When Opposites Attack
Frank Cocozzelli printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:33:12 PM EST
Two seemingly unrelated recent events have something important in common.  The dust-up between the University of Minnesota's P.Z. Myers and the Catholic League's Bill Donohue and the terrible shooting at the Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee each surface the dangers of highly charged rhetoric.
First, the Myers-Donohue flap.

In a posting at his web site Pharyngula for July 10, 2008, University of Minnesota, Morris associate professor of biology and atheist activist P.Z. Myers, screeded on an episode featuring one Webster Cook, a University of Central Florida undergraduate who attended a Mass on campus. He had stood in line to receive the Eucharist. But instead of eating it as to take part of the Sacrament of Communion he took it back to his seat to show his friend and then held onto what Catholics call "the Host" for a week before returning it after several people threatened his life:

I find this all utterly unbelievable. It's like Dark Age superstition and malice, all thriving with the endorsement of secular institutions here in 21st century America. It is a culture of deluded lunatics calling the shots and making human beings dance to their mythical bunkum.

So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them - my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure - but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address.
Just wait. Now there'll be a team of Jesuits assigned to rifle through my mail every day.

But if Myers was provocative, the Catholic League's Bill Donohue was more so.  In one of his counter-screeds, Bill Bluster declared:

"Myers went on Houston radio station KPFT last night saying that Bill Donohue has 'declared a fatwa' against him. He should know better -- I don't need others to do the fighting for me. I'm quite good at it myself. But he'd better be careful what he says, because if I get any death threats, it won't be hard to connect the dots.

"Myers, who claims expertise in studying zebrafish, has quite a following among the King Kong Theory of Creation gang. Indeed, we've been inundated with hate mail from all over the world, and it all stems from those whose alleged god is reason.

Myers then responded in kind:

That is the true power of the cracker, this silly symbol of superstition. Fortunately, Catholicism has mellowed with age - the last time a Catholic nation rose up to slaughter its non-Christian citizenry was a whole 70 years ago, after all - but the sentiment still lingers. Catholicism has been actively poisoning the minds of its practitioners with the most amazing bullshit for years, and until recently, I had no idea that a significant number of people actually believed this nonsense, or that the hatred was still simmering there, waiting for an opportunity to rise up in misplaced defense of absurdity.

Let's consider a few points regarding this rhetorical barroom brawl which brought out the worst kinds of yahooism from their respective partisans: First, the "cracker" of which Myers speaks is the Eucharist. For Catholics such as myself  (who like Myers, are liberals and believe in evolution) believe it to be the Body of Christ.

One might argue that because communion wafers mean nothing to him, why should he have to worry about what they mean to others? But Myers has gratuitously insulted what I and many other Catholics of good will also believe to be sacred. He has recklessly lumped me in with Nazis, some of whom also professed to be Christians -- both Catholics and Protestants. And he creates simplistic categories of atheist/good/intelligent and faithful people/bad/ignorant.  Reality is nowhere near that clear-cut.

Why does Professor Myers feel the need to insult the beliefs of others? He claims to be a liberal. Yet such confrontational behavior is both illiberal and unenlightened. "I never will, by any word or act" wrote Thomas Jefferson, "bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."  While Jefferson avoided the shrine of intolerance, Professor Myers appears to be a pilgrim and cult follower. Myers' desecration of a Eucharist does nothing to ennoble the cause of reason. Instead, it only creates an atmosphere where fellow citizens with differing views of God and different religious practices opinions on the existence of God view each other, as Robert F. Kennedy observed; "as enemies - to be met not with cooperation but with conquest, to be subjugated and mastered."

Secondly, Myers' allusion to that "Catholic nation" of seventy years ago is an obvious reference to pre-Second World War Germany. However, Germany in 1938 was far from being a predominantly Catholic country. Actually, the breakdown back then was about two-thirds Protestant (mostly being Lutheran) and one-third was Roman Catholic. Such rhetoric exposes Myers as an intellectually lazy and ignorant bigot, who violates Godwin's Law; (the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons to Hitler and Nazism). His "cracker" comment is a distraction from the point that Myers tries to blame Catholicism for the Holocaust! Didn't we last hear that one from John Hagee?

As for the self-appointed defender of all-things-Catholic, Bill Donohue, it is incredible that the Catholicism-as-Nazism analogy went right past him (or did it?). But beyond that, he really ought to know more about his own professed faith.

First of all, when Donohue derides those of us who believe in evolution as "the King Kong Theory of Creation gang" he derides many of his fellow Catholics, including the late Pope John Paul II who in 1996 described the theory of evolution, "...as more than an hypothesis." And contrary to what Donohue rants about, it runs contrary to a 2006 Vatican statement issued by the Vatican's astronomer Guy J. Consolmagno S.J., who flatly stated, "Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which [turns] God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not necessarily be a good thing to do." In fact, in 2009 the Vatican will be hosting a symposium on why evolution and creation as described in Genesis are compatible.

By the way, the initials "S.J." following Father Consolmagno's name stands for Society of Jesus. The astronomer-priest is one of the supposed anti-science Jesuits P.Z. Myers sarcastically claimed is coming after him. But back to Donohue, who said:  "Indeed, we've been inundated with hate mail from all over the world, and it all stems from those whose alleged god is reason."

Bill should know that Catholicism's emphasis on reason is one of the things that distinguishes it from Protestant fundamentalism. The natural law principles he and his fellow Catholic Right reactionaries constantly cite in opposing homosexual rights and embryonic stem cell research is nothing more than St. Thomas Aquinas interpreting such non-Catholic thinkers such as Aristotle and Cicero, all believers in reason.

The rub comes because Myers and his ilk want the conflict. They are provocative in their language because in fact they (just like Donohue and his ilk) do not respect the sensibilities of others. They feed on conflict and don't care about the consequences.

In one corner we have P.Z. Meyers who wants open conflict with the Catholic League and in the other is Blusterin' Bill Donohue who earns more than $325,000 a year obliging folks such as Myers. The strident clash with the strident, with no interest in cooperation or commonality; no search for seeking out that which unites us, not divides as Americans. Such engagements leave all sides only with bitterness, anger and the need to endlessly continue this unproductive game of one-upsmanship.

And still in this debacle of what passes for debate it is clearly Donohue who is the more pernicious actor. Representing an organization ostensibly based upon Catholic principles, he egregiously raises the stakes in a dangerously escalating game of highly charged rhetoric. His bombastic diatribes only encourage those who are threatening the Minnesota professor with bodily harm and death. Is that truly "the Catholic response" Donohue seeks? If it is, it ultimately harms the Catholic cause, one that should be based on pitying and turning the other check to the likes of P. Z. Myers. Jesus would not have resorted to rallying the mob -- and neither should Donohue.

All of this brings us to the terrible shootings at the Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville.   Jim D. Adkisson is the man accused of the July 27, 2008 killing of two people and wounding six others during a children's musical at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. According to the Associated Press:

A four-page letter found in Adkisson's SUV indicated he picked the church for the attack because, the Knoxville police chief said, "he hated the liberal movement" of the congregation.

Adkisson "stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country," investigator Steve Still wrote.

Adkisson was a loner who hates "blacks, gays and anyone different from him," longtime acquaintance Carol Smallwood of Alice, Texas, told the Knoxville News Sentinel.

A search of Adkisson's home uncovered material from several right-wing talking heads:

Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.

While there is no evidence that the rhetoric of Savage, Hannity and O'Reilly dumped gasoline on the anti-liberal and otherwise hateful rages of a disturbed man, it certainly does raise the question in my mind. Meanwhile, professional and amateur provocateurs like Myers, Donohue and Adkinsson's favorite talk show hosts continue to dominate our public discourse with bogus issues, false outrage, and inflammatory rhetoric.



To discuss this story, sign up for a free account

Display:
When Opposites Attack | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)
Jefferson Also Said: (5.00 / 2)
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Sage advice indeed for Donohue, Myers and for all of us to live by.

by Frank Cocozzelli on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:34:14 PM EST


PZ and "Prup's Law" (5.00 / 2)
Some years ago, I came up with "Prup's Law" which goes:
Whatever side you take in any political, religious, social, or sexual controversy, you'll have some idiots agreeing with you.

PZ -- sadly, because the man can be both intelligent and a truly great writer -- has surpassed Sam Harris as the primary exemplar of the law for atheists like myself.  I left the Catholic Church over 45 years ago, but I'd never do something like this, because I am a humanist first, and people -- and their feelings -- count.  I'll attack truly malevolent religions, like those Dogemperor writes about so well, and will defend against any religion that tries to enforce its beliefs on society as a whole, but this was pointless and insulting.

And, btw, I went to a Jesuit High School between 1960 and 1963, and no one ever even questioned the obvious truth of evolution.  In fact, rather than being 'anti-science' the science course I was given was miles ahead of anything my (much younger) wife was exposed to in Public High School a decade and a half later.  In 10th Grade, the course was based on the basics of nuclear physics -- no biology, because there just wasn't room in the curriculum or room in the school for another lab, not because they were 'afraid' of it.


by Prup aka Jim Benton on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 01:08:25 PM EST

Well Stated Jim (5.00 / 1)
At the risk of stating the obvious, both Myers and Harris are aberrations of all the atheists I've come to know, just as Donohue and his ilk are an obnoxious faction within the larger Catholic population.

by Frank Cocozzelli on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 01:53:49 PM EST
Parent
Agreed, but (5.00 / 1)
just trying to head off people defending PZ on the 'enemy of our enemy' argument

by Prup aka Jim Benton on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 02:10:23 PM EST
Parent
Thanks Jim (5.00 / 1)
Good catch.

by Frank Cocozzelli on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 07:52:26 PM EST
Parent




As for Adkisson... (5.00 / 2)
in fact, he too was an atheist, as well as a hate-talk junkie.  I only mention this because some people have tried to tie him to the Religious Right.  There are a lot of 'home-grown terrorists' who are, but not him.


by Prup aka Jim Benton on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 01:11:12 PM EST

Excellent column and comments (5.00 / 1)
PZ's attack was offensive, but so was Screamin' Bill's response. The supreme irony was in the people making death threats to PZ. Would Jesus have done that?

Bill should know better than to espouse know-nothingism and abandon reason. He and Adkisson are good examples of the folks that use and succumb to mob psychology.

by khughes1963 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:26:57 PM EST


inevitable offense? (5.00 / 2)

As a student of rhetoric especially interested in religion and public argument, I agree that needlessly contentious language does undermine public discourse, and I don't find Professor Myers's language at all helpful.  However, I'm curious as to how you would define the bounds of acceptable public discourse.

You criticize Myers for insulting the beliefs of others and for not respecting others's sensibilities, but Myers's langauge, disrespectful as it is, doesn't seem to be in the same category as the violent eliminationist rhetoric coming from some on the right whom Adkisson may have been influenced by.  Disrespect can certainly be a first step along a path to more violent rhetoric, but I don't think disrespect inevitabily leads to violence, because at some level disrespect seems inevitable when dealing with issues of religion and fundamental beliefs.

In what ways could I respectfully convey my belief to you or other Catholics that I do not believe in what you believe to be sacred?  These matters are difficult to discuss, even when all involved have the best intentions (i.e. the intention not to provoke for provocation's sake), because we are dealing with irreconcilable worldviews.

As an atheist and Ethical Culturalist, for example, I've found that what I hold to be the highest (what some might call holy, though I don't use such terms), others hold to be the highest blasphemy.  I have certainly felt my blood boil when some religious believers have insisted that the state of my eternal soul is more important that doing good in this life, which I believe is the only life humans have, or when their conception of good works is diametrically opposed to my own.

But I would rather we honestly disagree, even with the consequence of (hopefully temporarily) offending each other than masking our differences.  It doesn't seem as though we as a society can talk about our differences without being insulted to some extent.  The question then becomes where do we draw the line between unacceptable provocation and honest disagreement, and is there a way to draw it so that it does not privilege certain views as above criticism, which also hampers public discourse?



by Todd B on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 09:31:20 PM EST
this is an interesting question (5.00 / 1)
but goes a bit far afield from our site topic, which is the religious right and what to do about it.

As Frank points out, the ostensibily liberal Myers glibly blames Catholicism for the holocaust. While it is not quite eliminationist rhetoric, it is also indefensible, although he and John Hagee may discover that they much to share on this point.

For our purposes, this goes to the matter of how we do deal with the religious right. Myers offers us one clear example of how not to.

by Frederick Clarkson on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:56:04 AM EST
Parent


My Aim (5.00 / 1)
Fred pretty much sums it up for me. But beyond that, I would like to see a more civil discourse on these issues. Yes, P.Z. Myers may have the right to do what he did, but was he using discretion in doing so? I think not.

You ask me:

In what ways could I respectfully convey my belief to you or other Catholics that I do not believe in what you believe to be sacred?  These matters are difficult to discuss, even when all involved have the best intentions (i.e. the intention not to provoke for provocation's sake), because we are dealing with irreconcilable worldviews.

Well, I don't mind if you tell me that what I believe is wrong - that is well within your rights. All I ask is that you not express yourself through hateful acts and then verbally defend what you did with incorrect historical facts. That I believe helps to feed the backlash that leads to this eliminationist rhetoric.

And by the way, as a Catholic, it also makes my blood boil when my co-religionists and other Christians come at atheists (or Jews and other non-Christians) with the "you're damned" fear attack. I often find that many of the folks who take that tact are in no position themselves to make that judgment.

by Frank Cocozzelli on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:50:17 AM EST
Parent

Didn't mean to stray (5.00 / 2)

To Frank:

I absolutely agree that that Nazi comparisons and overgeneralizations coupled with faulty history degrade our public discussion. But I still think a precise definition of "hateful acts" is hard to come by as different people will have different understandings of what constitutes hate.

To Fred:

I apologize for straying from the purpose of your site. I've followed talk2action for a while now, and for the most part I've found the material posted insightful. If the question is how to best deal with the religious right, I think there is a vast resource that could be tapped in the form of an alliance between religious and nonreligious Americans in this cause. Unfortunately such an alliance seems hampered by mutual misunderstandings the religious and nonreligious have of each other. Having a discussion about how each side defines rhetoric and actions that are beyond the pale would help resolve such misunderstandings and build a stronger coalition to deal with the religious right.



by Todd B on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:36:11 AM EST
Parent
Todd B (5.00 / 2)
I think we all agree that there is sometimes a great deal of people talking past and misundertstanding one another, and that this is not limited to religious and non-religious folks, although I agree that this has its own dynamics that are worth sortinging out whenever possible. And it is indeed, a very worthwhile discussion for the purposes of this site. Crafting alliances, and  making them work better is hard work and you have identified one of the important pieces. Anytime you want to post about it, I am sure you would have an eager audience around here.  

by Frederick Clarkson on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:53:19 AM EST
Parent




Meanwhile... (5.00 / 1)
University of Central Florida students Webster Cook and Benjamin Collard are both suffering unjustified harassment, such as having their academic careers put in limbo because they're blocked from registering for future classes. Cook faces likely impeachment from his seat in the student senate.

At least the death threats (to the best of my knowledge, all directed against Cook and Myers, and none against Donohue) seem to have ceased for the time being.

This is not an issue of who accepts evolution or other scientific perspectives. It's a question of whether a powerful institution's claims of special privilege derived from supernatural assertions should influence public university policies, and provide a shield against examining that institution's dubious dogma and disgraceful history.

by Pierce R Butler on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:43:26 PM EST

and Myers helped the cause (5.00 / 2)
of Cook and Collard, how?  

Seems to me he made things worse for a couple of kids via incendiary rhetoric that then drew out the odious Bill Donohue.

Isn't it a shame that kids can't make thier mistakes and things get sorted out without the 'help' of Myers and Donohue?

by Frederick Clarkson on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:15:31 PM EST
Parent

which is better - (none / 0)
- that UCF's derelict administration be allowed to persecute two harmless students unnoticed in a dark alley, or that their crimes against academic integrity should undergo a nationwide spotlight?

As I politely wrote to UCF's president (the only reply thus far being an obscure message about spam, it's quite likely such critiques are routed directly to the oubliette), whatever offense was committed was a purely church matter. Had the attendant priest assigned Webster Cook to recite 17,354,209 "Pater Nosters", joined UCF officialdom in decrying rudeness and excesses on all sides, and quietly trained his over-reactive assistant in dealing more reasonably with the unexpected - or if the students involved had actually committed any sort of crime - there would have been no abuse for Myers to protest so "indiscreetly".

Do not forget that, before Myers weighed in, at least one these students was already the target of death threats, accused of "hate crimes" and "kidnapping" over a disposable item of purely symbolic value. Is it unreasonable to consider that irrational, or to say so? Why is it that would-be "moderates" muster indignation as if Myers had provoked this tragi-farce?

Also, please see Myers's original post on this episode to note that Bill Donohue was already cranking out hysterical press releases calling for Cook's expulsion. If Myers had left Cook to face a high-powered and well-practiced witchhunt alone, lying defenseless on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, that would have helped how?

by Pierce R Butler on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:40:46 PM EST
Parent

That is a lovely strawman (5.00 / 1)
you've got there.

This is not a question of which is worse, the death threats and harrassment of the students and mal treatment by school administrators.  Obviously there is nothing that Frank or I have written that supports that.

The problem with Myers approach is that he is not nearly as helpful as he could be if he were not so recklessly inflammatory.

C'mon Pierce. Catholicism responsible for the crimes of Nazi Germany? What does this have to do with, umm the defense of students who took as he put it -- a cracker?  If one important part of Myers' point and yours, is to show that there are issues of proportionality here, one would think he could have managed some proportionality himself.  Or at least not stoop to religious bigotry.

by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 01:43:54 AM EST
Parent

Strawman? (none / 0)
"Catholicism responsible for the crimes of Nazi Germany?" is a strawman, in that it's not what Myers said. He did point out that there was systemic "Christian" involvement in the Nazi regime, which is not only true but relevant by Catholic standards in that the Church has made only a bogus "few bad apples" confession and remains unrepentant, right up to the former Hitlerjugend at the top.

Myers stepped up to the Church's belligerent intrusion into a public university (one already giving that church constitutionally questionable subsidies - look into that, please) with a challenge both to their intolerance and to one of their most unsustainable claims, one at the center of their manufactured outrage.

If finding the hocus-pocus doctrine of transubstantiation - never mind its convoluted apologia - laughworthy is "religious bigotry", then you're going to find most of the world is wearing invisible white sheets. At least the Virgin-Mary-in-a-tortilla images look slightly like a human face.

Much of our disagreement seems to boil down to a tactical difference: talk2action confronts the religious right in (attempted) alliance with religious moderates, a necessary and potentially rewarding strategy. Atheists challenge them both, but with an emphasis on those most threatening to civil society, which puts t2a on a tricky tightrope at times - one which deserves more thinking than passing slaps at "'enemy of our enemy' arguments".

Imagine, unpleasant as it may be, that the US slides much closer to a de facto theocracy. Who would you expect to stand more tenaciously in resistance: PZ Myers atheists or Jim Wallis "moderates"? If you're serious about your stated project, a better-thought-out approach (e.g.,  not trying to cram Myers, Donohue and Adkisson in the same "provocateur" pigeonhole) would be more fitting with your usually-highly-intelligent style.

Will you at least retract the disproven assertion that Myers's "incendiary rhetoric ... drew out the odious Bill Donohue"? (Uh, please don't retract the "odious" part - that's accurate!)

by Pierce R Butler on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 06:54:59 PM EST
Parent

yes strawman. (5.00 / 1)
Here is the Myers quote Frank discusses in post, which I guess you must not have read or think I somehow forgot:

That is the true power of the cracker, this silly symbol of superstition. Fortunately, Catholicism has mellowed with age - the last time a Catholic nation rose up to slaughter its non-Christian citizenry was a whole 70 years ago, after all - but the sentiment still lingers. Catholicism has been actively poisoning the minds of its practitioners with the most amazing bullshit for years, and until recently, I had no idea that a significant number of people actually believed this nonsense, or that the hatred was still simmering there, waiting for an opportunity to rise up in misplaced defense of absurdity.

Our disagreement, Pierce rests in your kneejerk reactions in defense of Myers in ways that place you in the zone of flat out dishonesty. You cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that Myers is at all wrong, or even that there is such a thing as religous bigotry.

As for "religious moderates" and alleged alliances, with same, I don't know what you are refering to. I might add, many of us at Talk to Action including me personally, have been very critical of the way Jim Wallis flirts with and sometimes embraces the religious right. The world and politics is more complicated than your apparently manichean world view allows.

As for atheists and their alliances, I guess you should check out First Freedom First, (scroll down to the bottom of the page) for example, which finds much of organized atheism in alliance with religious folks. As it should be. Most atheist in my experience aren't agressively anti-religious or religious bigots. Certainly no one who does not want to be viewed as an asshole or who wants to be effective in public life would behave as poorly as Myers does. I am sorry to see you become his apologist.

Speaking for myself, I work with people of differing sorts in differing situations.  

by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 07:23:04 PM EST
Parent

Agree 100% (none / 0)
And I too have criticized Wallis, Vanderslice and anyone who would desire a theocracy from the Left.

by Frank Cocozzelli on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 07:44:51 PM EST
Parent

take a deep breath... (none / 0)
I've made an effort to maintain a thoughtful and carefully-worded discourse here, so try to imagine how I feel at a response based on rhetorical mind-reading ("You cannot bring yourself to acknowledge ...", etc), personal insults, and even right-wing buzzwords ("kneejerk"? please!). Buying into and perpetuating the cardboard stereotype of doctrinaire Myers zombies does you no credit politically or intellectually.

Has it occurred to you that I mentioned Jim Wallis in long-standing knowledge of t2a's criticism of his flaky "moderation", choosing an allusion that I hoped would bring deeper contemplation of the shifting interactions among the various movements opposed to the "religious right"?

You cite First Freedom First, a project of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (of which I am a member); yet talk2action is not listed among FFF Partners. The Rev. Barry Lynn and his crew seem to be doing a much better job of navigating the anti-theocratic currents than y'all are, even while maintaining a more "popular" (less intellectualized) tone. Please consider this comparison - like my header for this comment - as a plea for t2a to do better, not as a put-down.

I'll skip my intended counter-analysis of how Myers characterized the Catholic hierarchy, more to avoid a mutually unwinnable squabble and for the sake of your knees than to concede to your non-rebuttal. Sure, Myers can be fairly described as blunt, profane, pugnacious, tendentious, militant, harsh, and more, but there is a place for such an approach in a society so saturated in toxic superstition as modern America, and he fills that niche well. Should some wrathful deity smite him with a thunderbolt, we'd be left with the shallow Harris and erratic Hitchens as the most eloquent spokespeople against the forces of organized delusion: I submit that this would not be an improvement.

Call Myers rude, intemperate, crude, offensive, and the like, and few could argue - certainly not me. Call him wrong, and specify why, and a reasoned discussion is possible. Equate him with Donohue or Adkisson (who themselves have little in common except for the broad categorization of rightist derangement), and you leave yourselves open to being called out.

Without vocal atheists, one could make a case that t2a, UA, and fellow-travelers would hold the "extreme" position at the "left" of the anti-theocratic front. Is that really your preferred position?

by Pierce R Butler on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:46:20 PM EST
Parent

I think you are confused (5.00 / 1)
Firstly, nice try, but the term "kneejerk" is not a rightwing buzzword. It has been in common parlance for a very long time.

Secondly, Frank began all this by explaining why Myers is wrong, and you quickly changed the subject. I cannot read your mind, but I can evaluate your behavior on the thread.

And yes indeed, you declined to acknowledge how seriously wrong Myers is on this matter, which is the only one under discusson.  I have made no judgement about Myers in general or about anyone else.  

I brought up the fact that organized atheists work with religious people all the time comfortably and without insult, contrary to your suggestion.  More importantantly I think it is fair to say that they do so without resorting to religious bigotry, which Myers exhibited and you have yet to acknowedge, even after claiming that Myers did not say what he said -- and which was a key point of Frank's post.

As for Talk to Action, we are a no budget, all volunteer, free standing group blog.  As an entity, we are members of nothing. That said, I have personally promoted First Freedom First on this site on many occasions. (It is, by the way a joint project of AU and the Interfaith Alliance, not AU alone.)

As for your closing hypothetical, it is moot and so I needn't prefer or oppose it.  But I personally -- and I think all of us at Talk to Action -- oppose  unnecessarily inflammatory language and behavior no matter who does it.  And I think we have been pretty consistent in practicing what we preach -- calling out even friends and allies, when necessary.  While there are gray areas and close calls about which reasonable people may disagree, the religious bigotry exhibited by Myers in this episode is off the charts.

A number of us from the beginning of the site (and before) have made the basic argument as to why all this is essential to intellectual and political integrity and effectiveness.  My views on this have only strengthened over time.  Frank's post is but the latest expresssion stemming from our shared general view about why behavior like Myers' is part of the problem.

Quite separately from this argument, Pierce, I find it necessary to put on my site owner hat and advise you that your gratuitous attacks on religion in general -- "organized delusion"--  and transubstantiation above, put you in violation of the site's terms of service, purpose and  guidelines.  So going forward, please respect the purpose and guidelines of the site. Whatever our differences, we have far more in common. I would rather not have to ban you.

For those watching at home, and may be new here, our site topic is the religious right and what to do about it, and matters of how to approach the subject are certainly fair game. However, religious debates and debates between theism and atheism are absolutely off topic.  There are lots of free for all sites where sneering at religion and specific religious beliefs is acceptable. This is not one of them.  We do some of the toughest, best informed analysis about the religious right and what to do about it you will find anywhere.   But we have standards, and do our best to adhere to them.

by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 01:24:50 AM EST
Parent







Mistake? (none / 0)
I'm not so sure I would characterize it as a mistake.  By Catholic teaching, it was (and probably an offensive one at that); it seems to me that the Roman Catholic church had problems with that during the medieval period- people would take the host home and place it in a frame, thinking it would provide some sort of protection (i.e., magic) for the house.  I admit that I know next to nothing about the situation- but it does sound like the actions a curious young person would take.  (I would have laughed, and then quietly told the students that it was meant to be consumed and not shown around!)

What was done by the students was a bit dumb IMO, but not deserving of the violence directed against those students.  Even if they were militant atheists, they don't deserve death threats.  That to me shows the depth of error being practiced in the more conservative churches (Roman and Dominionist).  Considering that the Bible is a document that to a large extent supports autocratic, top down hierarchies and even totalitarian systems- it's not surprising to me to see these sorts of responses from the RR.  They don't have liberal thinking to offset the extreme teachings that can be read from the Bible.

And, considering that the boys DID receive threats, I am glad that someone spoke up for them- even if the person went overboard in the other direction.  This is a good example of why separation of Church and State is so important- if the boys are punished by the school- the school is then doing the bidding of a church- and that could lead to all sorts of abuse.

If they'd broken an actual law, it would be a different story.  As far as I can tell, they didn't.


by ArchaeoBob on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 11:41:15 AM EST
Parent

ArchaeoBob - (none / 0)
Thanks for your balanced perspective on this story. I'd like to offer one correction:

Cook & Collard are being punished by the school (being blocked from class registration can seriously interfere with receiving a degree, particularly in one's senior year), so this already involves various sorts of abuse at the Church's bidding. (Both students' pending impeachments from UCF's student senate are not State actions as such, though they apparently qualify as Church-bidden abuses.)

According to various reports, the actual provocateur in this event seems to have been a Catholic Campus Ministries staffer named Michelle Ducker, who threatened to "make a huge scene", attempted to grab the wafer out of Cook's hand and pocket (a battery under Florida law) until his third request to not touch him, and summoned a large and intimidating Associate Campus Minister who told them to get out (of a campus facility, not a church building). Had Ducker been taught to handle discrepancies from ritual with the - ahem - grace you suggest, this non-problem would have ended there.

Nothing I've seen has indicated who brought Bill Donohue into the fray. I have two hypotheses: that his staff at the Catholic League found this story while scanning news items for things he can froth about, or that somebody in the Orlando diocese decided this was a job for the Church's unofficial junk-yard-dog. Guess which I find more likely...

by Pierce R Butler on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:11:17 PM EST
Parent

You're right... (none / 0)
Being blocked from registration does cramp one's academic future.  How the school gets away with this I don't know... I think it's legitimate grounds for a lawsuit.  

An on-campus ministry should be prepared for unusual things and deal with them in a decent manner.  Many of the "ministries" I've observed on campus are very conservative- ranging from promoting strict church rules all the way to preaching damnation at the students (literally telling them they're going to hell because of a "laundry list" of things considered sin- including such things as accepting evolution, being tolerant of difference, and even loving/talking to your pets!)  In fact, I'm aware of only one liberal group on my campus- and they are having a hard time with the school (while overt AoG front groups such as CCfC and Every Nation are welcomed and held up as standards.)

Maybe there's something in the Central Florida water.  The dominionists/fundamentalists get away with so much down here...

by ArchaeoBob on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:52:19 PM EST
Parent






Please allow me - (5.00 / 1)
to start a new reply sequence here, as T2A's thread formatting is ill-suited to prolonged conversation.

Frank C's "explanation" of "why Myers is wrong" consists mostly of personal statements of being offended by "confrontational behavior", defining wrongness in terms of courtesy and social standards. (I wish him luck in proving that what Myers says about the physical status of the cracker is factually wrong - but my wishes have about the same efficacy in affecting the world's being as a ritual chant.)

Frank C also complains of being "lumped ... in with Nazis", which might have more validity if not accompanied by lumping Myers with Donohue, Savage, Hannity and O'Reilly.

I have made no judgement about Myers in general ...

Oh? ... ostensibly liberal ... so recklessly inflammatory ... religious bigotry...

Which last allows me an opportunity to again attempt to lift this dialog beyond tit-for-tat nitpickery. You should have little trouble believing me when I say that Myers is opposed to all supernatural creeds with equal vehemence, from stately Vatican processionals in exquisitely-tailored robes to naked new-agers cavorting around Stonehenge under a full moon, and for the same reasons. Lacking animus for specific sects, for this attitude to be labeled religious bigotry requires that term to be defined, which I ask you to do, with an eye towards whether such definition includes all forms of atheism (except possibly the most obsequious).

Given the uncompromising descriptors regularly applied here for such hatemongers and hallucinators as Hagee, LaHaye, Rushdoony, et cetera ad infinitum, I'm sure your definition will not cite "inflammatory language" regarding clergy with large and devoted followings, right?

T2A's on-going and eye-opening series about the Catholic right demonstrates clearly that y'all agree that core strands of that church's membership and doctrines are harmful in many ways. I'm glad you don't hold the entire Church beyond approbation, but just where do you draw the line?

Thank you for not summarily banning me, as is certainly your right as site owner, and for re-stating the central theme here. The latter is one I share (though we've debated earlier whether "religious right" is even the most appropriate term for the problem), so kindly allow me to join Todd B above in asking you for further clarification of local standards.

Given that believers (such as Frank C and others) have free rein to affirm their faith here, what are the T2A policies regarding non-believers expressing their opinions? Are there any uncloseted atheists among the T2A crew, and is any other viewpoint allowed here towards freethought beyond - as in your closing 'graf - sneering at it?

Finally, a small item of good news: By a unanimous vote, Webster Cook and Ben Collard are cleared of all charges at the University of Central Florida.

by Pierce R Butler on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:40:42 PM EST

glad to hear the good news (none / 0)
about Cook & colleague.

And yes, I have made no critical judgements about Myers in general (although you did) and am responding only to his pubished remarks, which I see that you still studiously avoid acknowleding, let alone joining us in denoucing.

There are nonreligious people who post here, always have been. Always will be. I will make no lists for you.

The difference between fair criticism and religious bigotry is not always easy, but knowing the difference and practicing it is one of the essential skills in a religiously plural, constitutional democracy. It is a lesson that no picking around the edges of the site rules will clarify for you, since you don't seem to acknowledge that any such thing as religious bigotry exists in the first place. In your case, I suggest doing some homework.

Atheists are free to be themselves as are religious people as long as they are not busy denouncing one another, sneering at their beliefs and rituals or lack thereof or debating atheist vs theism and related matters.  If you still don't get it, you can try starting out with simple courtesy and see  if that doesn't work for you.


by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:43:19 PM EST
Parent

Dead end (none / 0)
From your point of view, I'm evading the requirements of elementary civility; from mine, you're continuing to refuse to answer courteously phrased questions.

This is getting us nowhere at relativistic speeds.

Please pursue the further thoughts you were inviting Todd B to publish.

For anyone who might be interested: a statement from Cook & Collard is tentatively promised at http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/.

by Pierce R Butler on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:16:28 AM EST
Parent

Correction (none / 0)
Statement by Benjamin Collard alone at http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/08/benjamin_collard_speaks _out_on.php.

by Pierce R Butler on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:39:49 AM EST
Parent




Here's Another Take On Atheism (none / 0)
Check out John Bloom posting as Joe Bob Briggs and his experience at an atheist rally. John is the editor of the Wittenburg Door which is one of the funniest religious satire sites around.

www.thewittenburgdoor.org/joe-bob-parties-atheists

by Frank Frey on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:24:13 AM EST


When Opposites Attack | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)

WWW Talk To Action


Cognitive Dissonance & Dominionism Denial
There is new research on why people are averse to hearing or learning about the views of ideological opponents. Based on evaluation of five......
By Frederick Clarkson (375 comments)
Will the Air Force Do Anything To Rein In Its Dynamic Duo of Gay-Bashing, Misogynistic Bloggers?
"I always get nervous when I see female pastors/chaplains. Here is why everyone should as well: "First, women are not called to be pastors,......
By Chris Rodda (203 comments)
The Legacy of Big Oil
The media is ablaze with the upcoming publication of David Grann's book, Killers of the Flower Moon. The shocking non fiction account of the......
By wilkyjr (111 comments)
Gimme That Old Time Dominionism Denial
Over the years, I have written a great deal here and in other venues about the explicitly theocratic movement called dominionism -- which has......
By Frederick Clarkson (101 comments)
History Advisor to Members of Congress Completely Twists Jefferson's Words to Support Muslim Ban
Pseudo-historian David Barton, best known for his misquoting of our country's founders to promote the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation,......
By Chris Rodda (113 comments)
"Christian Fighter Pilot" Calls First Lesbian Air Force Academy Commandant a Liar
In a new post on his "Christian Fighter Pilot" blog titled "BGen Kristin Goodwin and the USAFA Honor Code," Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan......
By Chris Rodda (144 comments)
Catholic Right Leader Unapologetic about Call for 'Death to Liberal Professors' -- UPDATED
Today, Donald Trump appointed C-FAM Executive Vice President Lisa Correnti to the US Delegation To UN Commission On Status Of Women. (C-FAM is a......
By Frederick Clarkson (126 comments)
Controlling Information
     Yesterday I listened to Russ Limbaugh.  Rush advised listeners it would be best that they not listen to CNN,MSNBC, ABC, CBS and......
By wilkyjr (118 comments)
Is Bannon Fifth-Columning the Pope?
In December 2016 I wrote about how White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who likes to flash his Catholic credentials when it comes to......
By Frank Cocozzelli (252 comments)
Ross Douthat's Hackery on the Seemingly Incongruous Alliance of Bannon & Burke
Conservative Catholic writer Ross Douthat has dissembled again. This time, in a February 15, 2017 New York Times op-ed titled The Trump Era's Catholic......
By Frank Cocozzelli (65 comments)
`So-Called Patriots' Attack The Rule Of Law
Every so often, right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan lurches out of the far-right fever swamp where he has resided for the past 50 years to......
By Rob Boston (161 comments)
Bad Faith from Focus on the Family
Here is one from the archives, Feb 12, 2011, that serves as a reminder of how deeply disingenuous people can be. Appeals to seek......
By Frederick Clarkson (177 comments)
The Legacy of George Wallace
"One need not accept any of those views to agree that they had appealed to real concerns of real people, not to mindless, unreasoning......
By wilkyjr (70 comments)
Betsy DeVos's Mudsill View of Public Education
My Talk to Action colleague Rachel Tabachnick has been doing yeoman's work in explaining Betsy DeVos's long-term strategy for decimating universal public education. If......
By Frank Cocozzelli (80 comments)
Prince and DeVos Families at Intersection of Radical Free Market Privatizers and Religious Right
This post from 2011 surfaces important information about President-Elect Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. -- FC Erik Prince, Brother of Betsy......
By Rachel Tabachnick (218 comments)

Respect for Others? or Political Correctness?
The term "political correctness" as used by Conservatives and Republicans has often puzzled me: what exactly do they mean by it? After reading Chip Berlin's piece here-- http://www.talk2action.org/story/2016/7/21/04356/9417 I thought about what he explained......
MTOLincoln (253 comments)
Fear
What I'm feeling now is fear.  I swear that it seems my nightmares are coming true with this new "president".  I'm also frustrated because so many people are not connecting all the dots! I've......
ArchaeoBob (109 comments)
"America - love it or LEAVE!"
I've been hearing that and similar sentiments fairly frequently in the last few days - far FAR more often than ever before.  Hearing about "consequences for burning the flag (actions) from Trump is chilling!......
ArchaeoBob (218 comments)
"Faked!" Meme
Keep your eyes and ears open for a possible move to try to discredit the people openly opposing Trump and the bigots, especially people who have experienced terrorism from the "Right"  (Christian Terrorism is......
ArchaeoBob (167 comments)
More aggressive proselytizing
My wife told me today of an experience she had this last week, where she was proselytized by a McDonald's employee while in the store. ......
ArchaeoBob (168 comments)
See if you recognize names on this list
This comes from the local newspaper, which was conservative before and took a hard right turn after it was sold. Hint: Sarah Palin's name is on it!  (It's also connected to Trump.) ......
ArchaeoBob (169 comments)
Unions: A Labor Day Discussion
This is a revision of an article which I posted on my personal board and also on Dailykos. I had an interesting discussion on a discussion board concerning Unions. I tried to piece it......
Xulon (180 comments)
Extremely obnoxious protesters at WitchsFest NYC: connected to NAR?
In July of this year, some extremely loud, obnoxious Christian-identified protesters showed up at WitchsFest, an annual Pagan street fair here in NYC.  Here's an account of the protest by Pagan writer Heather Greene......
Diane Vera (130 comments)
Capitalism and the Attack on the Imago Dei
I joined this site today, having been linked here by Crooksandliars' Blog Roundup. I thought I'd put up something I put up previously on my Wordpress blog and also at the DailyKos. As will......
Xulon (331 comments)
History of attitudes towards poverty and the churches.
Jesus is said to have stated that "The Poor will always be with you" and some Christians have used that to refuse to try to help the poor, because "they will always be with......
ArchaeoBob (149 comments)
Alternate economy medical treatment
Dogemperor wrote several times about the alternate economy structure that dominionists have built.  Well, it's actually made the news.  Pretty good article, although it doesn't get into how bad people could be (have been)......
ArchaeoBob (90 comments)
Evidence violence is more common than believed
Think I've been making things up about experiencing Christian Terrorism or exaggerating, or that it was an isolated incident?  I suggest you read this article (linked below in body), which is about our great......
ArchaeoBob (214 comments)

More Diaries...




All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments, posts, stories, and all other content are owned by the authors. Everything else © 2005 Talk to Action, LLC.