

Comments

[scotth]

Of course, you are persecuting someone over the make believe. Grow up.

[Cj]

My email to the president and the chancellor...

I am emailing to express my deep concern with the state of your university's faculty membership. Recently, P. Z. Myers desecrated that which Catholics hold sacred- the Eucharist. He did not stop here, however. He also desecrated that which Muslims hold sacred- the Koran. As evidenced by his own words and actions, he did this in scorn and in hatred of the beliefs of others. Not only did he treat the Catholic and Muslim citizens of this country with tremendous disrespect- in his desecration of that which others hold sacred he insulted all people with belief in sacredness at all.

With such behavior in gross violation of the university's Code of Conduct, not to mention the inherently disrespectful and, indeed, hateful nature of his actions, I know that you will not rest until great disciplinary action has been taken against this professor. Behavior such as this, done by a state-run university professor, certainly warrants the termination of the membership of this professor from the faculty of the university.

[Eric Johnson]

Well, I'm a pretty strong proponent of academic freedom, as someone whose beliefs would have gotten him blacklisted in the 50s. But overall I think that the argument that you make here Jimmy, regarding the special responsibility of state schools, is reasonable and convincing. I hope that y'all can get a broad coalition of reasonable folks, especially Minnesotans with a vested interest in their state school to sign on. I think that, for myself I'd rather see some kind of censure short of firing, but i do see your points here.

[Thomas]

I think it's reasonable to assume that any student of faith who winds up in Myers classroom could not expect to be treated fairly. He has proven that his classroom is a hostile environment for any person who believes in God, particularly Catholics and Muslims. As such, he can no longer be an effective teacher.

Being completely pragmatic, from the department's point of view, this guy is toxic. How long until the first student who pulls a C makes a complaint of religious discrimination against Myers?

[Mark Windsor]

I e-mailed the chambers of commerce of both Minneapolis and St. Paul.

[Shaun G]

I am afraid that if Prof. Myers is fired -- or if he is in any other way persecuted for his actions -- it will only make him into an anti-religious martyr, and he and his sympathizers will interpret it as evidence of "retaliation."

Because of that, there is a part of me that would rather Prof. Myers retain his position, so that he cannot claim retaliation.

[The Masked Chicken]

Unfortunately, I doubt he can be fired for violations of the ethics part of the UMM code of conduct because:a) there is no referent as to what constitutes, "ethical behavior" specified in the document, b) where the document discusses ethical behavior in all other sections, it makes explicit reference to material, people, or interactions that can, in some way, be related to UMM and I might expect that a judge would see Section 2: subs 1 and sub 2 to be only in reference to anything affecting UMM. For instance, where it says, in Sec. 2, Sub 2:

When dealing with others, community members are expected to:

the document does not define the word, "others," explicitly enough to say whether that means the entire human race or only those the community member comes in contact with in the course of performing their duties. For instance, a community member does not have to tolerate behavior from their 17 year old son that they might from an 18 year old in their classroom (for instance, having a tattoo).

As I am not a lawyer (Ed Peters, we need you!), I may be wrong, but that is how I read the document.

There is, however, a very strong case that can be made that he violated Section 10:

Subd. 10. Promote Health and Safety in the Workplace. Community members
have a shared responsibility to ensure a safe, secure, and healthy environment [emphasis. mine] for all
University students, faculty, staff, volunteers, and visitors.

By desecrating the Eucharist and the Koran, he has, for both Catholic and Muslim students created a tense environment, which is neither, safe, secure, nor healthy. That would probably pass the faculty senate and result in his termination. Tenure was specifically designed to protect professors who made political statements at odds with society. It was not designed to protect professors who make the educational environment toxic. Professors sometimes do dumb things - they are human, that results in hurt feelings with a student (I have done, so, myself), but usually, if both are sincere, the situation can be resolved. Myers, however, insulted not one student, but all Catholic and Muslim students.

P. Z. Myers did not, as Jimmy notes, make an argument (even a theological one) against sacred objects. He acted against a sacred object and it is that threat of acting, again, which violates Section 10 of the code of conduct. I can easily imagine a frightened female student being uncomfortable in wearing her cross to class, even if Myers would not attack her to get it. The psychological scar from seeing the Eucharist desecrated would be enough to instill fear for any religious symbol.

The Chicken

[Dave]

Count me in for a direct email request for discharge of this man.

There are no further appropriate words for this that have not been said already.

-Dave

[CT]

The Code refers to professional activity and activity as an employee. What Myers does on his own is not covered.

Be that as it may:

"It would be one thing if an employee of a private school--say, Bob Jones University--had desecrated the Eucharist. But state schools have a special responsibility to the citizens of the state to employ educators who will be respectful in their conduct towards the students, parents, alumni, and citizens of the state--including the Catholic and Muslim ones."

Using this kind of approach, public universities would be justified in not hiring Christian eductators who on their private blog compare homosexuality to bestiality or who opine that homosexuality is worthy of the death penalty or who perhaps at some gathering tear up copies of a book sacred to homosexuals (Christians have been known to do physical violence to physical objects held sacred by others; for instance in Latin America, a Christian pastor, televised IIRC, shattered a statue of the allegedly-virgin Mary)

This kind of approach would also allow for public universities to not hire those who burn the American flag perhaps to make a point about free speech -- to be deliberately provocative in order to make a statement about free expression. IIRC, SDG, on Myers' blog has acknowledged that it is at least sometimes reasonable to be deliberately provocative.

I apologize if this is offensive, but I can't help but wonder if perhaps JA's response here is in part the product of an understandable emotional reaction he has to the news and depiction of this event. I hope that JA, as would be usual for him I presume, completely thought this through before calling for Myers to be fired.

And whether or not Myers' case is analogous to the cases I mentioned, strategically speaking it may lead to those kinds of cases and whether out of a concern for academic freedom in general or personal freedom or a self-interested concern for the welfare and rights of Christians, the approach of firing PZM for the above reason may end up backfiring, leading to discrimination not long against the likes of PZM, but against the likes of some unrestrained Christians.

I want to reiterate that I do not support what PZM did, especially as regards the Koran since Islam had nothing to do with the initial fracas that inspired this whole thing. Islam was as it were an innocent bystander -- innocent on anyone's account, including PZM's.

[Bob]

A copy of the e-mail that I sent to UMM last night. I also sent an e-mail to Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) to ask that he "gently remind" the UMM that they are funded by taxpayer dollars...many of those taxpayers being Catholic & Muslim.

Hopefully, somebody from Minnesota will get in touch with Rep. Keith Ellison (a Muslim) to inform him of what is happening in his state. I tried last night, but his website will only take messages from MN residents. Anyway, my two cents...

To Whom It May Concern:

While I realize that it will more than likely have no effect, I feel that I must, at least for the record and my own peace of mind, voice my profound disappointment and sadness regarding what amounts to, at best, little more than a juvenile stunt, and, at worst, an act of savage bigotry by one of your faculty members. PZ Myers, an associate professor of Biology at your University, has announced on his website, with great pride, that he has desecrated a Eucharist and a Koran. It should be noted that the only way that he could have obtained this Eucharist is by means of fraud.

The following is a direct quote from your University’s website:

UMM has received national recognition for its academically gifted student body, its commitment to diversity, its emphasis on student leadership and the exceptional student-centered learning environment created by its dedicated faculty and staff.

It is my sincere hope that your University neither supports nor condones this behavior. Further, I would hope that this type of hateful, bigoted behavior and the equally offensive words posted on Mr. Myers’ website will be grounds for dismissal from UMM. In my estimation, that would be the only effective and credible way that the University would be able to distance itself from Mr. Myers’ behavior in light of the fact that he prominently declares his affiliation with UMM on this same website. His actions and words are the antithesis of the “commitment to diversity” that your University no doubt supports. I respectfully ask, therefore, that you reaffirm this commitment by terminating your relationship with Mr. Myers immediately.

Your State is one that holds spirituality in particularly high esteem. Approximately 85% of your residents are adherents to some form of organized religion. Some 25% of your residents are Roman Catholic. It would seem counterproductive, then, to continue a relationship with a person whose public denigration of, and hate-speech toward, religion and religious people flies in the face of the dearly-held ideals of the vast majority of Minnesotans. And at a time when the relationship between the US and people of the Islamic faith throughout the world is so often strained, this singular act of disrespect seems so terribly destructive and so pointless.

But the more important point is that his behavior is hurtful to even a single person. For if we are to judge morality on the mere basis of the number of people affected rather than the inherent goodness or evil of an act, we have abdicated any and all claims to decency, civility, or sound discernment.

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

[Jenny Z]

Email sent. What a mess... God have mercy on us all.

[Jeff]

Of course, you are persecuting someone over the make believe. Grow up.

It is just as silly for you to think you know, with absolute certainty, that the Eucharist or any other part of Catholicism (or other religions) is make believe. In fact, you cannot know that God does not exist any more than I know he does. We both rely on faith.

[Jack PIcknell]

One of the most lauded attributes of secularism that is supposed to make it superior to all other forms of social structure is that it posits a society rife with tolerance, and diversity. The banner of pluralism is waved and all is well.

The reality is that there is no such thing in the real-world application of the secularists ideology. Where secularism has been embraced, atheism is the only accepted form of religion, intolerance runs rampant, and compliance is enforced in a fascist manner.

Look at Universities. These are supposedly cradles of enlightenment where open debate and discussion is the order of the day. In reality, they have become ideological indoctrination centres that bar or attack opposing ideologies. The preferred bias is anti-Christian, with anti-Catholicism topping the charts. Here are a couple of examples.

Let's start with PZ Myers anti-Catholic sideshow. He linked to his atheist, anti-Catholic blog from the University of Nowhere, and when it was requested that the university reprimand him, the university simply said the link has been removed and there will be no further actions taken.

That is a far cry from what happens if the university staffer in question happens to be pro-Christian.

An administrator at the University of Toledo was fired from her $134,000-a-year job for writing a column for a local paper questioning the concept of "gay rights." She was informed in a letter announcing her termination: "The public position you have taken ... is in direct contradiction to university policies and procedures..."

On one hand we have a professor linked directly to a University who attacks the church and gets no censure whatsoever, while an employee of a University is fired for writing an article on her own time, with no connection to the University except that she happens to work there.

In BC, teacher Chris Kempling was punished by the teachers union for writing an article based on Natural Law and Christian teachings on his own time. In Ohio, a teacher was chastised for keeping a bible on his desk.

This past couple of years, a contingent of campus student unions have declared, presumably on behalf of the student body, that they are pro-death. Fine and dandy that they abuse power, that is proper training for positions of authority in the secular paradise. The dark side of it is that they ban any and all pro-life groups from any official status on campus.

Whenever a Pro-Life demonstration is set up on a campus, the pro-death sheep come out in force to block, or out-yell, or outright destroy the exhibits. That's tolerance in action by secularist standards.

Fundamental Human rights and pluralism be damned! Academia has invested heavily in this fragile "secularist" ideology and they must protect it at all costs!

"Dave Daubenmire, spokesman for Freshwater, summarized the recent events as yet another development in the ongoing war against Christianity. "Please notice that the attack on religious freedom in America is on Christianity. No one is trying to silence the religious freedom of Muslims or atheists or humanists. Quite the contrary. We are told to 'understand' Muslims, to be sensitive to the atheists and to tolerate the humanists and their various denominations of 'isms' (environmentalism, feminism, secularism, socialism, communism), which we teach openly in our schools,” he wrote in an entry for WorldNetDaily."
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080418/ohio-teacher-refuses-to-remove-bible-from-classroom.htm

These atheist secular ideologists actions betray that they truly believe in inequality, intolerace, and exclusion. Secularism is dead. PZ Myers and his ilk have killed it.

[CT]

[i]That is a far cry from what happens if the university staffer in question happens to be pro-Christian.

An administrator at the University of Toledo was fired from her $134,000-a-year job for writing a column for a local paper questioning the concept of "gay rights." She was informed in a letter announcing her termination: "The public position you have taken ... is in direct contradiction to university policies and procedures..."[/i]

You have made the very point I am making. Demanding a regime that ferrets out PZM would quite possibly lead to one that ferrets out Christians. Even if it didn't it would be unwise; that it does, makes it all the more undesirable.

[CT]

Opps, as should be apparent, the first two paragraphs above are not mine but JP's.

[Mary Kay]

The address I used yesterday to email Chancellor Johnson was jrjohnso@morris.umn.edu. I'm not sure what the grussing address is about.

Yesterday, my email was before he followed through and was on general principles. Jimmy's right thought to note how Myers violates the university's code of ethics.

Time to send another email. Skimming through Myers' comments, he said, "Nothing should be sacred." I think that should include his job.

[Brian Walden]

Using this kind of approach, public universities would be justified in not hiring Christian eductators who on their private blog compare homosexuality to bestiality or who opine that homosexuality is worthy of the death penalty or who perhaps at some gathering tear up copies of a book sacred to homosexuals (Christians have been known to do physical violence to physical objects held sacred by others; for instance in Latin America, a Christian pastor, televised IIRC, shattered a statue of the allegedly-virgin Mary)

Way to throw in every possible stereotype. 1) What do you have against people whose sexual orientation is toward animals - you seem to imply that these people are not worthy of even being compared to others. 2) Myers didn't merely opine and express his opinion, he acted - he deliberately performed a stunt to infuriate others. 3) Why didn't you just say educators instead of Christian educators. I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of Christians who think homosexuality is worthy of death penalty is less than the percentage of non-Christians who think the same thing. 4) Myers did desecrate a book sacred to homosexuals, there's no need to make up hypothetical Christians to do it. Homosexuals practice all the same religions that heterosexuals do - for some the Koran is sacred. In fact I'd bet the top 3 books that Homosexuals consider sacred are the same top 3 that heterosexuals consider sacred. Anyway, Mr. Myers should receive the same punishment no matter which group of people considered the objects he used for his stunt sacred. 5) [Insert label here] have also been known to do violence to sacred to objects. Will you stop labeling people. This isn't about whether a person wears a Christian label or an atheist label or any label. It's about actions and the motivations for those actions. Myers should be punished the same no matter what his religious beliefs are. 6) You'd be better off at making your case if you didn't throw in cheap shots that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'm sure there are people here who would be happy to have a discussion with you about the virginity or lack thereof of Mary in the proper forum if you'd like to debate it.

This kind of approach would also allow for public universities to not hire those who burn the American flag perhaps to make a point about free speech -- to be deliberately provocative in order to make a statement about free expression. IIRC, SDG, on Myers' blog has acknowledged that it is at least sometimes reasonable to be deliberately provocative.

Universities don't have to hire those who burn the flag and they have a right to fire employees who do so if it hurts the University. I work for a private company. If I go out and make myself a public figure and then do something stupid that reflects poorly on my company (even if the actual act had nothing to do with work), they have a right to fire me for it. Even tenure, which protects a professor while pursuing controversial academic subjects, doesn't protect him from this. Freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your expressions - your company can fire you because of what you say, your wife can leave you because of what you say, your brother can hate you because of what you say - but none of those things violate a person's freedom of speech.

You questioned whether Jimmy's emotional involvement affected his response. Maybe it has, but your emotional involvement has certainly affected yours. Please completely think this through before defending Myers again. I'm not necessarily saying he's indefensible, just that if you are right he deserves a better defense than the one given.

[David B.]

scotth,

If I sought out a picture of your son or daughter, stabbed it and said 'he's/she's just a make-believe clump of cells', you would be all right with that? Would it be unreasonable for you to respond with just anger? No.

CT,

Demanding a regime that ferrets out PZM would quite possibly lead to one that ferrets out Christians. Even if it didn't it would be unwise; that it does, makes it all the more undesirable.

There is no comparison. If a Christian teacher condemns homosexual behavior, he is not being unethical; he is exercising the freedom of religion. Further, he isn't seeking out persons with homosexual inclinations and attacking them or disrespecting them. PZ Myers, OTOH, publicly encouraged readers to commit a crime (stealing the Eucharist) and purposely, publicly insulted and disparaged Catholic Christians and their most deeply held beliefs.

This is not ethical behavior for anyone. His publication of it all shows that he is openly hostile to Catholics. His Catholic students should not be subjected to being taught by a man who openly dispises them.

[CT]

@BW

I apologize that my phrase "allegedly-virgin Mary" came off as offensive to you, but I felt I could no longer use the phrase "virgin Mary" as I don't believe she was a virgin, if she even existed at all. However, I will try to come up with a non-offensive term ... though I don't understand what is offensive about not being a virgin ... would it have been a sin for her if she weren't? For now I will just use the term Mary and hopefully it will be clear from the context.

By "homosexuality" and "bestiality" I was referring to the respective activities, not the mere desires or dispositions. So your analysis proceeds on the wrong foot, apparently due to my lack of clarity which I also apologize for.

As for what universities don't have to do -- you compared it to a private company, but this is a public university so it should uphold the ideal of academic freedom and personal freedom.

And regardless, for both private and public, my point was not about whether a university has a legal right under current law to do this or that. My point was a policy argument; not a legal argument. My argument was not about what the law entails; but what about what would be good social policy. Some of that policy may need to be recognized in law; part of it perhaps need not be.

Freedom of expression is a principle that transcends the 1st Amendment and also state constitutions. Freedom of expression is something that ought to be maximized in my view as should personal freedom in general -- and I do not agree for example with some SCOTUS law that restricts freedom of expression ... and even if it is the correct legal decision, that would only mean that the law needs to be changed. My devotion is the principle, not to a historical formulation that may or may not live up to that principle.

[Inocencio]

CT,

Please open your eyes.

Christians are being ferreted out of the public square. You post your comments here and we disagree in a direct but charitable way.

I read PZM's blog and the vile comments that were given for anyone who professed his faith were uncharitable and disgusting.

Have you commented on PZM's blog to ask posters there to treat people who they disagree with respectfully? What response did you get (or would you expect to receive, if you haven't)?

Or do you only jump in if someone dares to use the word...loony?

Please let us know if you comment on PZM's blog. I would think someone as fair-minded as your believe yourself to be would feel an obligation to defend the rights of Catholics just as vigorously as you have defended PZM's rights here.

I look forward to your response.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

@DB

"There is no comparison"

You only addressed one case. I also mentioned someone who may tear apart a book sacred to homosexuals. I also mentioned those who say that homosexual acts are worthy of the death penalty -- how is it not "disprespecting" homosexuals to say that what they do and consider central to their identity as persons is worthy of the death penalty? It would also be "disrespecting" them to compare their acts to bestiality -- perhaps a milder form of disrespect than to say that they are worthy of the death penalty, but disrespect all the same.

Also, those who say that homosexual acts are worthy of the death penalty would presumable want to implement that should they be given the chance. So they are calling for the institution of a society where homosexuals are killed. That is far more of an "attack" on homosexuals than PZM's "attack" is on Christians. It is also far more disconcerting to homosexuals than PZM's behavior is to Christians. Would you want to be a student of an educator who advocates the institution of the death penalty for yourself?

IANAL but I think it is dubious as to whether PZM called for others to commit a crime. I am sure someone such as Ed Peters who has a JD would be able to comment on that aspect with more authority and knowledge.

Let me reiterate that I do not consider what PZM to have been ethical -- if by that you mean ethical on a personal leevel as opposed to ethical with respect to some code. In particular I deplore his "desecration" of the Koran as Muslims had nothing to do with the initial offensive situation that brought about his response. Hopefully the Muslim community will completely reject the use of death threats and the like that has unfortunately arisen within a minority within the Catholic community.

However in all three cases I support his civil right to do what he does (and if such a right in civil society is not recognized by SCOTUS or other relevant bodies, then I think it should be -- my claim is about what is his right on a moral level, whether that is reflected in ruling bodies or not)

[Mary Kay]

Inocencio,

Great suggestion that CT go to Myers' blog and defend Catholics' free speech.

[Inocencio]

Hello Mary Kay,

I hope all is well with you!

I hope CT does dive into the "discussion" at PZM's blog. Then he can really put his "beliefs" to the test and see if they apply to everyone or only those whom he deems as worthy.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

[CT]

"Please let us know if you comment on PZM's blog. I would think someone as fair-minded as your believe yourself to be would feel an obligation to defend the rights of Catholics just as vigorously as you have defended PZM's rights here."

I am not a member of the comment community on PZM's blog. I also am not equipped, what rash statements I may have made in the past notwithstanding, to make a judgment about the general tenor of PZM's commenting community. I have seen some passionate and unrefined exchanges but IIRC reading in a Catholic moral theology text that the use of vulgar words should not automatically be interpreted as a sin as the writer held that it may just be due to the person's background and upbringing. In any event, I know that controversial topics are apt to attract passion and extreme or passionate participants. So as I have not explored the more mundane topics PZM blogs about, I cannot generalize except with a very limited scope.

If I had been a member of the comment community there, I would defend the rights of Catholics if that were to ever come up. I don't think it has come up in this case. What we have here rather is an issue of mutual courtesy. I agree that it was incourteous for PZM to have done what he did. However, I think that the Catholic church should extend the same courtesy that it asks of itself also to those who engage in prostitution, pornography, and risque dancing. I am not thereby calling for discourtesy towards Catholics; I am rather calling for courtesy towards all and for courtesy in kind to all given if courtesy received is to be expected or insisted upon. On a personal level, I think it is good, if it is not too inconvenient, to be courteous regardless of whether the object of courtesy is courteous to others, including one's own self. Apparently PZM saw this situation as too inconvenient a one to render courtesy. I have no idea how much he was motivated by principle and how much by a base desire, but if I were in his shoes, I would not have done what he did, especially with regards to the Koran.

[Tim J.]

"Apparently PZM saw this situation as too inconvenient a one to render courtesy."

I can't make head or tails of that statement, except as an elaborate dodge, as the entire paragraph above it seemed to be an elaborate way of saying "no, I won't defend the rights of Catholics". My, but you're a shy one! Cautious to the point of timidity, when it comes to upsetting Catholic bashers.

"I have no idea how much he was motivated by principle and how much by a base desire, but if I were in his shoes, I would not have done what he did, especially with regards to the Koran."

Some religions are more equal than others?

[Inocencio]

CT,

Do you consider yourself a member of the comment communiity here?

It is really easy to call for courtesy when you are receiving it. I challenge you to post one of your long comments on PZM's thread about this specific topic. Since you feel so comfortable discussing it here you should feel even more at home on a secular "science" blog.

Do you think prostitution and pornography are good for society? Good for women? Good for girls?

And before you quote St. Thomas Aquinas will you tell me what you think?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

[Tim J.]

"It would also be "disrespecting" them to compare their acts to bestiality -- perhaps a milder form of disrespect than to say that they are worthy of the death penalty, but disrespect all the same."

No, that's disagreement, not disrespect. Many can't tell the difference, though. To disagree with them is an insult, or even an attack.

I could probably come up with a pretty outrageous t-shirt depicting Matthew Shepard and Harvey Milk in some sick manner... but I would never think to do so because I respect people's feelings.

Myers hasn't just disagreed with Catholicism, he has publicly insulted and degraded it and intentionally provoked Catholic people.

That is far beyond disrespect.

I say we declare war against the far left. And by that, I mean literal war. There's no point in reasoning w/ them anymore. It's like reasoning w/ a 5-6 year old.

[CT]

"Some religions are more equal than others?"

Yes, however that is not relevant to what I was saying (and I would hold Christianity as superior to Islam anyway). Up above I gave the reason for why the desecration of the Koran was especially disagreeable to me -- namely that Islam and Muslims were on all accounts, including PZM's own, a total innocent bystander.

"Do you think prostitution and pornography are good for society?"

I already addressed this point up above. Saying that it is apples and oranges by claiming that prostitution, pornography, and dancing are bad for society whereas the Catholic church is beneficient, is not fruitful as many people, including many of the people you are trying to persuade to be courteous towards the Catholic church and its lifestyle are convinced that the church is bad for society just as you are convinced that these things are bad for society.

I think that prostitution as long as it can be properly regulated or overseen so as to prevent sexual slavery or other violations of freedom is indeed good for society. But even if I thought it were bad for society, I would still maintain that the same courtesy that should be shown to the Catholic church should be shown to prostitutes and their patrons. As for whether pornography is good for society, I think it would depend on the kind and instance of pornography. Some mainstream movies may not be good for society either. Some pornographic movies, btw, are released to the mainstream market in an R-rated version. For example, the movie Pirates has an R-rated release. But I maintain courtesy for the beliefs and choices of others should be maintained indiscriminate of whether theirs is good for society. Freedom must be unfettered if the human spirit is to live and stumble on its own accord to the joys of love, beauty, and grace.

[Christopher]

"To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything is a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits."
-G.K Chesterton

[Inocencio]

CT,

It seems clear to me that you have freedom and license confused.

And the fact that you don't comment on PZM's blog speaks volumes about you beliefs and character or lack thereof.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio,

That you and Tim J impugn my "beliefs and character" because I refrain from commenting on his blog is too asburd to be called ludicrious. It invites humorous laughter rather than intellectual derision.

There are tons of blogs and other forums, and among these there are tons where people are not civil (including this one btw with respect to yourself) and where a person's moral rights are being violated. And among these there are probably hundreds that I am distinctly aware of where such takes place. Are you seriously contending that if I don't comment on all these hundreds -- or say it were dozens -- dozens that I am somehow demonstrating a "lack" of "character"?

You can't be serious. This is the kind of irrational thought that religious passion is apt to inspire.

BTW, if you look over my comments on this blog you will find that I have defended before persons with whom I disagree strongly. For example, I defended Scalia against the criticism laid out against him by somehow claiming that Scalia was behing intellectually dishonest in inconsistent decisions. I defended this Scalia in that regard even though I strongly disagree with Scalia's views on the 1st Amendment.

In any event, I am not interested in a debate about my "character." But your impugning my own says more about your own character than it does my own.

[Jimmy Akin]

Guys,

Let's please refrain from personal jibes at each other and stick to the subject. I would like my blog to be a place for reasoned discussion and not the personal vituperation that one finds on PZM's.

Also, please be sure to enter a name for yourself in the appropriate field. It gets confusing otherwise.

Thanks,

Jimmy

[Britomart]

What part of free speech escapes you all?

What one does on ones own time is not my employers business!

[Brian Walden]

CT, thank you for the respectful conversation. It's difficult to be the only one defending a position and I applaud you for making reasoned comments in such a stressful atmosphere.

Although I do not defend this position, I'm going to take you up on the case of a person who calls for the death penalty for homosexuality. I agree with you that many homosexuals (and heterosexuals) would be offended by this and may even see it as an attack. I feel what you're not considering is the intent of the person making this argument. Surely the that person can be expressing this opinion because they believe it's the most prudent course of action rather than because they deliberately want to incite others. As someone who is devoted to the principle of free speech, I don't doubt that you agree that this person has the right to express these views if they truly believe them no matter how right or wrong they are.

And I agree with you that Myers has this same right to express his belief that the Eucharist is no different from an unconsecrated host. The factor that makes all the difference is intent. You seem to agree with this when you said that vulgar language isn't a sin per se - it depends on the intent of the person using the curse words. No one's calling for Myers job because he expressed his belief that transubstantiation doesn't occur in the Eucharist. Instead he crossed the line from expressing an opinion which may offend some people to acting with the specific intent of infuriating people in order to inspire them to act out hatefully. Additionally he called for people to interfere with a group's religious ceremony, which I hope you'll condemn as a man of principle.

And lastly, because this is minor and I don't want it to derail the conversation. I have no problem with the phrase "allegedly-virgin Mary" in and of itself. I was questioning why you chose that term instead of plain old "statue of Mary" or St. Mary or Mary the mother of Jesus or Mary of Nazareth or any other modifier. I didn't see what her virginity had to do with the conversation one way or the other. It seemed to me that the only reason to mention virgin was for the opportunity to throw allegedly in front of it. There's nothing wrong with not being virgin, but attacking Catholic belief in Mary's virginity is an age old tactic used by Christians and non-Christians alike. So when you made a passing comment about her virginity it had the potential to be construed as an affront even if that wasn't your intent. Anyway, if you meant nothing by it I'm not offended.

[Bobby Bambino]

In a certain sense, we really shouldn't be surprised by this. Following atheism to its logical conclusions via Nietzsche or Sartre, there is no reason to believe anyone's morality but one's own. Myers is not bound to any ethical standards because they are just a preference. Jimmy mentioned the Code of Conduct. In the world of atheism, there is no moral obligation to keep a promise to follow said Code. Maybe lying is a virtue to Myers. Maybe disrespect for your fellow man is a work of mercy. Who knows? Who is to say what is right? There is no concept of right and wrong without it being grounded in God's nature. As Dostoevsky wrote "If God does not exist, then all is permitted."

For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. Jesus I trust in you!

[Brian Walden]

Britomart,

What one does on one's own time is not one's employer's business - except when it affects one's employer. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and try it. Run a public campaign against your employer and see what happens.

CT,

For the sake of clarity it may be helpful to make the distinction between the Catholic Church and Catholics (people who are Catholic). The Catholic Church teaches and administers sacraments. I think it may be Catholics, rather than the Catholic Church, who do many of the things you disagree with.

I'll take for example one of the things you probably think Catholics are very wrong in doing - praying outside abortion centers and hosting parades and other demonstrations against abortion. I would posit that Myers should face no discipline from the University if he held similar demonstrations and protests against the Catholic Church. But just as it would be wrong for Catholics to go into abortion centers and take and destroy their equipment, it was wrong for Myers to call for others go into Catholic services and take the Eucharist. This goes against the very ideals that a university stands for - it hinders the sharing of ideas for the purpose at arriving at truth.

[Thomas]

A partial list of some fools who believed in the "make believe" of the Eucharist would include (in no particular order and not even close to any completeness) Copernicus, Roger Bacon, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Evelyn Waugh, Galileo, Oscar Wilde, Chaucer, Dante, Descartes, Pascal, Chesterton, Sir Thomas More, Georges Lemaitre (creator of the "Big Bang" theory), Tolkien, Erasmus, Renoir, Hilaire Belloc, Dryden, Alexander Pope, Tony Blair, Graham Greene, Alfred Hitchcock, Anne Rice, John Ford, Cellini, Mozart, Liszt, Gene Wolfe, Tim Russert, John F. Kennedy, Schubert, etc & soforth.

Frakkin' MORONS and HACKS, all of 'em!

[The Masked Chicken]

We have drifted a bit. Sorry, Jimmy.

The question was whether or not Myers should be fired, not the courtesy of the posters on his site or this one (however, if I ever do offend anyone, it would be an act of charity to point it out to me).

That being said, I suppose it will be interesting to see how all of this plays out. Higher education in general and UMM in particular is being held up for scrutiny.

The sad thing is that it would have been almost impossible for Myers to make a truly hurtful statement on his blog had he behaved as a scientist. Few scientists revolt because mathematicians have told them that they must define pi as 3.1415... Scientists are not in the habit of making aesthetic judgment. They are supposed to be dispassionate observers (it rarely happens, but that is the ideal). I strongly doubt that Mr. Spock would approve of what Myers has done.

Atheists claim to have respect for science, but how few of them really behave as scientists. The ideal scientist is like a little child at a seashore: constantly at awe, always respectful. Theology is a science, too. The starting data is different, but there is a methodology to it.

There have been genuine Eucharistic miracles, where the host has turned to flesh. These have been examined by science. The scientists did not even think to show disrespect for the Eucharist they were studying.

I keep saying that science never reaches a conclusion. It only reaches a practical usefulness. P. Z. Myers has reached a conclusion with regards the Eucharist and as such, in this case, has ceased to function as a scientist. I do not know why his opinions are then stated on a science blog. He should have set up a separate one for personal opinions.

He has given a bad name to science by his actions. His demonstration was not part of any science I know. Not only catholics and Muslims should denounce what he has done. Scientists should, as well.

The Chicken

[BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)]

>Using this kind of approach, public universities would be justified in not hiring Christian eductators who on their private blog compare homosexuality to bestiality or who opine that homosexuality is worthy of the death penalty....

I reply: Actually the OT demands the death penalty for anal sodomy between men (not other sex acts between men) only & according to Jewish Tradition 2 witnesses would have see them about to commit anal sodomy & warn them it could get them the death penalty if they proceed & testify before a lesser Sanhedrin of 23 judges & 14 of the judges would have to vote to convict them.

Of course in the real world when somebody catches you & another person about to have sex it usually kills the mood. So it would never get that far. Long story short the law is symbolic & unenforceable. Like laws against committing suicide.

But back to the topic at hand.

>or who perhaps at some gathering tear up copies of a book sacred to homosexuals (Christians have been known to do physical violence to physical objects held sacred by others; for instance in Latin America, a Christian pastor, televised IIRC, shattered a statue of the allegedly-virgin Mary)

I reply: First of all Catholics are Christian. Second I am 100% against Protestant heretics smashing statues of Our Lady. Also for the record I am against Catholics defiling pictures of Martin Luther as well. Also it would be a mortal sin against charity for a Catholic to defile the picture of some gay dude's dead boyfriend.

Fire them all I say!

[BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)]

>Using this kind of approach, public universities would be justified in not hiring Christian eductators who on their private blog compare homosexuality to bestiality or who opine that homosexuality is worthy of the death penalty....

I reply: Actually the OT demands the death penalty for anal sodomy between men (not other sex acts between men) only & according to Jewish Tradition 2 witnesses would have see them about to commit anal sodomy & warn them it could get them the death penalty if they proceed & testify before a lesser Sanhedrin of 23 judges & 14 of the judges would have to vote to convict them.

Of course in the real world when somebody catches you & another person about to have sex it usually kills the mood. So it would never get that far. Long story short the law is symbolic & unenforceable. Like laws against committing suicide.

But back to the topic at hand.

>or who perhaps at some gathering tear up copies of a book sacred to homosexuals (Christians have been known to do physical violence to physical objects held sacred by others; for instance in Latin America, a Christian pastor, televised IIRC, shattered a statue of the allegedly-virgin Mary)

I reply: First of all Catholics are Christian. Second I am 100% against Protestant heretics smashing statues of Our Lady. Also for the record I am against Catholics defiling pictures of Martin Luther as well. Also it would be a mortal sin against charity for a Catholic to defile the picture of some gay dude's dead boyfriend.

Fire them all I say!

[Amy P.]

What part of free speech escapes you all?

What one does on ones own time is not my employers business!

Myers is working directly with students, in a community where he's surely bound to come across Catholics and Muslims. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that Myers can be trusted to treat these students with respect and academic fairness? I think not for, indeed, Myers thinks their beliefs are stupid.

Therefore, the University of Minnesota has a vested interest in removing him from a position of authority within the University before Myers violates the Constitutional Rights of a student and that student justifiably sues the institution for discrimination.

Were Myers an accountant, a baker, a construction worker - fine. Be an intentionally offensive ignoramus. You're hurting no one but yourself.

But this is no different than if Myers were an active member of the KKK and boasting about his activities.

And - correct me if I'm wrong - didn't he post or use some site affiliated with the University or his work with the University to put out the request for the Eucharist in the first place? If he did, then he'd also be misusing the University's resources, which - in most places of employment - would also be grounds for termination.

[Warren]

Prof. Myers actions are not the actions of a responsible educator entrusted with the intellectual formation of students. Prof. Myers might argue that his classes are about biology, not religion, and thus no student is at risk of having their beliefs called into question. The distinction might seem reasonable enough. However, Prof. Myers has demonstrated that he is incapable of keeping his personal convictions separate from his professional life because his blog was, up until UMM broke the connection, linked to the UMM faculty biology site. His sites (two now) list him as a UMM professor. Prof. Myers is trading on that affiliation; he uses his status in order to lend weight to his blogs. Furthermore, by his choice of language and unambiguous actions which make explicit his intent, Prof. Myers has made this whole affair a matter of character. Can anyone reasonably believe that Prof. Myers is capable of treating his students fairly regardless of creed?

As a fellow academic, I am frequently astonished and frustrated by the common tendency among so many tenured profs who think they are bullet proof and who routinely attempt to intimidate people with their malevolent rhetoric and immoral behaviour. Prof. Myers, by his actions, certainly deserves to be censured.

Bring positive pressure to bear. Communicate in a fair, accurate, constructive and thorough manner. Write professor Myers, and Chancellor Johnson. Tell them what the Eucharist means to you; give them reasons why Prof. Myers actions are so hurtful, and dangerous (read the 2500+ comments on his two sites and you'll know what I mean by dangerous). I received a prompt, thoughtful personal email in return from the Chancellor. No surprise, I have not received a reply from Pro. Myers.

[Inocencio]

CT,

Are you seriously contending that if I don't comment on all these hundreds -- or say it were dozens -- dozens that I am somehow demonstrating a "lack" of "character"?

I asked you to comment on one specific blog and because PZM's blog is relevant to the discussion I wanted to see if you would practice what you preach.

I apologize for stating the obvious.

And now back to our regularly schedule topic...

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

[BobCatholic]

I agree, he should be fired.

If we had a white supremecist in a college university spouting all kinds of hate speech on his personal blog, that is clear evidence that black people will not be treated with any sort of ethics by him.

If we had a KKK member in that same situation, same thing, in addition to any Catholics, etc.

If we had a neo-nazi in that same situation...same thing.

But an anti-Christian bigot who hates Catholics and Muslims? Well, we see the seKKKularists (not the same as regular secularists) step forward and stand up for bigotry.

Freedom of speech does not mean one is free from the consequences of ticking off a ton of people. Let's see, his comments basically offended 1/3 of the World's population. Nice.

We'll see if any fatwas for his death are put out. I know the Catholic Church won't do something similar.

[Nick]

I'm an atheist, just found your post because of a search I'm doing on the PZ Myers fiasco.

I say "fiasco" because I completely disagree with the man. If it's just a cracker, leave it alone. My policy has been and will continue to be: do the ritual if asked, politely decline if inappropriate. Learn about what people believe and don't offend.
HOWEVER if someone's religion is interfering in how my country is governed, or in how science is being taught, I have a right to criticize whatever arguments are put into the public square, including religious arguments.

[SDG]

Thanks for your humane and reasonable input, Nick.

I think civil discourse ought to be able to withstand candid and strong disagreement and criticism of other points of view, even where this may cause umbrage from some. At the same time, opposition and antagonism should be tempered with civility and a level of restraint. Myers, unfortunately, seems to delight in doing the opposite.

[Dave]

After much PZM study as I can stand, I think giving this "event" so much attention (I know...here I am doing it) is exactly what PZ would want.

The guy is no more than seeking sensational 15 minutes of fame. He thinks its comedy...just look at his language, and reaction from his combox. It only shows how a superficial unsult gag gains applause from those who are intentionally ignorant.

Lets talk about Protestant attacks...its much more fruitful IMO.

-Dave

[BobCatholic]

This guy makes atheists look like mirror worshipers.

His setting of a bad example has led to
1) MORE Catholics praying
2) MORE other Christians praying
3) MORE people waking up and taking notice
4) Atheism looking *really* bad

He lost. He just doesn't know it yet. Even if he doesn't get fired, he's done more to help the Catholic faith than he thinks. He's set the Militant Atheist movement back nicely.

Also, I don't think it is a coincidence that Militant Atheists and satanists seek to steal and desecrate the Eucharist. When evil people seek to go after the Eucharist to do evil with it, that's pretty much a loud testimonial to the truth of the Eucharist.

[The Masked Chicken]

How is this likely to play out? If Myers were flying under the radar, the University might have let it pass as the eccentricity of one of its professors. Some of its wealthy benefactors and board members are, however, probably Catholic - seriously Catholic. Once they hear of this, the University will probably have no choice but to fire him so as to not lose financial contributions. Sad, that money might be the deciding factor,

On a related note about the deportment of Catholics, here is something to think about:

There is a famous saint in the Dominican Order: St. Peter Martyr. I am going to try to do his story justice by quoting a few sources (sorry for the long quotes, but I think they are warranted, under the circumstances):

[From: The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia]

Born at Verona, 1206; died near Milan, 6 April, 1252. His parents were adherents of the Manichæan heresy, which still survived in northern Italy in the thirteenth century. Sent to a Catholic school, and later to the University of Bologna, he there met St. Dominic, and entered the Order of the Friars Preachers. Such were his virtues, severity of life and doctrine, talent for preaching, and zeal for the Faith, that Gregory IX made him general inquisitor, and his superiors destined him to combat the Manichæan errors. In that capacity he evangelized nearly the whole of Italy, preaching in Rome, Florence, Bologna, Genoa, and Como. Crowds came to meet him and followed him wherever he went; and conversions were numerous. He never failed to denounce the vices and errors of Catholics who confessed the Faith by words, but in deeds denied it. [comboxer, take note] The Manichæans did all they could to compel the inquisitor to cease from preaching against their errors and propaganda. Persecutions, calumnies, threats, nothing was left untried.

[From: www.domcentral]

From Milan the man of God went to Como, where he was prior. The conspirators let the Easter festivals pass. On the Saturday within the octave of Easter, April 6, 1252, Peter of Verona left his convent before daybreak to return to Milan on foot. Exhausted by his long fasts, and weak from the quartan fever, he was obliged to walk slowly. Carino, who had remained in Como for three days, on learning of the saint's departure, followed in eager pursuit. On the way he was joined by Porro, his associate in crime, who was lying in wait. The Friar Preacher had made about half of his journey, when he was overtaken in a thick woods, near a place called Barlasina.(38)

Carino first struck the saint with a pruning knife, or some other sharp instrument, which opened his head with a large and deep wound. The missionary made no movement or effort to avoid the stroke. While the wounded man was commending himself to God and reciting the Apostles' Creed, the homicide threw himself on Father Dominic, the martyr's companion, and gave him several blows, from which he died a few days afterwards. Then, seeing that Peter of Verona, though no longer able to speak, was, through the sheer force of his will, using his finger to write the first words of the Creed in his own blood, Carino sank a dagger into his breast.(39)

Now, here is the interesting part:

Carino, the murderer, was arrested shortly afterwards and put in prison. But he soon escaped, and fled to Forli, near Mount Appennino. The unfaithful magistrate in charge of the prisoner, being brought before the tribunal of the archbishop, was removed from office. Carino, however, finally became horrified by his crime, but fortunately did not fall into despair. Later he abjured his heresy in the bands of a Dominican Father. Nor was this all. The same priest received the poor man into his Order, and gave him the habit of a lay brother, that he might he placed in a better position to make atonement for his awful deed. Thence until his death the converted criminal practised such heroic penance and mortification that he is thought to have died in the odor of sanctity.(41)

The point is that St. Peter's murderer, poor and wretched, wound up at the doorstep of the Order of the man he had killed. They did not attack him; they did not scold him. They silently took him in, fed him, and provided a safe haven for him, the man who had killed their brother in religion.

By their actions of charity, the man was not only converted, but himself died a holy death.

Would that we could be like those Dominicans of old. Perhaps, if Myers is fired and hard up, it might be a Catholic who takes him in. God has done stranger things.

The Chicken

[phasespace]

Dear Christians,

Please look in the mirror. It has been thrust in your face, perhaps for the first time in a long time. You are not who you think you are. The more you wring your hands and gnash your teeth, the more you prove PZ Myers' point. The measure of a man is not how he behaves when he is not challenged, it is in how he behaves under adversity.

Many will call PZ Myers' actions boorish. And that would be right, but that was exactly the point. He has only put a mirror up to your own behaviour.

[The Masked Chicken]

Dear Phasespace,

What behavior would that be, pray tell? Just anger? Pain and sorrow, both for us and him? Attempted (generally) reasonable discussions that are rudely dismissed (as per your example)?

I think your post, which is a jarring interruption from the rather calm tenor of the posts above it, illustrates that you do not understand anything about what the real issues are here. We are not supposed to insult people here, as per the request of the blog's owner, so I will simply wish you a good night and hope that if you do return here, that you have something useful to contribute.

The Chicken

[Eric Johnson]

"I say we declare war against the far left. And by that, I mean literal war. There's no point in reasoning w/ them anymore. It's like reasoning w/ a 5-6 year old."

Now, this is just silly. Myers isn't part of the "far left" in any coherent political sense of the word. I know that the easy equation of taboo shattering radicalism and the political left is a staple of the modern (private and political action)media, but stunts* like Myers don't have anything to do with what "the left" means in any historical context, and lumping these things together just contributes to divisive and blinding polaraization. I don't see that what he's doing has any particular political relevance in any meaningful sense of the word. It's a sociocultural temper tantrum, whatever meanings he's claiming for it.

My feelings about the appropriate professional response from the University are still mixed. The University removing an educator because of an unpopular position is, in the abstract a terrible thing, potentially the end of free inquiry. I think it has to be kept at bay and that because of this it's worth tolerating a range of noxious and offensive beliefs. But the position of power he holds vis a vis his students is also troubling given that this is, to anyone subject to his authority, a potentially intimidating action, and one that was couched in confrontational and ridiculing rhetoric. This is what carries the issue for me.

[Yseult]

This is only one side of the coin. The Catholic side where we try to reason inside our faith to show how wrong Myers is.

From a philosophical point of view that only deals with social respect and theories about society, he is just as wrong.

I've argued my point from a philosophical standpoint here already. Any believer in free speech, free development of personality and equality, MUST be against such behaviour. Being Catholic or not comes second in this respect.

This is anti-religious and anti-Catholic behaviour, sure, but it is first and foremost anti-social. The sooner normal non-Catholic people get that, the sooner we can stop a good quantity of the hate rampaging around in our societies today.

[Eric Johnson]

oops, * by "stunts was supposed to indicate a PS where I explained that he intended it as a stunt, I think that's really its deepest meaning for him. I don't mean to trivialize anyone's reaction to it.

Whether any of the regents or administration are "seriously Catholic" are not, I think his eventual dismissal is likely, or at least the kind of administrative and professional freezing out that makes other jobs more attractive. The way he's publicized this on his blog makes it harder to make a case for it as a private action or belief, and i don't think delnking his site from the main site will satisfactorily disassociate him from the UMM. The tone of his rhetoric there, and the prominence of his University credentials in the site's layout will be toxic for his job.

[CT]

@Innonencio

I am sorry but I do not feel obligated to comment on another blog which I have no interest at participating in simply because you "asked" me to do it and want to know if I "practice what" I "preach." Please refrain as a personal favor to me from such comments as in your latest post; they are not personally helpful to me.

@EJ

"My feelings about the appropriate professional response from the University are still mixed. The University removing an educator because of an unpopular position is, in the abstract a terrible thing, potentially the end of free inquiry. I think it has to be kept at bay and that because of this it's worth tolerating a range of noxious and offensive beliefs. But the position of power he holds vis a vis his students is also troubling given that this is, to anyone subject to his authority, a potentially intimidating action, and one that was couched in confrontational and ridiculing rhetoric. This is what carries the issue for me."

I am glad you have expressed a position closer to the original one you expressed earlier.

Your concern about it being potentially intimidating is a valid one but the thing is that if this instructor carried forth an animus to Christians into his professional life as a teacher, that it is likely to be apparent. If OTOH, his professional conduct were spotless and he treated religious believers in a respectful manner, then that would be indicative of his ability to remain impartial. When I was a religious believer there was an instructor (in philosophy) at my institution whose atheism became quite apparent and strongly expressed. I even heard a rumor about his distaste for religion that arose from some personal situation. However, it did not even occur to me that that would translate into professionial bias nor to any of my peers (at least as far as they expressed). I also had experience with an anthropology instructor who seemed to have disdain for the notion of a religious academic, but it did not even occur to me that that would translate into any bias in the classroom.

@Nick

"HOWEVER if someone's religion is interfering in how my country is governed, or in how science is being taught, I have a right to criticize whatever arguments are put into the public square, including religious arguments."

I do not understand why you would consider religious argument to be immune from criticism except when it interferes with how your country is governed or science taught or other matters of the public square. Just FYI, religious arguments are criticized on an academic level routinely in the field of philosophy. They also cricitized in the profession of apologetics. Perhaps I misunderstood you but I think truth should enlighten all in all areas, not just in some.

@Ben

I did not state that they were not Christians (I am not a Christian myself btw). At least you are consistent in your belief that they should all be fired.

[Sleeping Beastly]

Jimmy,

For the first time in a long time, I must disagree with you. Yes, his actions could probably be construed as violating some part of the University's charter, but we should not call for his termination for a number of reasons.

First, it will only confirm him and his adherents in their belief that Catholics are petty and mean. It seems to me that asking the university to fire him is an act of vengeance for our wounded feelings, when this should really be more of an opportunity for us to embrace humility. It hurts, but it's a grace nonetheless. We can dress it up and try and call it a service to the students, but I don't think that's what our real motivations are in this case. Our task is to rejoice and be glad when someone hurts our feelings.

Next, it will just add to an atmosphere that I don't think belongs in academia. Our universities are already too restrictive. You are all correct in saying that plenty of other people would be shut down immediately because of PC mania. Well, that's a problem, and we don't need thin-skinned Catholics adding to the problem. The more professors feel their careers depend on them avoiding offense, the more the marketplace of ideas in universities will suffer. I know, I know, it already is suffering, but don't you see that this is a step in the wrong direction here?

Finally, I disagree that someone's off-work behavior is necessarily a reason to terminate their employment. It's not a stretch to imagine that the man is capable of suspending his bigotry enough in class to impart knowledge of his field to his students. Even if some of it comes out in class, I don't think the students are really done much of a disservice by being taught by a hostile but competent professor. If he does his job well, keep him on, I say. (And that goes for professors who may be members of the KKK, the Nation of Islam, the Communist Party, or the Westboro Baptist Church as well, even if they blog about it and commit noncriminal boorish public acts.)

[Andrew Callaghan]

Sleeping Beastly wrote:

"I know, I know, it already is suffering, but don't you see that this is a step in the wrong direction here?"

Perhaps it is suffering so badly because people such as Myers are not fired more often?

[Sleeping Beastly]

CT,
You are comparing apples and oranges.

Myers intends to give offense and show disrespect to Catholics. The Church does not intend to give offense or show disrespect to prostitutes or pornographers, even if it seeks to put them into different lines of work.

If Myers were to politely and dispassionately criticize the Church and lobby to have all Catholic practices banned in the US, it might be upsetting, but no one could honestly call him rude or offensive.

If the Church were to intentionally offend and spit on prostitutes and pornographers, that would be more in line with Myers' actions. The Church's teachings, whether or not they upset people, are not intentionally rude or offensive.

Do you see how you're comparing apples and oranges?

[Andrew Callaghan]

If an employee deliberately engages in activities that are intended to create an atmosphere hostile to civil and rational discourse and study, why is that not cause enough for punishment? He is not merely in "disagreement" with his opponents. He is committing acts of violence against physical objects they hold sacred with the intention of provoking in-kind responses.

As CT put it:

“My argument was not about what the law entails; but what about what would be good social policy. Some of that policy may need to be recognized in law; part of it perhaps need not be.”

Is it not good "social policy," to punish a man, such as Myers, who is deliberately attempting to create and atmosphere hostile to the civil and reasoned conduct that are so vital to and academic institution?

[Cracker Jack]

The Big Bang theory that the universe originated in an extremely dense and hot space and expanded was developed by a Belgian priest. It's interesting to note that those people, the first scientists, were all monks, they were all clerics!

People today aren't even aware of this fact!

Here are some examples of scientists who were Catholic clergy:

1. Mendel, a monk, first established the laws of heredity, which gave the final blow to the theory of natural selection.
2. Copernicus, a priest, expounded the Copernican system.
3. Steensen, a Bishop, was the father of geology.
4. Regiomontanus, a Bishop and Papal astronomer; was the father of modern astronomy.
5. Theodoric, a Bishop, discovered anesthesia in the 13th century.
6. Kircher, a priest, made the first definite statement of the germ theory of disease.
7. Cassiodorus, a priest, invented the watch.
8. Picard, a priest, was the first to measure accurately a degree of the meridian.

The conflict between evolutionary science and creationism in the United States comes from the Protestant tradition, not the Catholic one.

American Catholicism is in a Protestant culture. We borrow a lot of our attitudes, along with a lot of our hymns, and not always the best of either.

Unfortunate, but true.

List of Catholic Scientists

Algue, a priest, invented the barocyclonometer, to detect approach of cyclones.

Ampere was founder of the science of electrodynamics, and investigator of the laws of electro-magnetism.

Becquerel, Antoine Cesar, was the founder of electro-chemistry.

Becquerel, Antoine Henri, was the discoverer of radio-activity.

Binet, mathematician and astronomer, set forth the principle, "Binet's Theorem."

Braille invented the Braille system for the blind.

Buffon wrote the first work on natural history.

Carrell, Nobel prize winner in medicine and physiology, is renowned for his work in surgical technique.

Caesalpinus, a Papal physician, was the first to construct a system of botany.

Cassiodorus, a priest, invented the watch.

Columbo discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood.

Copernicus, a priest, expounded the Copernican system.

Coulomb established the fundamental laws of static electricity.

De Chauliac, a Papal physician, was the father of modern surgery and hospitals.

De Vico, a priest, discovered six comets. Descartes founded analytical geometry.

Dumas invented a method of ascertaining vapor densities.

Endlicher, botanist and historian, established a new system of classifying plants.

Eustachius, for whom the Eustachian tube was named, was one of the founders of modern anatomy.

Fabricius discovered the valvular system of the veins.

Fallopius, for whom the Fallopian tube was named, was an eminent physiologist.

Fizeau was the first to determine experimentally the velocity of light.

Foucault invented the first practical electric arc lamp; he refuted the corpuscular theory of light; he invented the gyroscope.

Fraunhofer was initiator of spectrum analysis; he established laws of diffraction.

Fresnel contributed more to the science of optics than any other man.

Galilei, a great astronomer, is the father of experimental science.

Galvani, one of the pioneers of electricity, was also an anatomist and physiologist.

Gioja, father of scientific navigation, invented the mariner's compass.

Gramme invented the Gramme dynamo.

Guttenberg invented printing.

Herzog discovered a cure for infantile paralysis.

Holland invented the first practical sub marine.

Kircher, a priest, made the first definite statement of the germ theory of disease.

Laennec invented the stethoscope.

Lancist, a Papal physician, was the father of clinical medicine.

Latreille was pioneer in entomology.

Lavoisier is called Father of Modern Chemistry.

Leverrier discovered the planet Neptune.

Lully is said to have been the first to employ chemical symbols.

Malpighi, a Papal physician, was a botanist, and the father of comparative physiology.

Marconi's place in radio is unsurpassed. Mariotte discovered Mariotte's law of gases.

Mendel, a monk, first established the laws of heredity, which gave the final blow to the theory of natural selection.

Morgagni, founder of modern pathology; made important studies in aneurisms.

Muller was the greatest biologist of the 19th century, founder of modern physiology.

Pashcal demonstrated practically that a column of air has weight.

Pasteur, called the "Father of Bacteriology," and inventor of bio-therapeutics, was the leading scientist of the 19th century.

Picard, a priest, was the first to measure accurately a degree of the meridian.

Regiomontanus, a Bishop and Papal astronomer; was the father of modern astronomy.

Scheiner, a priest, invented the pantograph, and made a telescope that permitted the first systematic investigation of sun spots.

Secchi invented the meteorograph. Steensen, a Bishop, was the father of geology.

Theodoric, a Bishop, discovered anesthesia in the 13th century.

Torricelli invented the barometer.

Vesalius was the founder of modern anatomical science.

Volta invented the first; complete galvanic battery; the "volt" is named after him.

Other scientists: Agricola, Albertus Magnus, Bacon, Bartholomeus, Bayma, Beccaria, Behalm, Bernard, Biondo, Biot, Bolzano, Borrus, Boscovitch, Bosio, Bourgeois, Branly, Caldani, Cambou, Camel, Cardan, Carnoy, Cassini, Cauchy, Cavaliere, Caxton, Champollion, Chevreul, Clavius, De Rossi, Divisch, Dulong, Dwight, Eckhel, Epee, Fabre, Fabri, Faye, Ferrari, Gassendi, Gay-Lussac, Gordon, Grimaldi, Hauy, Heis, Helmont, Hengler, Heude, Hilgard, Jussieu, Kelly, Lamarck, Laplace, Linacre, Malus, Mersenne, Monge, Muller, Murphy, Murray, Nelston, Nieuwland, Nobili, Nollet, Ortelius, Ozaman, Pelouze, Piazzi, Pitra, Plumier, Pouget, Provancher, Regnault, Riccioli, Sahagun, Santorini, Schwann, Schwarz, Secchi, Semmelweis, Spallanzani, Takamine, Tieffentaller, Toscanelli, Tulasne, Valentine, Vernier, Vieta, Da Vinci, Waldseemuller, Wincklemann, Windle, and a host of others, too many to mention.

Catholics, don't forget Science was borne out of the Catholic Church!

Spread the Word or else the rampant Revisionism (such as the vile revisionism about Pius XII) of the secular world will have painted Catholicism as the malicious villian that almost killed Science & Western Civilization when, in fact, it was the very thing that built it!

PROUD TO BE PAPIST,
Cracker Jack

[CT]

@Warren

"No surprise, I have not received a reply from Pro. Myers."

I am not certain what you meant here but Myers has said he is receiving -- thousands IIRC -- emails so it is to be expected that he would not reply to each one. He may not even read each one. That was one of the realizations -- made thanks to a commenter here, SDG, IIRC, -- that led me withdraw my earlier hint of criticism or inquiry that JA blogged about recently.

@Brian

I do not see anything wrong with praying outside abortion centers (prescinding from whether prayer itself is morally wrong and whether the view that abortion should be illegal is wrong). The only thing I would see as wrong would be if the protest was disruptive. For example, if the protestors brought with them gruesome images then that causes emotional disquiet in the women seeking help there at perhaps a confusing and vulnerable moment in their lives -- something which from the point of view of compassion towards women is not apt. I would have no problem with a more affirming display such as a poster of a woman looking joyfully upon a newborn baby she holds in her arms with the caption "Choose Life"

I don't know how unofficial such activity is as priests sometimes participate or bless such events or even lead organizations dedicated to such protests (protests in general I mean, not any specific tactic)

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "incite" -- do you mean incite others to break with current law and kill homosexuals on their own? Or do you mean encourage others to work to change society so as to legalize by capital punishment the killing of homosexuals? For I don't see how someone working for the legal killing of homosexuals and encouraging others to work to that goal would be less of a problem for homosexuals than Myers would be for Christians.

(BTW while those working for the legal killing of homosexuals may be relatively few, those working for the legal killing of abortion providers or even women who procure abortions or those that pay for them appears to be more substantial in number)

As someone who is devoted to the principle of free speech, I don't doubt that you agree that this person has the right to express these views if they truly believe them no matter how right or wrong they are.

You are correct.

Instead he crossed the line from expressing an opinion which may offend some people to acting with the specific intent of infuriating people in order to inspire them to act out hatefully.

I think speech that inspires others to be hateful ought to be protexted as well. If someone thought -- hypothetically -- that we should hate atheists, I would support that person's human right to express that opinion, even if it should inspire and even if he had the intention of inspiring others to hate atheists. BTW, I have encountered Christians who preach hatred -- they actually use the term "hate" -- that God "hates" sinners (not just that God hates sin, but that he hates sinners -- and they quote the OT ... including some Psalms IIRC ... to back up their beliefs)

As for interfering with a group's religious ceremony, I opined about that in the original comment thread IIRC.

And Catholics often leave their service right after receiving the host. If someone were to place the host in their mouth and walk promptly out of the church and then once outside of the church take the host out of his mouth, he would not have interfered with the religious ceremony and IANAL but I don't think any theft, legally speaking, would have occurred.

And I don't think your issue is with merely that he interfered with a religious ceremony. If he had bought a bible, went to a priest and without claiming to be Catholic and even telling the priest that he was not and in fact was a skeptic, asking for his blessing on the bible, and then desecrated the bible, I assume that you or other Catholics would be in similar great consternation over the mistreatment of blessed bible (which IIRC would count as as a "sacramental"). I would also assume you would object if a woman successfully seduced a religious or someone in consecrated life or in the worst case scenario a priest religious -- and let's say that woman was going about seducing them just to bring them down. (IIRC, something similiar to this is alleged to have occurred, though unsuccessfully with respect to Aquinas)

None of those examples (the bible and in particular the seductress of priests in consecrated life) involve theft or interference with a religious ceremony.

But you or other Catholics would have a problem with both -- perhaps not to the same degree, but a serious problem, nevertheless.

So it is clear to me that the more fundamental issue is one of mutual courtesy in civil society (which courtesy is at issue in various ways and degrees in all these cases ... I would not necessarily disapprove of the seductress, but I do disapprove of Myers' actions). Let me make the point even clearer.

Suppose that Myers came across a consecrated host *without* any interference in a religious ceremony. Suppose for example, that ship on a long voyage includes some consecrated hosts contained within some container and that the ship in danger of sinking, the captain throws it all overboard. Suppose that later, it is found by a disinterested party who then sells it to Myers for profit. My understanding is that under maritime law, nothing illegal took place here. Yet if Myers were to have with these hosts desecrated them in the same manner, that you and other Catholics would have a substantially similar reaction to and cricism of it, even though no religious service was disrupted.

Let me also make a point in defense of Muslims. It seems to be widely assumed (I mean in general in society) that many or most Muslims would react virulently to the idea that someone would desecrate the Koran whereas in the case of those of other faiths like Christianity, such a reaction would not be as prevalent. I have no idea whether that is true or not, but my experience with Muslims leads me to believe that it would not be most Muslims who would react that way. When I was entrenched in what I now view as the darkness of religion (I was Christian), some Muslims offered me a copy of part of their sacred text. I told them that I may end up just disposing of it after I read it and to keep that in mind before offering it. They did not react in anger or disgust when I said that. They merely said that that was fine but to dispose of it by burning it IIRC (I am not certain they said to burn .. but that is my present recollection)

[CT]

@SB

I agree with you completely in your recent post addressed to Jimmy (though I am not sure about the "rejoice and be glad" part).

Myers intends to give offense and show disrespect to Catholics. The Church does not intend to give offense or show disrespect to prostitutes or pornographers, even if it seeks to put them into different lines of work.

If Myers were to politely and dispassionately criticize the Church and lobby to have all Catholic practices banned in the US, it might be upsetting, but no one could honestly call him rude or offensive.

If the Church were to intentionally offend and spit on prostitutes and pornographers, that would be more in line with Myers' actions. The Church's teachings, whether or not they upset people, are not intentionally rude or offensive.

Do you see how you're comparing apples and oranges?

I do see that the cases involve some aspects that are dissimilar, namely the potentially gratuitous aspect of Myers' action. But I would imagine if Myers or someone else did something like this as not something that could be interpreted as a gratuituous display but as a serious work of art, that a similar controversy would ensue. Suppose for example, that someone made a controversial film that was a polemic against Catholics or Catholicism and in it he smashed a statue of the VM and subjected a bible to the disrespect he feels the ideas within it deserve (and let's suppose these were both blessed objects that he didn't obtain under any false pretense but that he inherited from a recently passed-away relative) ... and suppose even that some unlikely event (see above) led to the filmmaker obtaining a consecrated host without any false pretense and he did some visual depiction of his view of some irony he sees in it. This would not be gratititious (it may be extremely distasteful and worthy of condemnation on other grounds, but it serves his artistic purpose) yet it would cause a similar controversy, I would presume.

I also do not know quite what you mean by "not intentionally offensive." If a Christian is invited to the home of a homosexual couple and at dinner says, "I think homosexuality is an abomination almost as bad as bestiality," I don't see how it is possible for the Christian to say that without at least foreseeing that it would be offensive even if it were somehow possible to not directly intend it to be offensive.

I think there is a difference that you tried to highlight, but I think it is more a case of Fujis and Granny Smiths then apples and oranges, a difference more of varied character and perhaps degree, than a fundamentally dispositive one. But it was a difference I did not fully appreciate before your comment and I thank you for that.

[CT]

Is it not good "social policy," to punish a man, such as Myers, who is deliberately attempting to create and atmosphere hostile to the civil and reasoned conduct that are so vital to and academic institution?

Your statement has some ambiguity but Myers isn't trying to deliberately harm the academic institution; he may be deliberately doing something he knows may have that consequence perhaps, though I don't think so, but it is not his intention.

But no I don't think it would be good social policy for the institution to do that. It may be good for the institution to follow up with Myers to ensure if there were any doubt his impartiality with respect to his students, but not to punish him in any way. It may also be good on the private* level for individuals or others in the community to engage with him. *i.e. non-institutional

I see a university professor as different from say a PR rep of a company whose private conduct when reflecting negatively on the company may be reason enough for termination. A university professor should feel free, ideally, to criticize his own institution and even to express the opinion that his own university should no longer be tax-payer funded and be privatized or even to express the opinion that his university is in shambles or that it should be abolished (even if he chooses to remain there as long as it is not).

[CT]

On Eucharistic miracles that someone mentioned above:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_32/ai_n25376804

That is from The Skeptical Inquirer which refutes them and other miraculous claims, including similar claims of miraculous relic blood and so forth. Here is there official website:

http://www.csicop.org/

I read The Skeptical Inquirer even when I was a Christian. I heartily recommend subscription or other readership. I haven't read it lately but I intend to resume readership soon.

[CT]

I apologize for the successive posts.

It was claimed in a previous comment thread that there was no reason to believe the bread to be desecrated was consecrated. That claim is now moot as according to Myers "The one I chose to photograph is one that the sender actually provided video documentation of where it came from." You can find that statement in a comment he makes from the link JA provided. Therein is also a link to a Youtube -- which though Myers does not explicitly say this, may perhaps be the "video documentation" he received.

[Mary Kay]

Finally, I disagree that someone's off-work behavior is necessarily a reason to terminate their employment. It's not a stretch to imagine that the man is capable of suspending his bigotry enough in class to impart knowledge of his field to his students. ... If he does his job well, keep him on, I say.

It is a stretch. Myers has shown not a shred of willingness to modify expression of his views for any circumstance.

In addition, instructors require a modicum of "people skills" which Myers has shown himself to be lacking in. Myers has also shown himself to be a crummy scientist. If this is his approach to something he doesn't understand (actions without first learning about the topic, then not seeing the phenomenon occuring even as he reacts to it), then his research must be very shoddy indeed.

[Mary Kay]

CT, you write a lot of words but one has to dig to find any cogent points. The only thing I could glean out of your large volume of words is the paucity of your knowledge of Catholicism.

From your 12:59 am post, first, film makers have treated Catholicism disrespectfully and although disrespectful, doesn't come near the magnitude of Myers' actions. Second, obtaining a consecrated host without any false pretense, by definition, is not possible.

[Andrew Callaghan]

CT:
"My argument was not about what the law entails; but what about what would be good social policy."

In another post:

“But I maintain courtesy for the beliefs and choices of others should be maintained indiscriminate of whether theirs is good for society."

This strikes me as odd.

It seems a contradiction that good social policy is to “…maintain courtesy for the beliefs and choices of others…” “…indiscriminate of whether theirs is good for society.” How does tolerance of practices and actions that you yourself agree are bad for society make for good "social policy"?

Murder and rape, certainly, are not good for society. But would you allow it in the name of "unfettered freedom" for the development of the "human spirit"? If something is “bad” for society, “good” social policy should be in opposition to it, though it might not ban it outright.

It seems that no matter what was said or argued, you would return to your “principle” of “freedom of speech” and your particular definition thereof. You are only holding Myers accountable to principles of your own invention. Thus, being free of any principle save those of your own devising, we have little common ground to argue on, as we will not likely agree common definitions.

Or so it appears to my tired eyes (insomnia).

[Celeste]

Well, just so I don't have to type it again, here is my letter:
-------

Dear President Bruininks and Chancellor Johnson,

I am writing concerning the disturbing behavior of Mr. Paul Myers and his desecration of the Eucharist and the Koran.

While I respect Mr. Myers right to his own opinions, what he has done is rude, disrespectful, and cruel. He has gone out of his way to offend an entire group of people. He did it deliberately and without regard to the feelings of others. He deliberately chose the most offensive and insensitive act he could, one which would cause the most hurt, and he did it with deceit and malice.

I have no problem with Mr. Myers atheism. He is entitled to his beliefs. What I object to is his lack of character, his cruelty, and his disregard for the sensibilities of others. I fail to see how such a wanton disregard for members of the community at large promotes the free exchange of ideas. It certainly casts a chill on many students' freedom to express their beliefs, whatever they may be, without fear of reprisal and ridicule by a professor if their beliefs are at odds with his own. His malicious actions reflect on the credibility of the University and its faculty. He has violated the University's own Code of Conduct.

Mr. Myers has a right to free speech. He has a right to act as he pleases. He can treat those he disagrees with as horribly as he wishes. He can trumpet his deeds across the internet. He also should be willing to accept the consequences of his actions.

As much as it pains me, I feel that the University of Minnesota would be better off with a professor of more character in the position of Associate Professor of Biology than Mr. Myers.

Sincerely,

Celeste Bianco, CMT

[Celeste]

After going through the posts above, I am particularly impressed by Nick's post of 7/24.

Nick, it's a shame that you are not the Associate Professor of Biology at UMN. While I may disagree with your view of my religion, your polite disagreement shows that you are willing to debate points of view without ridicule. I would feel extremely comfortable with such a professor.

It's a shame Mr. Myers doesn't have your character.

[The Masked Chicken]

Here is a really good essay by Bishop Shhen on tolerance. It summarizes this whole affair, exactly.

The Chicken

[CT]

"Second, obtaining a consecrated host without any false pretense, by definition, is not possible."

Your assertion is not an analytic truth, nor something the negatino of which would entail a logical contradiction. Thus it is difficult to see how it could be true "by definition."

I don't think you read or if you did, understood, my example about the ship. Another example would be if a renegade priest consecrated a host and gave it to someone, even knowing that that person would desecrate it. You can call these examples "far fetched" but claiming that what you state is true "by definition" does not pass logical muster.

As for filmmakers, there have been at least two films made in the past that involved a consecrated host used in the film in a disrespectful manner (I have not seen the films, but I have read descriptions of them). One film, from the impression I get is a documentary and the other is not a mainstream film. But in neither case AFAIK was there an uproar from Catholics, probably due to lack of awareness. I just googled out of curiousity and have discovered a third film that involves disrespectful use of a consecrated host that apparently is to be released later this year (September, apparently).

[The Masked Chicken]

Please, go read the Bishop Sheen article. He says, in part:

There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance. Tolerance is always supposed to be desirable because it is taken to be synonymous with broadmindedness. Intolerance is always supposed to be undesirable, because it is taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness. This is not true, for tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons. We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine. We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God's. And hence the Church in her history, due reparation made, has always welcomed the heretic back into the treasury of her souls, but never his heresy into the treasury of her wisdom.

The Church, like Our Blessed Lord, advocates charity to all persons who disagree with her by word or by violence. Even those who in the strictest sense of the term-are bigots, are to be treated with the utmost kindness. They really do not hate the Church, they hate only what they mistakenly believe to be the Church. If I believed all the lies that are told about the Church, if I gave credence to all the foul stories told about her priesthood and Papacy, if I had been brought up on falsehoods about her teachings and her sacraments, I would probably hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

Keeping the distinction well in mind between persons and principles, cast a hurried glance over the general religious conditions of our country. America, it is commonly said, is suffering from intolerance. While there is much want of charity to our fellow-citizens, I believe it is truer to say that America is not suffering so much from intolerance as it is suffering from a false kind of tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong; truth and error; virtue and vice; Christ and chaos. The man, in our country, who can make up his mind and hold to certain truths with all the fervor of his soul, is called narrow-minded, whereas the man who cannot make up his mind is called broadminded. And now this false broad¬mindedness or tolerance of truth and error has carried many minds so far that they say one religion is just as good as another, or that because one contradicts another, therefore, there is no such thing as religion. This is just like concluding that because, in the days of Columbus, some said the world was round and others said it was flat, therefore, there is no world at all.

Such indifference to the oneness of truth is at the root of all the assumptions so current in present-day thinking that religion is an open question, like the tariff, whereas science is a closed question, like the multiplication table. It is behind that queer kind of broadmindedness which teaches that any one may tell us about God, though it would never admit that any one but a scientist should tell us about an atom. It has inspired the idea that we should be broad enough to publish our sins to any psychoanalyst living in a glass house, but never so narrow as to tell them to a priest in a confessional box. It has created the general impression that any individual opinion about religion is right, and it has disposed modern minds to accept its religion dished up in the form of articles entitled: "My Idea of Religion," written by any nondescript from a Hollywood movie star to the chief cook of the Ritz-Carlton.

This kind of broadmindedness which sacrifices principles to whims, dissolves entities into environment, and reduces truth to opinion, is an unmistakable sign of the decay of the logical faculty.
Certainly it should be reasonably expected that religion should have its authoritative spokesmen, just as well as science. If you had wounded the palm of your hand, you would not call in a florist; if you broke the spring of your watch, you would not ask an artesian-well expert repair it; if your child had swallowed a nickel, you would not call in a collector of internal revenue; if you wished to determine idle authenticity of an alleged Rembrandt, you would not summon a house painter. If you insist that only a plumber should mend the leaks in your pipes, and not an organ tuner, if you demand a doctor shall take care of your body, and not a musician, then why, in heaven's name, should not we demand that a man who tells about God and religion at least say his prayers?

The remedy for this broadmindedness is intolerance, not intolerance of persons, for of them we must be tolerant regardless of views they may hold, but intolerance of principles. A bridge builder must be intolerant about the foundations of his bridge; the gardener must be intolerant about weeds in his gardens; the property owner must be intolerant about his claims to property; the soldier must be intolerant about his country, as against that of the enemy, and he who is broadminded on the battlefield is a coward and a traitor. The doc¬tor must be intolerant about disease in his patients, and the professor must be intolerant about error in his pupils. So, too, the Church, founded on the Intolerance of Divinity, must be equally intolerant about the truths commissioned to her. There are to be no one-fisted battles, no half-drawn swords, no divided loves, no equalizing Christ and Buddha in a broad sweep of sophomoric tolerance or broad-mindedness, for as Our Blessed Lord has put it: "He that is not with Me is against Me."

There is only one answer to the problem of the constituents of water, namely, two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. There is only one answer to the question of what is the capital of the United States. There is only one true answer to the problem of two and two. Suppose that certain mathematicians in various parts of this country taught diverse kinds of multiplication tables. One taught that two times two equaled five, another two times two equaled six, another two times two equaled seven and one fourth, another two times two equaled nine and four fifths. Then suppose that some one decided it would be better to be broadminded and to work together and sacrifice their particular solutions for the sake of economy. The result would be a Federation of Mathematicians, compromising, possibly, of the pooled solution that two times two equaled five and seven eighths. Outside this federation is another group which holds that two times two equals four. They refuse to enter the federation unless the mathematicians agree to accept this as the true and unique solution. The broadminded group in conference taunts them, saying: "You are too intolerant and narrow-minded. You smack of the dead past. They believed that in the dark ages."

[snip]

There are only two positions to take concerning truth, and both of them had their hearing centuries ago in the court-room of Solomon where two women claimed a babe. A babe is like truth; it is one; it is whole; it is organic and it cannot be divided. The real mother of 'the babe would accept no compromise. She was intolerant about her claim. She must have the whole babe, or nothing-the intolerance of Motherhood. But the false mother was tolerant. She was willing to compromise. She was willing to divide the babe-and the babe would have met its death through broadmindedness.

{I hope this extended quotation falls under fair use. It is just so germane to the topic at hand]

The Chicken

[CT]

It seems a contradiction that good social policy is to “…maintain courtesy for the beliefs and choices of others…” “…indiscriminate of whether theirs is good for society.” How does tolerance of practices and actions that you yourself agree are bad for society make for good "social policy"?

It only seems a contradiction to you -- I am assuming good faith on your part here and that you are not engaging in a mere rhetorical device -- because you are confusing whether X is good for society with whether allowing X to occur is good for society. It is not good for society that people lie. However that does not entail that it is not good for society that society allow people to lie. As I mentioned, IIRC, Aquinas held that it may be better to have prostitution be legal -- even though I am fairly sure he would have held that prostitution itself is bad for society.

I think maybe you are being confused with a principle of free expression versus "good social policy." A principle of free expression is itself a matter of social policy. I am using the term "social policy" in the ordinary sense of the word, not in the sense of law versus policy. I am saying that it is wise for society to protect free expression in this manner. As for the reasons why it is good for society to do so even when particular instances of free expression may be harmful to society, I've expressed that above but also perhaps in more detail in an earlier discussion I had with SB.

[CT]

TMC,

"The man, in our country, who can make up his mind and hold to certain truths with all the fervor of his soul, is called narrow-minded, whereas the man who cannot make up his mind is called broadminded."

Sheen inserts an emotionally laden description "fervor of his soul" which perhaps obscures his error. If a data set rightly would call for certitude and the man is unable to attain it then that is a defect in his cognition. However it is equally true that if a data sat rightly would call for incertitude and the man has certitude that this is a defect in his cognition. The certitude with which we hold our beliefs is to be in proportion to the weight of the evidence assessable by us in favor of it judged against the weight assessable against it -- no more and no less. Faith introduces some kind of process where the certitude is greater than what is called for by the evidence.

I admire that SB and a few others were able to acknowledge that they could very well be wrong about their Catholic faith, that it is conceivable that it is not true. But I am not sure their own institution of Catholicism allows for such a possibility to be acknowledged since the Council of Trent spoke of a "certainty of faith" which "cannot be subject to error."

http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~lyman/english233/Council_of_Trent6.htm

As Aquinas seems to admit, faith involves a kind of if not "wishful-thinking" at least a "wishful-believing" -- belief whose certainty is produced not solely by the persuasive evidence that an object presents itself to the mind with, but rather by a voluntary choice of the will.

"The other way the mind assents is not through a sufficient motivation by its proper object, but through some voluntary choice that influences the mind in favor of one alternative rather than the other” (ST, 2a2ae 1, 4)."

http://scholasticus.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/arvin-vos-on-thomas-aquinass-understanding-of-faith/

Some of the examples Sheen uses are interesting. Water as H2O is something philosophers debate as to whether it is an example of a necessary but synthetic truth. The example about mathematicians is interesting but there are actually different opinions that various mathematicians have had on the truth of things such as the Continuum Hypothesis and in these days, a common view is actually that there is no fact of the matter as to whether the Continuum Hypothesis is true and that all mathematics -- though some may only say this of some mathematics -- is a purely formalist enterprise ... given such formalism, they are happy to have divergent and even contradictory mathematical systems. So for example, in some mathematical systems certain kinds of set exist whereas in others these do not exist. There are also foundational mathematical systems that do not even employ the use of modern iterative sets or even sets at all.

On the issue of tolerance -- I do not myself argue that tolerance is good because it is broadminded and I don't think I've even used the word tolerance here. In any event, my belief in the paramounce of free expression and personal freedom has to do with (1) respect for the dignity of the human person whose freedom is as necessary to the vitality of his spiritual life as air is to his physical life and (2) closely related to (1), the fact that without according to this freedom it is impossible for love true to flow freely from the human heart through all his being and (3) the greater valuation I place on goods developed in freedom versus in coercion -- for example if two societies were to both became identically morally virtuous but one arrived at that state through social pressure and indoctrination and censorship whereas the other arrived at that state through free-flowing personal self-discovery and once both states were arrived at there was no more need for social pressure, indoctrination or censorship in the former society, I would place greater value on what occurred in the latter society -- for it is not merely the result that determines value but the means by which it is achieved that can affect, taint or enhance its value.

[Dan]

Call me crazy, but I felt compelled to enter the fray at Mr. Myers's lunatic asylum. Here's what I wrote; who knows, maybe it'll get some of the people there to start actually thinking for a change:

"I hate to rain on some people's parade here, but when was the last time a human being physically assaulted a foodstuff & then imagined that this somehow proved the insanity of OTHER people? To my mind this entire incident is a perfect illustration of the peculiar mania that is militant atheism: you see, when we idjit catholicks address our Lord, at least we're under the impression that Someone's listening; meanwhile the author (& seemingly most of the audience) of this supposed "science blog" appear to enjoy spending a large chunk of their time shaking their fists & screaming at a Non-existent Entity. While I'm sure that one could describe this sort of pursuit in several equally-appropriate ways, "rational" or "logical" are certainly not the first ones that come to my mind. As one of those stupid, anti-Semitic, racist, troglodytic, meat-eating, etc. members of the Roman church, let me just say that I couldn't care less whether or not Mr. Myers suffers professionally because of this (for all I know, Mr. Myers might be a very fine professor). Actually the only thing I'd like to see result from this very sad & pointless act would be the abolishment of the rather unfortunate modern practice of distributing Holy Communion in the hand. Peace out, bros; keep yelling at God, I'm sure someday He's going to answer you!

"There is No Cracker-God, & PZ is His Prophet!""

[CT]

There seems to be a double standard with which Christians approach atheism. Christians proudly describe themselves as "militant" -- the Legionaries of Christ, for example describe themselves in this way -- and yet "militant atheism" is now somehow something more radical. Myers was discourteous and that I disapprove of; that he is in general militant as an atheist is fine by me. I've also encountered Christians who criticize the author of The God Delusion as an "atheist evangelist" as though somehow being an evangelist for a position is good if it is Christianity as in a "Christian evangelist" but when Christian is replaced with atheist, it becomes a term of poison, something to be derided. There is nothing wrong with an atheist seeking to spread atheist ideas.

I think a more apt description of PZM at least as regards this incident -- or rather the general tenor of his postings surrounding it -- would be that he is the Bill Donahue of atheism.

[Eric Johnson]

CT, I'm not so much interested in having him fired (this is a troubling area for me) as i see little here that makes me want to argue that the University should protect him in the face of the calls for his firing that folks here and elsewhere are making. It's a distinction that maybe doesn't make a difference anywhere but my head, but there it is.

[Dan]

"I think a more apt description of PZM at least as regards this incident -- or rather the general tenor of his postings surrounding it -- would be that he is the Bill Donahue of atheism."

---------

Bill Donahue regularly attacks other people's religious beliefs? Who knew?

[Tim J.]

Let's get this clear; P.Z. Myers is NOT the Bill Donahue of atheism.

He is the Fred Phelps of atheism.

Just like two peas.

[James J]

Myers as the Fred Phelps of atheism. Absolutely spot-on.

[Brian Walden]

CT, you appeal to principle and yet you can't see that Myers was not acting on principle. You seem unwilling to even examine Myers principles. I think most people would agree that he wasn't acting honestly. His intent was never to communicate, it was to do the exact opposite.

I have a hard time following your reasoning. You claim that pro-life demonstrators who show gruesome images to women with the intent of hurting and confusing them are wrong. Yet you don't say the same about Myers when he made clear that his intent was to anger Catholics (not merely communicate a message which may anger them). In fact, I think that his intent was far more sinister than the actual act of desecrating the Eucharist.

Then you make analogy that someone who advocates capital punishment for abortion is to homosexuals what Myers is to Christians. Yet again you don't examine intent. Two men may both hold and openly profess their belief that homosexual acts merit the death penalty. But the intent of the person who is trying to use the political system to get his beliefs enacted into law is much different than the intent of the person who beats effigies of homosexuals in the middle of the town square. There is an ocean of difference between these two men. I will defend the former even though I strongly disagree with him; I will condemn the latter. If you can't see the difference in intent, we may have to agree to disagree about Myers.

[Sleeping Beastly]

CT,
You wrote:
I do see that the cases involve some aspects that are dissimilar, namely the potentially gratuitous aspect of Myers' action. But I would imagine if Myers or someone else did something like this as not something that could be interpreted as a gratuituous display but as a serious work of art, that a similar controversy would ensue. Suppose for example, that someone made a controversial film that was a polemic against Catholics or Catholicism and in it he smashed a statue of the VM and subjected a bible to the disrespect he feels the ideas within it deserve (and let's suppose these were both blessed objects that he didn't obtain under any false pretense but that he inherited from a recently passed-away relative) ... and suppose even that some unlikely event (see above) led to the filmmaker obtaining a consecrated host without any false pretense and he did some visual depiction of his view of some irony he sees in it. This would not be gratititious (it may be extremely distasteful and worthy of condemnation on other grounds, but it serves his artistic purpose) yet it would cause a similar controversy, I would presume.

In your highly unlikely hypothetical situation, the artist in question could make the exact same points, artistically speaking, by using unconsecrated Communion wafers. When an artist chooses to use the Host in his art, the intent can only be either desecration (if the artist believes the Host to be sacred) or giving offense (if the artist believes the Host to be "just a cracker.")

I also do not know quite what you mean by "not intentionally offensive." If a Christian is invited to the home of a homosexual couple and at dinner says, "I think homosexuality is an abomination almost as bad as bestiality," I don't see how it is possible for the Christian to say that without at least foreseeing that it would be offensive even if it were somehow possible to not directly intend it to be offensive.

Two points:

First, you were not originally objecting to this hypothetical Christian couple; you were objecting to the Catholic teachings against pornography and prostitution. I said that these teachings are different in kind from Myers' act, in terms of the respect shown to the people involved. The Church's teachings can be viewed as wrong or even evil (Myers implies as much in his most recent post) but they're not discourteous. I would agree with you that the couple in the example given above are most likely being discourteous, at least if they bring the matter up with no questioning or provocation.

Second, just because a statement offends someone does not automatically make that statement rude. The couple in question might make such a statement in all charity and goodwill if they were honestly asked about the subject by their hosts.

I think there is a difference that you tried to highlight, but I think it is more a case of Fujis and Granny Smiths then apples and oranges, a difference more of varied character and perhaps degree, than a fundamentally dispositive one. But it was a difference I did not fully appreciate before your comment and I thank you for that.

I guess I'll settle for that.

There seems to be a double standard with which Christians approach atheism. Christians proudly describe themselves as "militant" -- the Legionaries of Christ, for example describe themselves in this way -- and yet "militant atheism" is now somehow something more radical.

I don't think anyone's claiming that militant atheism is more radical than militant Christianity. The Catholic Church actually describes her members as being part of "the church militant." The language of warfare has been a part of Christianity since Christ began his public ministry. The term "militant atheist" is a generally neutral descriptive term. When a Christian objects to a militant atheist, I imagine he will give the reasons for his objections, above and beyond the mere militant nature of the atheist's beliefs and actions.

Myers was discourteous and that I disapprove of; that he is in general militant as an atheist is fine by me.

Me too, in a sense. I wish he weren't endangering his soul thereby, but he can hold whatever beliefs he likes, militant or otherwise.

I've also encountered Christians who criticize the author of The God Delusion as an "atheist evangelist" as though somehow being an evangelist for a position is good if it is Christianity as in a "Christian evangelist" but when Christian is replaced with atheist, it becomes a term of poison, something to be derided.

Look back over the things you've read. Is the term "atheist evangelist" truly being used as a term of criticism, or is it being used descriptively? Is it just the author's evangelism that's being criticized, or are other points addressed?

Sheen inserts an emotionally laden description "fervor of his soul" which perhaps obscures his error. If a data set rightly would call for certitude and the man is unable to attain it then that is a defect in his cognition. However it is equally true that if a data sat rightly would call for incertitude and the man has certitude that this is a defect in his cognition. The certitude with which we hold our beliefs is to be in proportion to the weight of the evidence assessable by us in favor of it judged against the weight assessable against it -- no more and no less. Faith introduces some kind of process where the certitude is greater than what is called for by the evidence.

No, as I've mentioned previously in our discussions, faith does no such thing; it merely rests on evidence you would consider inadmissible.

I admire that SB and a few others were able to acknowledge that they could very well be wrong about their Catholic faith, that it is conceivable that it is not true. But I am not sure their own institution of Catholicism allows for such a possibility to be acknowledged since the Council of Trent spoke of a "certainty of faith" which "cannot be subject to error."

Wow, talk about quoting out of context. The full sentence is "For as no pious person ought to doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ and the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, so each one, when he considers himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension concerning his own grace, since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God."

The passage in question was refuting the Protestant notion that a person can be absolutely certain of his own salvation; an argument for uncertainty, not against it.

You also quote Aquinas:
"The other way the mind assents is not through a sufficient motivation by its proper object, but through some voluntary choice that influences the mind in favor of one alternative rather than the other” (ST, 2a2ae 1, 4)."

This is not evidence that faith is always irrational; it's a simple statement of the obvious fact that, given plausible alternatives, people are capable of choosing between them.

On the issue of tolerance -- I do not myself argue that tolerance is good because it is broadminded and I don't think I've even used the word tolerance here. In any event, my belief in the paramounce of free expression and personal freedom has to do with (1) respect for the dignity of the human person whose freedom is as necessary to the vitality of his spiritual life as air is to his physical life and (2) closely related to (1), the fact that without according to this freedom it is impossible for love true to flow freely from the human heart through all his being and...

You are in greater agreement with the Church on these points than you may think.

...(3) the greater valuation I place on goods developed in freedom versus in coercion -- for example if two societies were to both became identically morally virtuous but one arrived at that state through social pressure and indoctrination and censorship whereas the other arrived at that state through free-flowing personal self-discovery and once both states were arrived at there was no more need for social pressure, indoctrination or censorship in the former society, I would place greater value on what occurred in the latter society -- for it is not merely the result that determines value but the means by which it is achieved that can affect, taint or enhance its value.

I would argue that it is impossible for evil seeds to produce good fruit. If a society became virtuous under tyranny, it will be in spite of that tyranny, rather than because of it. It is possible to draw good out of evil, but not to cause good by means of evil. Does that distinction make sense?

[Mary Kay]

CT, no, I didn't get that far in that post because long before I got to the ship part, it was clear that you simply have no understanding of Catholic theology, specifically, the Eucharist. That's an observation, no snarkiness intended.

Let me attempt or begin to explain why your suppositions in that post don't work (inviting the regulars to add to my explanation).

Suppose that Myers came across a consecrated host *without* any interference in a religious ceremony.

One does not "come across" a consecrated host either casually and/or without false pretenses. Only Catholics in what's called "a state of grace" may receive a consecrated host. There's a fair amount of vigilance in telling that to non-Catholics.

When non-Catholics are expected such as at a funeral Mass, it's usually announced that only Catholics receive the Eucharist and non-Catholics asked to remain in the pew. Even when it's not, such as a recent funeral I went to andtwo non-Catholics also stood up when I stood to go to Communion, someone gently pulled them back and explained. Those giving Communion recognize if someone is unfamiliar and would also quietly explain.

A consecrated host is to be consumed on the spot, not sometime later. The FL student's excuse of "showing a friend" is BS. To receive a host with any intention other than immediate consumption (if Catholic), means that person is not in a state of grace. That's what I meant by definition.

I have to go on to part 2 because your ship example is so unrealistic that I have to gather the fortitude to seriously answer it.

[Inocencio]

CT,

Please refrain as a personal favor to me from such comments as in your latest post; they are not personally helpful to me.

What? No, defense of my right to make such comments? Please explain why PZM behavior deserved your defense but mine does not?

Also, please spell my name correctly.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

[Martin]

Myers comment on his blog is not only offensive but also historically totally wrong for a number of reasons:

1. The Fourth Lateran Council did not invent the yelow badge.

2. Witch burning did not really start until 1500 and occured in protestant and Catholic areas.

3. Nobody celebrates an anti-semitic pilgrimage like the "Deggendorf Gnad" today.

4. To call the overwhelmingly protestant Nazi germany a Catholic nation is simply inaccurate. In the 1930s, only 30 % of all Germans where Catholics and a clear majority of them never voted for the Nazis.

5. If Myers tries to connect the Eucharist and the Holocaust, let's ask about the role of biology in Nazi Germany. Who "invented" the concept of a so-called "master race"? Catholics?
6. Besides, it makes me sick if a self-appointed "scientist" simply copies a text from wikpedia and tries to present this as historically accurate.

[Margarita]

This campaign to get the man fired (as opposed to strongly condemning and protesting his bad conduct) seems a bit disproportionate to the extent that it comes from those outside his employment relationship.

Anyone who is against what he has done should be heard loudly and clearly, but specifically as to whether he should be employed by that particular school is an issue for that school (and, of course, its state sponsor, its governing body, its faculty, its students, its alumni, etc.).

Having and expressing an opinion about whether he is a suitable educator is perfectly legitimate, but actively campaigning for his termination -- again, except for those with a direct interest -- seems to flirt with mob mentality and moral panic.

As offensive and indefensible as his conduct is, there's something to be said for not escalating the conflict beyond what can be safely avoided and, candidly, for not rising to the bait.

[Dave Mueller]

CT,
I read the article supposedly refuting Eucharistic miracles but it did nothing of the sort. At best, it just threw out another unlikely explanation for what happened and found some discrepancies in the written testimony, for one particular miracle.

[Mary Kay]

Hosts are consecrated only within the context of Mass and only for that Mass and to take to Catholics unable to attend due to illness, etc. Think in terms of days rather than weeks or months. One simply does not send a shipment of consecrated hosts.

That's a good place to stop on that topic.

Another example would be if a renegade priest consecrated a host and gave it to someone, even knowing that that person would desecrate it.

This requires some specifics as to what you mean by "a renegade priest." If a priest intended to give it to someone he knew intended to desecrate the host, that probably would invalidate the consecration of the host.

Again, specifics (film title, date, director) please for your claim that 2 film makers used consecrated hosts and the one in September.

[PUSkunk]

To say that he violated a scared object of both the islam and christian worlds would be to say that one or the other is "correct" and something can actually be sacred. Since they are mutually exclusive worldviews, one or the other is sacred, not both. I would say the easiest answer is neither are sacred, sacred is a null word. The sooner we get over fairy tales, the better off society will be.

[bill912]

Bigotry noted.

[Jeff]

The sooner we get over fairy tales, the better off society will be.

Would that be the "fairy tale" that there is a Supreme Being responsible for creation? Or would that be the "fairy tale" that everything started with a Big Bang and the universe was created by chance?

I have a degree in mechanical engieering and there is too much evidence of design in the universe for me to simply subscribe to the belief that were here because of random events and pure chance. Look at a watch, and it is obvious that someone designed it and put it together. If you laid the parts for a watch on the table and left them there they would not become a watch by chance.

Look at how a cell works - it is truly a great design.

[BG]

Watching this episode over the past several weeks, it's difficult to determine if there is a coherent Catholic response, or at least a response that tends towards some sort of mean.

So my question is this; does the church believe that blaspemy should be a legally punishable offense? If yes, does the same standard apply to other religions? The blogger calls for PZ to be fired, an action that clearly needs to be legally defensible.

Clearly there is a difference between holding the opinion that actions are in bad form and in advocating that the state should prosecute those actions.

When the Danish newspaper suffered violence because of its publication of the Mohamed cartoon, how many who now call for PZs censure or dismissal defended the newspapers rights on the grounds of free expression?

If the truth is that the "average" catholic desires the U.S. to become a theocracy then just say so. Or even if you simply desire more robust laws prohibitng blasphemy/desecration/offensive behavior then say so. Then at least we will better understand each other.

[Bob]

Margarita -
Everybody here is footing the bill for Myers' paycheck. He is employed at a public university that receives federal funding (read, your money and my money)...I'd say that rises to the level of an employment relationship.

MY MONEY paid for that rusty nail...MY MONEY paid for that banana...MY MONEY paid for those coffee grounds...MY MONEY paid for the garbage can in which a piece of the Corpus Christi now resides. And you're darn right - I resent it to no end.

Too bad Mr. Myers didn't give a rat's rear-end when other people were in the hot seat. Did he defend Don Imus, Jimmy the Greek, George Allen, Michael Richards, Isaiah Washington, or any of the other countless people who have been tarred and feathered because of WORDS that they spoke? Was their precious right to free expression of no concern to him? No.

I am in the process of e-mailing a link to his blog to every mosque I can find on the internet. I respect people who are committed to their faith...who actually read God's word and understand that there is a reason that God didn't include the 11th commandment "Thou shalt always be PC and try to get along with everyone."
The Muslim community will see to it that this guy's desk is cleaned out before rush-week.

[Joel]

"P. Z. Myers surreptitiously obtained and then desecrated something that is held most sacred by numerous individuals."

While I won't say that P.Z's drive to make his point was the most tactful method of doing so - your point is completely, 100%, naive and unsupported.

Approximately 1 billion, that is 1,000,000,000 individuals on this earth revere the cow. The Hindus. How many of the other 5.5+ billion individuals in this world have "desecrated something that is held most sacred by" these individuals? Should you, and I, and a vast majority of the world's population be fired from our jobs for doing this?

Sure, you could make the argument that P.Z. did this knowing well that it would upset a large group of people. But I challenge you to walk into a McDonalds and tell 90% of the individuals there that eating their Big Mac will violate a sacred belief held by 1 billion individuals. How many will stop eating beef for the rest of their lives? Or even stop for a second to consider it? Very few i'd imagine.

If something can be sacred, based solely upon the belief of an individual, then anything has the potential to be sacred.

I revere the porcelain God. Stop shitting on him. Or face death threats and loss of your job.

Your position is illogical. You have no argument. Stop talking.

[Bob]

BG -

Nice try...

If Mr. Myers wants to publish a *drawing* or a cartoon of someone desecrating a Eucharist or a Koran, I'll roll my eyes, shake my head, and say "whatever floats your boat, Jack."

Rational people don't equate images with reality. If we did, then it should be noted that Tom Hanks, just like Christ himself, has been resurrected from the dead. I watched him die in Saving Private Ryan...saw it myself with my own two eyes. And, further, Steven Spielberg should be charged with manslaughter since he caused the events leading up to Mr. Hanks' death.

[Bob]

Joel -

Clean up your mouth or get out. The word you are looking for is "defecating"...or, if that one is a bit too tough for you, then the term that my 2-year old uses - "pooping" - will suffice.

If I went to a predominately Hindu country, *stole* or procured a sacred cow by fraudulent means, then publicly impaled it on a rusty piece of metal, then threw trash on it...yeah, their outrage would indeed be justified and I would have no reasonable defense for my actions.

[SDG]

Approximately 1 billion, that is 1,000,000,000 individuals on this earth revere the cow. The Hindus. How many of the other 5.5+ billion individuals in this world have "desecrated something that is held most sacred by" these individuals? Should you, and I, and a vast majority of the world's population be fired from our jobs for doing this?

I am getting really tired of this silly sophistry.

We are not talking here about Myers's freedom to eat his own cracker over the objections of others, as I eat my own hamburger.

We are talking about Myers going out of his way to illicitly obtain an object sacred to Catholics precisely because it is sacred to Catholics, doing things to it he would never ordinarily do to ordinary foodstuff, and disseminating information about this as widely as possible, all precisely to flout Catholic objections.

When I eat a hamburger, I'm not sticking it to the Hindus. I'm eating it because I'm eating it. If Hindu beliefs did not exist, I would still eat my hamburger, whereas if Catholic beliefs did not exist Myers would never have dreamed of sticking a nail through a wheat wafer and posting it on the Internet.

However Hindus may feel about it, humanly speaking cows are simply part of the wealth of the world, and as such are within the domain of mankind as a whole. In particular cases, of course, Hindus may control the fate of their own cows, or cows in dominantly Hindu precincts. But if it's my cow, born and bred outside Hindu property or otherwise licitly acquired and outside Hindu control, they have no reasonable human right to expect me to change my whole lifestyle to honor their standards, just as I don't expect non-Catholics to change their whole lifestyle to honor my standards.

It is different with consecrated hosts. The unconsecrated bread is private property, belonging to the church, and the consecrated host exists as such exclusively within the context of the Church's Eucharistic worship and piety. They are not given to the individual to do with as he pleases, but may only be consumed on the spot.

Although the circumstances in which the host was acquired are not yet clear, Myers's open-ended solicitation was an invitation to enter private property under false pretenses and commit theft and/or breach of contract in furtherance of his incitement.

The argument is not and has never been "Whatever is sacred to others should be sacrosanct to all." Nor is it that everyone must be willing to change their lifestyle to avoid offending others.

So please, give me a break and stop pretending that Myers' actions are no different from eating a Big Mac.

P.S. If one were moved by animosity toward Hindus to solicit cows stolen from Hindu precincts, and then proceed to do things to them one would never otherwise do to cows, precisely in order to make a video of oneself doing it and then posting it on the Internet with a lot of scorched-earth rhetoric about how stupid and moronic Hindus are, then that would begin to resemble what Myers did. And if one worked for a state-run institution, one might reasonably expect to get fired.

[BG]

Bob - I completely agree with you. The point of equating the two is that certain Muslems (quite a few) found the cartoon depiction supremely offensive. Indeed such acts are illegal in states under sharia law. I would label this belief and reaction irrational.

Taking substantial offense at the act of "nailing the cracker" has been labelled irrational, not just by atheists but also by believing non-catholics in other forums.

The question of whether the Catholic belief in transubstantiation is rational is likely unresolvable via blog post. So, aside from the question of property rights (which seems tenuous in this case to me at least), who gets to decide for us all whether or not individual actions cross from offensive to illegal?

I want to know if Catholics on the whole wish to reserve this right for themsleves. To take a specific case, would you defend an American's right to destroy a Q'uran as he/she sees fit without legal consequences?