P. Z. Myers Must Be Fired

334 thoughts on “P. Z. Myers Must Be Fired”

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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?

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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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.

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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. [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.

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

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. @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.

20. 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

21. @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)

22. Inocencio,
    Great suggestion that CT go to Myers’ blog and defend Catholics’ free speech.

23. 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

24. “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.

25. “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?

26. 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

27. “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.

28. 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.

29. “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.

30. “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

31. 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

32. 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.

33. 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

34. What part of free speech escapes you all?
    What one does on ones own time is not my employers business!

35. 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.

36. 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!

37. 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.

38. 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!

39. 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

40. >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!

41. >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!

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. 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

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. 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.

48. 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

49. 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.

50. 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: http://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

51. 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.

52. 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

53. “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.

54. 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.

55. 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.

56. @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.

57. 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.)

58. 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?

59. 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?

60. 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?

61. 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

62. @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)

63. @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.

64. 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).

65. 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.

66. 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.

67. 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.

68. 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.

69. 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).

70. 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

71. 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.

72. 
    Here is a really good essay by Bishop Shhen on tolerance. It summarizes this whole affair, exactly.
    The Chicken

73. “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).

74. 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

75. 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.

76. 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.

77. 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!””

78. 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.

79. 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.

80. “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?

81. 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.

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

83. 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.

84. 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?

85. 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.

86. 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

87. 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.

88. 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.

89. 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.

90. 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.

91. 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.

92. Bigotry noted.

93. 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.

94. 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.

95. 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.

96. “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.

97. 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.

98. 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.

99. 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.

100. 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?

101. Join me in spreading the word!!
     Join me in a day of fasting & prayer in reparation for his actions on August 6th – The Feast of the Transfiguration.
     August 6th!
     Spread the word.

102. Now the weak equivalencies and rationalizing begin.
     Joel, if you go out of your way to desecrate what Hindus hold sacred, then perhaps you should be fired from your job.
     However, your attempt at equivalency fails the revelancy test.

103. When Professor Myers says that “Nothing must be held sacred,” he means that all ideas should be subjected to critical analysis. Why, exactly, should religious beliefs NOT be held to this standard?

104. CT,
     I would advocate firing both Myers and anyone who advocates the death penalty for homosexuals (though I doubt such a person would not be fired immediately, even without any outcry). I am merely pointing out that your comparison of someone exercising freedom of religion by holding a religious belief regarding an act to Myers’ desecration of a possibly stolen communion wafer does not follow.
     As a Christian, my belief about an act is not a personal attack, no matter what others fell about it. In holding my beliefs, I am not intending an attack upon persons. The same cannot be said for Myers. Myers has not only sought to hold Catholicism in contempt, but also to publicly desecrate a consecrated Eucharist, which he presumably ‘took’ (or encouraged someone to ‘take’) from a Catholic Church. There is a difference: I am holding beliefs which, unintentionally, others find offensive. Myers is intentionally, grossly seeking to insult and demean the beliefs of Catholics. That is why he should be fired.

105. Why, exactly, should religious beliefs NOT be held to this standard?

     When, exactly, did anyone say they shouldn’t? Better yet, where does “critical analysis” fit into Myers’s display of animosity?

106. BG,
     Blasphemy to the extent of desecrating the Eucharist is legally punishable under Canon Law. Canon Law concerns Catholics, so I do not know if there are any canons that would come into effect if a Catholic pulled Myers stunt with a Koran. At the very least it would be sinful (not because Catholics consider the Koran to be sacred but because the person would be committing a hateful act against Muslims). As far as I know what Myers did is not punishable under civil law in the United States (nor do I think it should be), but may be in nations where people do not enjoy freedom of speech to the extent that we do (for example I could imagine one of our northern neighbors getting dragged before the crazy thought-police of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for doing what Myers did).
     I haven’t seen many people calling for legal action against Myers. I believe that Pope Benedict is highly supportive of a pluralistic society as long as it supports the open exchange of ideas in public than forcing religious ideas out of the public square as merely private beliefs (someone please correct me if I’m wrong).
     While I haven’t seen many people calling for the state to prosecute Mr. Myers, calling for his employer to disciplin him is a different issue altogether. I think the general argument of those who believe the University should take some action against him (of which I am included) is that he has fostered an atmosphere that goes against what a university stands for. If anything, a university should lead society in creating an atmosphere that supports the open exchange of ideas as mentioned above. Myers has done the exact opposite. Through hate and fear he is trying to force voices out of the university environment. I think that’s pretty much the basic argument, you can take it however you like.
     I think most Catholics defended the right of the Danish paper to publish the cartoons (whether or not the paper’s actions were prudent or even moral may be more divided). I think the unanimous Catholic response was against the people committing violence over a bunch of cartoons. Similarly I don’t think Catholics are against Myers freedom of expression. In fact, I would personally encourage him to express his thoughts more clearly through speech and writing rather than publicity stunts whose only purpose is to inflame people’s passions.
     If Myers had written an article or made a YouTube video explaining why he believes the Eucharist is just bread and why God doesn’t exist and even why the Catholic Church is hurting our society (if he believes that), there would be no controversy. After all, Catholics themselves make these claims every day. People aren’t upset with Myers because they disagree with his ideas and want to prevent him from voicing them. They’re upset with his actions of purposely trying to create scandal instead of reasoned debate.
     Lastly, the average Catholic doesn’t want to see the U.S. become a theocracy. I think the number of Catholics who do is a very small minority. Pope Benedict is a big proponent of keeping Church and State separate; I’m pretty sure he’s written on the subject – maybe someone here can refer something to you if you’re interested. Similarly I personally haven’t seen many people calling for more robust laws prohibiting blasphemy/desecration/offensive behavior (but maybe I just don’t hang out at the right places). I think what people are calling for is common sense and basic respect of others.
     Thanks for asking questions and looking to understand Catholics better, I hope you’ll find helpful answers on this blog.

107. The reactions of many Catholics to Professor Myers’ treatment of something they hold sacred leads me to conclude that many Catholics want their beliefs to be held above challenge, ridicule, and examination. It would never even occure to many Catholics that it might be ok to not believe. It isn’t animosity, it’s simply a statement that just because you hold something as sacred doesn’t mean I have to honor it in a similar fasion.

108. Brian – that does provide some answers. I don’t agree with all of your assertions but that’s okay!

109. “Your position is illogical. You have no argument. Stop talking.”
     Well, who can argue with that? I almost spewed my Dr. Pepper, I laughed so hard.
     I can only reply with a statement of equal philosophical weight… “Sez you”. Call back when you have bothered to learn anything about theology.
     Catholics have apparently gored one of the Sacred Cows of the left by (gasp!) arguing with a university professor and a (gee whiz!) Scientist. We’re all supposed to bend over and take it up the wazoo without a word of complaint… “Thank you sir! May I have another?!!!”
     Myers is a sad little man, and has my pity.
     But he still ought to be fired, for the sake of his school and the reputation of his department. Maybe for his own sake, too.

110. I mean no offense to anyone, but I think that many of our non-Catholic friends to not understand the concept of intent in the same way that Catholics do. Catholics aren’t upset because we think that Myers should hold as sacred what we believe to be sacred. We’re upset over the intent of his actions.
     If Myers had done the exact same thing with exact same intent only with unconsecrated hosts (which I think anyone can purchase), I think most Catholics’ reaction would be the same. Similarly, once at my parish a man received communion and then stared shouting (I forget what, it was a while ago) and crumbled the Eucharist in his hands into tiny crumbs which fell on the floor. The police had to be called because and they took him to a hospital. While many people were distraught by the incident, they weren’t upset with man who was obviously mentally ill and not culpable for his actions.
     It’s Myers motivations and intentions rather than his actions, strictly speaking, which have earned him such a backlash.

111. Tim –
     Bravo!
     And I’d like to add that he should be fired for the sake of his students. Catholic kids have the right to take Bio 101 without having to deal with a prof who despises them for their beliefs.
     I can just see ol’ Prof. Myers standing outside the Science building on the UMM campus, arms stretched wide, blocking the doors ala George Wallace. “There’ll never be any ‘kneelers’ entering this school if I can help it!”
     You know, I’ll bet the U of Belfast would appreciate a prof with his…er…particular leanings.

112. “It isn’t animosity, it’s simply a statement that just because you hold something as sacred doesn’t mean I have to honor it in a similar fasion.”
     Nobody has asked you to, have they? Anyone holding a gun to Myers head, forcing him to go to Mass and receive the Sacrament? No. He is free as he likes to ignore the Eucharist all his life. He is free to write papers about how silly he thinks the idea of the “sacred” is. He is free to spout his bile all over the internet and television, and I’ll fight for his right to do so.
     But he didn’t do that. What he did do was absolutely equivalent to spray painting swastikas on a Hebrew temple, or taking a leak on the Kaaba – and then posting the video on YouTube.
     Honor whatever you want. Talk or type until you’re blue in the face or your fingers bleed. Knock yourself out, only leave our sacraments alone. If Myers insists on publicly insulting millions of people, he ought to be willing to act like a big boy and take his medicine.

113. he means that all ideas should be subjected to critical analysis. Why, exactly, should religious beliefs NOT be held to this standard?
     Steve, no one said that religious beliefs shouldn’t be examined. There have been many, many discussions on this blog from non-Catholics questioning various points about Catholic teaching. But that’s not what Myers did. If he had wanted to engage in civil discussion, he’d have been more than welcome in any number of Catholic blogs. But that’s not what he did.
     Indeed, Myers’ version of “critical analysis” didn’t meet the criteria for basic research, such as learning basic information about the topic from credible sources, keeping an open mind, etc. See, a real scientist sees something new to him and seeks to understand it. Myers saw something he didn’t understand and went into attack mode. Then mocked the inevitable reaction.

114. First off,
     Welcome back, Mary Kay! I hope your computer problems are resolved.
     Secondly,
     There seems to be an sudden influx of agnostics/atheists visiting the site and I suspect that this will get worse, since with the weekend coming, more people have free time to read blogs and Jimmy’s is well-known. Brace yourselves, regular readers. The level of invection might go way up. I hope this does not force Jimmy to turn off comments.
     I think a summary is in order.
     For those visiting the blog for the first time, welcome! Just to inform you, we are not a free-wheeling blog where anything and everything goes. Posts on this blog are governed by a set of protocols called, Da Rulz. First among them is to express comments in a respectful tone. The regulars (Catholic and non-Catholic) sometimes slip in the heat of battle, but usually not seriously and they usually apologize. This is a Catholic-oriented blog and because of this, the regular posters are bound by a moral code. Please do not goad or insult them into breaking it. We will try to do the same to you, in that we will try to keep our discussions civil.
     The discussion on this post is about what action should or should not be taken against P. Z. Myers for his deliberate desecration of what to Catholics is the most sacred object in the universe. There have been many side-discussions about whether the object is sacred, what rights a person has in the public forum, what can a professor at a university do or not do, etc.
     If all you intend to do is drive-by posting to mock Catholics, please, leave – we’ve had 2000 years of it and your silly attempts will do no good. If you are here for a serious discussion, then, please, read the other posts and get caught up. Listen to the tenor of the posts to get a feel for what is and what is not proper decorum. Then, jump in. DO NOT POST ANONYMOUSLY. This is considered rude behavior and such posters are very hard to keep straight in making a response. If you do not want to use your real name or e-mail, use a handle (pseudonym), but KEEP IT CLEAN.
     Also, try to learn a bit of Catholic terminology. While at this blog, do not use the word, cracker to refer to the object that was desecrated. I do not see a cracker present in P. Z. Myers’s action, even though you may seem to. Such an object ceased to exist for us when the words of consecration were uttered. You should, properly refer to the object as the Host or the Eucharist or even communion wafer, but if you refer to it by the term, “cracker,” I will simply ignore you because you are referring to a non-existent object, to my point of view and I usually do not talk about non-existing objects unless I am having a hypothetical discussion (and your comments probably would not be a discussion about hypothetical objects).
     With that said, I propose to organize the discussion areas, so far (subsections may be added by other posters):
     0. The status of the Eucharist – is it a sacred object? How do you know?
     1. Webster Cook: were his actions right or wrong?
     2. The rights of atheists vs. deists in society.
     3. The status of revealed vs. empirical data.
     4. The status of knowledge gained by science vs. knowledge gained by faith.
     5. P. Z. Myers’s support for Webster Cook. Where was it right. Where was it wrong.
     6. Is it proper to desecrate a religious object to make a point?
     7. When is reason called for and when is action called for in the public square?
     8. What relationship do university professors have to the public forum.
     9. What relationship does anyone owe to a member of another religious group?
     10. What sort of moral code do atheists have and how do they come by it?
     11. Has P. Z. Myers’s actions risen to the level where he should be fired? Even is they have, is this wise?
     These seem to me to be the areas of discussion that have emerged. I look forward to engaging discussions.
     The Chicken

115. I have sent emails seeking the removal of this third-rate professor from a third-rate university.

116. Bob,
     You wrote:
     I am in the process of e-mailing a link to his blog to every mosque I can find on the internet. …The Muslim community will see to it that this guy’s desk is cleaned out before rush-week.
     I wouldn’t be so sure. One of the things Myers’ stunt has brought home to me is that outsiders frequently misunderstand the beliefs and practices of people of other faiths and cultures.
     It looks like Myers nailed the Eucharist to an audiotape of the Qu’ran being read in English, and threw that in his garbage can. I suspect most Muslims will view this differently than many of them viewed the Danish cartoons. Sure, it’s a deliberate insult, but it’s not the same kind of violation.
     For one thing, many Muslims don’t consider translations of the Qu’ran from Arabic to be sacred. For another, the Danish cartoons involved making a pictorial representation of Muhammad. Many Muslims would consider this a violation of the first (or second, depending on your tradition) commandment. To make a graven image of God’s most holy prophet, and to mock him and the Muslim world in general in the process… I can understand why they were so upset. I can’t condone the violent response, of course, but I can understand the anger.
     I just don’t think you’ll see the same response in this case.
     Of course, I could be wrong. Neither of us are really in a position to say how the Muslim community will respond; that’s up to them, and I’m somewhat curious as to what imams and Islamic scholars have to say on the subject. If you find any links, let us know.

117. @MK
     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.
     You seem not to have understood my example regarding the ship. Cruise ships often include priests and these ships may at any given time have any number of consecrated hosts within a container that may be thrown overboard by order of the captain if the ship is in danger of sinking. Someone who later comes across that container, from what I understand, under maritime law is allowed to keep 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.”
     You say “probably” — so I’m guessing that means you just don’t know.
     P.S. I mispelled Donohue’s last name.

118. Sorry to be a wet blanket here but your chances of getting the Prof fired are, how to break it to you gently, zilch.
     In fact, according to a lawyer friend with experience in employment law any attempt by the University to fire or retaliate against him in any way for his privately held beliefs, even though he made them very public on his blog, would likely result in the University writing the Professor a very substantial check.
     Sorry about that folks, but you will all just have to fantasize about his firing instead.
     Remember what I said here when, in the days to come, absolutley nothing changes regarding the Professor’s employment status.

119. @SB
     I have given the matter a second thought and as regards the specific criticism I made in terms of the church’s or Catholics desire to ban prostitution, pornography or dancing, I condede that if you personally have no problem with someone arguing that the practice of Catholicism should be banned, then yours is a consistent position. However, my hunch is that yours would be a minority position — certainly Bill Donohue would not find such an expressed opinion objectionless in the public square.

120. Brian Walden,
     You wrote:
     If Myers had done the exact same thing with exact same intent only with unconsecrated hosts (which I think anyone can purchase), I think most Catholics’ reaction would be the same.
     Personally speaking, I would have reacted very differently. I have been struggling with anger over Professor Myers’ actions for a good while now, but if he’d knowingly “desecrated” only unconsecrated wafers, I would not give the matter any more thought. Even if he thought they were consecrated, while I somehow knew them to not be, his actions would not have been nearly as disturbing.

121. I do not hold the private lives and personal opinions of educators against them, even when I strenuously disagree with them, so long as those opinions remain opinion and not curriculum.
     I have heard only good things about PZ Myers as a teacher, and that he teaches biology – and only that – rather than trying to influence the personal opinions of his students regarding religion and theology.
     While I disagree with the form his message took (I think it added too much fuel to a fire that shouldn’t even be burning – the RCC should not be immune from critique or mockery), I agree with the message itself.
     “Hold nothing sacred and beyond question.” It rather resonates with 1 Thessalonians 5:21 – “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good,” don’t you think?

122. @MK
     Again, specifics (film title, date, director) please for your claim that 2 film makers used consecrated hosts and the one in September.
     I apologize I neglected to read this part of your comment. I don’t think I am able on this blog to give the film titles of all three as I don’t remember one of them, and the other is the title of a non-mainstream title. I can however, give you the information on the third film which I am drawing from amazon.com
     # Format: Color, DVD-Video, Widescreen, NTSC
     # Language: English
     # Region: All Regions
     # Number of discs: 1
     # Studio: Redemption USA
     # DVD Release Date: September 30, 2008
     # Run Time: 100 minutes
     # ASIN: B000V6LT4O
     The title of this film is apparently “Black Mass”
     That is from amazon.com On the cduniverse.com website there is a description of the film which states that it includes “real Black Mass” which I presume would include use of a consecrated host.

123. CT,
     You wrote:
     I have given the matter a second thought and as regards the specific criticism I made in terms of the church’s or Catholics desire to ban prostitution, pornography or dancing, I condede that if you personally have no problem with someone arguing that the practice of Catholicism should be banned, then yours is a consistent position. However, my hunch is that yours would be a minority position — certainly Bill Donohue would not find such an expressed opinion objectionless in the public square.
     No, I didn’t say the matter would warrant no objections, but that the objections would be different in kind.
     If someone proposes legislation to ban Catholicism or pornography or any other thing in public, we are all free to disagree and debate with them in public- that is, to object to their proposal on logical grounds. This is called debating public policy.
     However, if I hung out signs from my window overlooking the annual Gay Pride Parade on Market St. in San Francisco that said rude things about homosexual people, or if I videotaped myself urinating on someone’s gravesite and posted it on youtube, or if I went out of my way to obtain and desecrate an object held sacred by others… well, then I would be deliberately offering offense, and my actions would not be subject to rational disagreement in the same way. Instead, others would be right in condemning my actions as rude and disrespectful.
     In most ways, I think advocates for changes to public policy need to be taken more seriously than clowns like Myers. Certainly a ban on the free exercise of religion, were it ever implemented, would be a grave matter. Such advocacy could not simply be dismissed as boorish or juvenile, but would call for serious and reasoned responses.
     If Myers feels that Catholics are making poor public policy decisions, let him say that, and debate with us in a rational fashion. I would certainly defend his right to do so, just as I would defend Bill Donohue’s right to object to any proposed anti-Catholic legislation that might be offered.
     I can’t defend disrespectful or offensive words or actions from Myers or from anyone else, but I can and do defend his right to make rational arguments against Catholicism, and hope that he chooses to exercise that right one of these days. I even support his right to advocate anti-Catholic legislation, although I doubt he’ll ever find the 2/3 majority of voters he’d need in order to alter the First Amendment.
     Does that clear it up a bit?

124. @Joel
     You make somewhat of a good point here and there, but it would be unreasonable for you to dismiss the notion that there is a difference between this case and eating beef. I think you are probably right in dismissing SDG’s argument, but here is a better one made by another blogger on the same website from which Myers’ hails
     In the case of the cartoons, the religious group involved was demanding a great deal from those who do not share their faith. The message that they were sending was, “I believe it is a grave sin to draw or print images of the prophet. Therefore, you must never draw or print such an image.” That goes farther than demanding that others respect their belief; it is a demand that everyone constrain their actions because of that belief.
     In the case of the Eucharist, the demand is much more modest. All that you need to do to refrain from desecrating the Eucharist is to stay away from Catholic churches. Period. That’s it. You could argue, I suppose, that this demand also constrains your actions, but that’s a bit of a stretch. After all, “don’t go places where you haven’t been invited” is (in most circumstances) nothing more or less than basic politeness.
     http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2008/07/a_cracker_is_not_a_cartoon.php
     This also makes the distinction between this case and the Muslim cartoons. (Note I am only expressing agreement with the part I quoted above, not the whole post and likewise for the links below I do not express any agreement). Here are some other blog posts, one by the same author and another by a perhaps more astute author:
     http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2008/07/pz_myers_crackers_the_eucharis.php
     http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/07/desecration_blasphemy_in_publi.php
     The latter makes a good case for why a secular state can never rightfully punish blasphemy.

125. GR Julian,
     You wrote:
     “Hold nothing sacred and beyond question.” It rather resonates with 1 Thessalonians 5:21 – “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good,” don’t you think?
     “Sacred” and “beyond question” are two different things. Thomas the apostle questioned the Resurrection, but came to understand it as a sacred occurrence nevertheless.

126. If you hand a gift to someone and that person then throws it in the trash or sticks a rusty nail through it or whatever, feelings might likely be hurt over expectations on how the gift would be used/appreciated, but that doesn’t change that it was a gift. Is the Eucharist not a gift? Did Jesus not give himself up freely to be crucified? Is the Eucharist not given likewise? The Catechism teaches that “Jesus gave the supreme expression of his free offering of himself at the meal shared with the twelve Apostles,” among which was the one whom Jesus knew would betray him. Can a “free offering” be stolen?

127. John wrote:
     In fact, according to a lawyer friend with experience in employment law any attempt by the University to fire or retaliate against him in any way for his privately held beliefs
     I haven’t seen anyone on this blog call for Myers to be fired for his beliefs (nor anyone at all except for maybe a very small fringe minority). No one is upset with Myers for not believing that the Eucharist is sacred. Any logical person wouldn’t expect him to.
     CT wrote:
     I concede that if you personally have no problem with someone arguing that the practice of Catholicism should be banned, then yours is a consistent position. However, my hunch is that yours would be a minority position — certainly Bill Donohue would not find such an expressed opinion objectionless in the public square.
     Bill Donohue has made a lot of public statements (including many I disagree with). Do you have any evidence that he doesn’t support the free exchange of ideas in public? If anything, I think the reason he jumps on so many issues is because he doesn’t want stereotypes and hateful messages to get in the way of real communication.
     And I’m not sure what you mean by objectionless. I hope that you would make many objections against arguments to ban Catholicism as ultimately that would be a ban of free speech. In this sense Bill objects to many ideas expressed in public which he disagrees with. Such is the nature of free speech. I don’t know if he’s ever called for someone to be censured (I doubt it but if you can find an example I’d be happy to see it).

128. As I predicted:
     UNIV. OF MINN. REFUSES TO PENALIZE MYERS
     July 25, 2008
     The Chancellor of the University of Minnesota, Morris (UMN) released a statement today regarding the intentional desecration of the Eucharist by Professor Paul Z. Myers. “I believe that behaviors that discriminate against or harass individuals or groups on the basis of their religious beliefs are reprehensible,” said Jacqueline Johnson. Importantly, she added that the school’s Code of Conduct prohibits such behavior. However, she also stressed that academic freedom allows faculty members “to speak or write as a public citizen without institutional discipline or restraint….” Nowhere did she say Myers would be disciplined

129. Can a “free offering” be stolen?
     Paschwitz a father might give his teenage son the car and tell him to be home by 10. This was a free gift yet it comes with rules. If the son came home at midnight would he not be in violation of his father’s free offering?
     There are rules for receiving the Eucharist. There is no situation in which pocketing the Eucharist and taking it with you is not a violation of those rules. In a sense the Eucharist always belongs to the Church much like the father’s car belongs to the father even while his son is driving it. Even when Catholics receive the Eucharist at Mass they do not own it and do not have the right (philosophically speaking) to do with it as they please.

130. @Brian
     Do you have any evidence that he doesn’t support the free exchange of ideas in public?
     I don’t see how calling for boycotts of films such as The Golden Compass and many other artistic works is consistent with a support for the “free exchange of ideas in public.” If the power to tax is the power to destroy as regards religious institutions, surely the power to boycott is the power to destroy as regards free expression — I am aware that the former involves the state as an actor and the latter a private actor, but in terms of a social analysis, in both cases, society is not supporting through its variant actors the “free exchange of ideas in public.”
     I don’t know if he’s ever called for someone to be censured (I doubt it but if you can find an example I’d be happy to see it).
     I don’t know what you mean by censorship — whether you mean censorship by anyone with the power to censor or only by the govt. But if it is the former, there are countless examples. Here’s one:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_A._Donohue&oldid=227566860
     http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_A._Donohue&oldid=227566860#Kathy_Griffin
     Her remarks were quickly condemned by Bill Donohue of the Catholic League who urged the TV academy to “denounce Griffin’s obscene and blasphemous comment.”[39] After the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences decided to censor Griffin’s remark Donohue said, “The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences reacted responsibly to our criticism of Kathy Griffin’s verbal assault on 85 percent of the U.S. population. The ball is now in Griffin’s court. The self-described ‘complete militant atheist’ needs to make a swift and unequivocal apology to Christians. If she does, she will get this issue behind her. If she does not, she will be remembered as a foul-mouthed bigot for the rest of her life.”[40]

131. @Brian,
     If you say that the “eucharist always belongs to the Church” and the bread is as you believe Jesus, then it would seem you are saying “Jesus always belongs to the Church”
     The car btw is not given, it is only borrowed. A better example would be software that is bought but comes with an EULA. It would seem then that Catholics who defend the legality of restrictions placed on persons who receive the bread should likewise defend the legality of restrictions placed on those who purchase software that comes with an EULA, even a burdensome EULA. An EULA generally involves the stipulation that the software is not sold wholesale but is merely licensed for use.

132. I am outraged, as all are Catholics. However, I believe devout persons of the Muslim faith will also be outraged when they learn of this. Accordingly, I sent the following email to the official Hizbollah website (http://english.hizbollah.tv/index.php) and a fundamentalist Islamic group in Britain so faithful Muslims can also protest the insensitve actions of Mr. Myers. As I understand it, the members of Hizbollah may also want to voice their disapproval of this act of desecration. Additionally, I have contacted CNN to let them know about this outrage. Perhaps if this receives international airtime more devout Catholics and Muslims will show their disapproval.
     From: Tim Brandenburg [mailto:tim_brandenburg@yahoo.com]
     Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 6:17 PM
     To: ‘info@hizb.org.uk’; ‘moqawama@moqawama.org’
     Subject: Desecration of the Quar’an by an American Professor
     Please be advised that P.Z. Myers, a professor at the University of Minnesota, has carried through on his threat and desecrated both a consecrated host (stolen from a Catholic mass) AND a Quar’an. I have attached the photo he posted on his website and this is the link:
     I am certain that you are as offended as I am at this man’s complete insensitivity to the things held sacred by not just one but two major world religions. Please spread the word among devout Muslims to call on the University of Minnesota to fire this man (Catholics are doing the same).
     http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/index.php

133. @Tim
     If the group you referred to is the Lebanese terrorist group that I think it is, I am not sure what you are hoping to gain but it question the rightness of what you have done and hope that your response is decidedly atypical among Catholics.
     PZM, on his blog made a comment in which he indicated that hadn’t yet received any hate mail from Muslims whereas within a similar time span he had received many from Catholics. However, it is reasonable to think that Muslims, especially those associated with terrorist groups, will include some that engage in violent threats just as was true of Catholics. It is extremely sad to see on PZM’s blog that someone seemed to implicitly threaten his children. I also find it sad to see that with a few exceptions, Catholics seem more concerned with the bread they view as sacred than the life of Myers or his family which I presume they view as sacred as well — apparently it is considered less sacred than the consecrated bread, but I still find it a troubling belief and accordant response.

134. >I don’t see how calling for boycotts of films such as The Golden Compass and many other artistic works is consistent with a support for the “free exchange of ideas in public.” If the power to tax is the power to destroy as regards religious institutions, surely the power to boycott is the power to destroy as regards free expression — I am aware that the former involves the state as an actor and the latter a private actor, but in terms of a social analysis, in both cases, society is not supporting through its variant actors the “free exchange of ideas in public.”
     I reply: Bill Donohue is using his freedom of speech to attack the Golden Compass. Nobody is required to follow Bill’s call to boycott the movie. Nobody! You have the same power to call on others to watch the film. It’s legit & legal to do so either way.
     Just as it was legit for Pullman (i.e. the Author of GC)to lobby against the production of the Narnia movies because he HATES C.S. Lewis (whom he called sexist racist etc) which he did before his book was made into a film. Of course Pullman failed because more people wanted to see Narnia & too few wanted to see his nonsense. Censorship is when the government says you can’t say something or produce a movie. Love the double standard you seem to have in going after Bill D & ignoring Bill P for the same thing.
     Anyway what you are advocating here is not freedom of speech. But “consequence free speech” which is tyranny against those who want to use their speech to call on others to certain lawful actions as a result of a speech they dislike.
     I have an ABSOLUTE free speech right to point out the Golden Compass is an anti-Catholic movie. I have an ABSOLUTE free speech right to invite others not to watch it. Bill also have these rights. Others have the freedom to listen to me & Bill or to advocates of the movie. They have the right to make a choice.
     Of course if I went into theaters & stole copies of the GC so others couldn’t see it….. I would clearly be working for the “theistic” version of PZ Myers.:-)
     Fire Myers! He can bake his own bread & call it a Eucharist & nail it to a tree for all I care. But sending thieves to steal it is criminal theft & incitement. Fire the fracking smeghead!

135. CT I enjoy your comments here and I think you’ve made a positive contribution to this blog, but in my opinion you have a skewed view of free speech. Boycotting is a legitimate expression of free speech. So is petitioning a TV station not to air offensive comments.
     The FCC regulates the language that TV and radio stations can use. My friends reprimand me if I swear around their children, and would probably ask me to leave if I continued to do so after being asked to stop. Even this blog has rules for sharing ideas. I don’t see how any of these are a violation of free speech.
     Another aspect of free speech is the assumption that we speak honestly so that people can judge both our ideas and our character by our words. Catholics have every right to remember Kathy Griffin as a foul-mouthed bigot if she doesn’t repeal her comments. If I spouted off vitriolic remarks about you and didn’t repent when confronted, you would have the same right to judge me in exactly the same way.

136. “I don’t see how calling for boycotts of films such as The Golden Compass and many other artistic works is consistent with a support for the ‘free exchange of ideas in public.’ “.
     You don’t? Donahue isn’t arguing that people shouldn’t be allowed to make and market films like “The Golden Compass”, or write books like Pullman’s “His Dark Materials”.
     Pullman made use of his free speech rights in writing and publishing the books. Donahue made use of his free speech rights by calling for a boycott. Are you saying that my NOT seeing a movie is censorship?

137. @Brian
     Boycotting does involve expression — I completely agree with that. I think people should be able to call for boycotts. However, some expression, though it is to protected by a principle of free expression, is nevertheless something that can be disapproved of as something that calls for restriction on free expression. To give a more stark example, if you say, “Free expression should not be a guaranteed right in society” — that expression itself is a rightful exercise of the right of free expression even though that expression can be criticized for not serving the end of free expression. So some expression hinders free expression — even though all expression, including that which hinders free expression, should be left unhindered. I hope that is clear.
     As for your comment about the FCC, AFAIK, the FCC was not involved here. It was Donohue who pushed a private organization to censor itself and Donohue who explicitly congratulated the private organization when it did so. The FCC made no ruling. There were no obsene words involved. Merely the opinion that her award was not to be credited to Jesus was expressed.

138. You say “probably” — so I’m guessing that means you just don’t know.
     Why, CT, you sound as if that’s a bad thing 🙂 On a more serious note, you also make it sound like taking a shot in the dark. It’s true that I don’t know with 100 percent certainty if the consecration would be valid under the circumstances you described. However, it’s not a shot in the dark. I’ve taken what I do know on the topic and gave it my best consideration.
     OTOH, you have not kept up your end by saying what you mean by “a renegade priest.”
     You seem not to have understood my example regarding the ship.
     Could that be because you weren’t very specific? The image when I read your post was very different than a cruise ship (which I don’t consider to have “long voyages”). Besides the first image that came up, I also thought of the story of Jonah. Now that was a long voyage and the captain did consider how to respond to a storm. You should read it some time.
     But let’s take your example of a cruise ship:
     Cruise ships often include priests and these ships may at any given time have any number of consecrated hosts within a container that may be thrown overboard by order of the captain if the ship is in danger of sinking.
     Even though my image was different than a cruise ship, I did consider the scenario you presented. However, I hoped that my initial explanation was sufficient to persuade you that your hyposthesizing about a container so large that it needed to be thrown overboard (just how large a container were you thinking of, anyway?) was not consistent with reality.
     Okay, so we’re on this cruise ship with a priest who says daily Mass. He plans on saying Mass the next day, so there’s no need to have consecrated hosts in a container somewhere. Even if he consecrates a few extra for confined people, he would bring them the hosts immediately after Mass. That container would be pocket sized and nowhere near a size that the captain would be concerned about.
     But what if there were consecrated hosts and there was an emergency? Enough of the hypothetical situations, let me tell you examples from real life. One is an example of a priest laying down his life to prevent consecrated hosts from being desecrated. When I was a child, a church on the other side of town caught fire. The priest ran into the flaming church to take the consecrated hosts out of the tabernacle. The priest died as a result.
     So you see, consecrated hosts are simply not out there for someone to casually “come across.”

139. I find the desire to inflict revenge on PZM here almost palpable. What other motive other than raging bloodlust would inspire a Catholic to contact a terrorist organization, known for its indiscriminate killing of civilians, in the hope they will inflict violence against this academic.
     Thankfully the University is getting excellent legal advive:
     UNIV. OF MINN. REFUSES TO PENALIZE MYERS
     July 25, 2008
     The Chancellor of the University of Minnesota, Morris (UMN) released a statement today regarding the intentional desecration of the Eucharist by Professor Paul Z. Myers. “I believe that behaviors that discriminate against or harass individuals or groups on the basis of their religious beliefs are reprehensible,” said Jacqueline Johnson. Importantly, she added that the school’s Code of Conduct prohibits such behavior. However, she also stressed that academic freedom allows faculty members “to speak or write as a public citizen without institutional discipline or restraint….” Nowhere did she say Myers would be disciplined
     The law is on the professors’s side.

140. CT said:
     If you say that the “eucharist always belongs to the Church” and the bread is as you believe Jesus, then it would seem you are saying “Jesus always belongs to the Church”
     Close, the Church belongs to Jesus. The Church only has the Eucharist and the authority to make rules regarding it because He has given them (the Eucharist and authority to govern it) to the Church. Besides what does this matter. Suppose the Eucharist is just a piece of bread and the Church is just a human organization. The hypothetical bread still belongs to the Church and the Church has the right to make rules that it’s members must follow just as any organization does.
     It is extremely sad to see on PZM’s blog that someone seemed to implicitly threaten his children. I also find it sad to see that with a few exceptions, Catholics seem more concerned with the bread they view as sacred than the life of Myers or his family which I presume they view as sacred as well
     Seriously, with all the comments you’ve made and read on this board how can you say this? Catholics who threaten his life and his family are the exception not the norm, just as Myers is the exception among non-Catholics. If you don’t believe me follow the blogs that Jimmy links to in his sidebar, and then follow the blogs that they link to. You won’t see them making death threats against anyone.

141. @TJ
     See my reply to Brian above.
     Also, you are conveniently ignoring how patronship directly affects whether sequels would be produced. Donohue himself expliclty stated that his intent was to prevent sequels from being produced. If Donohue wants to not see the film that is fine; if he wants to make the recommendation that others not see it, that is also fine. But you can’t honestly say that is all he did. But if he engages in a campaign of social pressure or economic warfare such as a boycott, he is attempting to use social structures to restrict the production of materials he finds objectionable.
     In addition, there is a distinction between boycotting a television show and calling for a boycott of the advertisers that sponsor a television show. The former is bad enough; the latter is even worse.
     Be that as it may, consider this case:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_A._Donohue&oldid=227566860#Cosimo_Cavallaro_-_Chocolate_Jesus_statue
     Here, Donohue clearly was not just refusing to patronize the exhibit or just calling others to patronize it or boycott a production or company to financial ruin; here he was clearly intending for the exhibit to not be displayed — which is exactly what happened.

142. @Brian
     I apologize. I was apparently not sufficiently clear in what I stated.
     I wasn’t observing that Catholics seem to engage in death threats more than they hold the bread sacred. I recognize that that is a minority just as terrorists in Islam are a minority.
     I was observing rather that Catholics — I mean in general in my experience — do not seem to condemn the death threats, and now threats against his children with the prevalence or degree with which they condemn the desecration of the bread — and I observed also that perhaps this is understandable on the Catholic world view since I would presume in Catholicism the importance of the sacredness of the bread who is Jesus is greater than the importance of the sacredness of the life of mere mortals — thus governing the disparate condemnations or lack thereof. Just to give an example, I have found it quite common for Catholics to doubt whether death threats have taken place — first against Cook and then against Myers — sometimes that is the first and sometimes even the only thing said by a Catholic with respect to it. But now threats have been made publically not only in emails posted by PZM, but also now in comments on his blog — and now even here by someone who advocates contacting terrorist organizations. Yet during all this time, I have not seen a like condemnation. Whether it is understandable given the priorities of Catholic belief, I still find it troubling. I am not saying Catholicism seems to condone such things; I am only saying that it seems to lend itself to seeing one as more pressing to be condemned than the other which accords with what I have witnessed.

143. CT, I wasn’t citing the FCC as evidence in the Donohue/Griffin debate. I was listing it along with several examples of how we use censorship in everyday life without it being a violation of free speech. I apologize for not making a clear transition between the two ideas I was expressing.

144. I tried to engage in civil and polite discussion about several religious topics on Myers blog even before all this came out. I was called every name in the book. There were strawman after strawman arguments thrown at me. It was pretty much an insult and pile on the Catholic approach. Nobody wanted to have a reasonable discussion. When I pointed out errors in their logic or “historical fact” I wasn’t considered to be educated on the matter…oh no, I was said to be “blind” and “indoctrinated” I gave up engaging people on that site. It’s like everyone on there is playing the role of the angry “New Atheist”. Very juvenille.

145. @Brian
     Paschwitz a father might give his teenage son the car and tell him to be home by 10. This was a free gift yet it comes with rules. If the son came home at midnight would he not be in violation of his father’s free offering?
     What you propose is a loan of the father’s car for X hours. But if I’ve given a car as a gift to my son, then it’s his whether he’s home by 10 or not, or whether he uses it to pick up prostitutes or squanders it in poker game. It’s his under every condition. I’d say, “This car is yours. It is my gift to you. If you wish to thank me, be home by 10.” If he’s not home until midnight, or even if he’s not home for 20 years, I’ll still celebrate when he returns and the car will still be his.

146. Masked Chicken and Inocencio, hello back at ya!
     John, please supply a link. A Google search did not turn up the statement you claimed was made today.
     I did find that the university president has allowed anti-Catholic bigotry before:http://vivechristusrex2000.blogspot.com/2008/07/umn-president-robert-bruininkss-past.html

147. No,no, no. Please nobody call or bother the man. Pray for him. As much as I don’t like his actions, I have to deal in charity. like I told the bloggers on his site. I wasn’t about to engage in uncharitable and offensive debate with them. However, if any of them wanted to send me an email with a genuine interest in discussion, I would welcome the opportunity.

148. Tim Brandenburg, as a Catholic (and I assume that you are as well) I have to say that you are a jerk- beyond a jerk, actually- I can’t think of a polite and suitable word for anyone who deliberately puts another human being’s life at risk. You’ve committed an enormity.

149. Regina has shown less charity towards PZM than PZM has shown to those who hold the email accounts from which death threats were made against him. PZM after some commenters encouraged people to spam the email accounts, strongly urged them not to do so (he gave a variety of reasons including the fact that the email address may be spoofed and the fact that regardless we should not descend to their level). Subsequently, he expressed misgivings about having posted the emails with headers in the first place and announced he was reconsidering that previously announced policy.
     I commend url for his/her response to Regina as well as JD for his to Tim.

150. I don’t think it’s in anyone’s interest to hand out Myers address (even if it’s already public knowledge) and encourage people to take things in a personal direction.
     It’s the reasoning (or lack of it) that we should be concerned with, not personal attacks.
     CT –
     What is “social pressure” and how did Donahue engage in it (be specific). How is “economic warfare” (as you say it) different from a boycott? Again, how did Donahue engage in it?
     Apparently a bunch of people agreed that The Golden Compass should be an only child, and most of them weren’t Catholics. Why shouldn’t Catholics hope that a sequel never sees the light of day?
     If people want to make sequels, it’s their responsibility to make films that people will want to see.

151. Here is the link for the statement:
     http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1467
     The University is obviously getting very sound legal advice. This is just the type of statement my lawyer friend said they would issue.

152. >The sooner we get over fairy tales, the better off society will be.
     I agree wholeheartedly.
     Let’s first start with the fairy tale that mirror worshiping is OK. Since the 1960’s that has been acceptable in modern society. Let’s get rid of it.
     Then let’s eliminate the fairy tale that it is OK to dehumanize someone and deprive them of their human rights, simply because they disagree with someone.
     Then let’s get rid of the fairy tale that human rights are only for the chosen. This is what the pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and other culture of death vultures believe. Human rights are for all, or they’re for nobody.
     Then we can eradicate the fairy tale that Atheism is not a religion. Atheism has theology – which is opinions about God, namely that he doesn’t exist. Atheism has dogmas – “God doesn’t exist” and “Atheism is not a religion” Atheism has their preachers like PT Barnum, err, PZ Myers (sorry, I keep confusing those two, as they both believe a sucker is born every minute) Atheism has things they believe in faith (like there is no such thing as the supernatural, there must be natural scientific proof of the supernatural or else it doesn’t exist, etc.)
     If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck. And Atheism quacks. Loudly.
     Then we can eradicate the fairy tale that separation of church and state means that Christians must be forced to shut up and have no voice in running the government. Sorry, we will not go to the back of the bus. That happened with Jim Crow laws, let’s not repeat it with No-Nothing laws.
     I think if we start with eliminating these fairy tales, we’ll make society so much better.

153. John,
     Thank you for the link. I’m glad the Catholic League is pursuing this. Hiding behind “academic freedom” (what cowards they are) is no excuse for violating the Code of Conduct.
     Even if Myers manages to avoid responsibility for his actions in the temporal world, I’m beginning to feel sorry for him. God won’t be mocked. No, that’s not a threat. I don’t know it will play out, but Myers will have to give an accounting to a higher authority than the university.

154. BobCatholic:
     “Then we can eradicate the fairy tale that separation of church and state means that Christians must be forced to shut up and have no voice in running the government. Sorry, we will not go to the back of the bus. That happened with Jim Crow laws, let’s not repeat it with No-Nothing laws.”
     Christians forced to shut up….!! BobCatholic, please supply just one instance where a Christian has been forced to shut up in the USA, just one!!
     The president of this country is a self professed Christian and talks quite candidly about his faith.
     The situation with atheists on the other hand is rather different. This presidents own dad is on record that he doesn’t believe its possibe for an atheist to be a patriotic American.
     Your outburst woudn’t have anything to do with the fact that religious faith is now openly challenged and questioned, a situation quite different from that which prevailed in the past.

155. I expect as much from a character like Donahue, but I’m deeply disappointed in many of my fellow Catholics who demand retalliation for a spiritual offense. We’re supposed to better than that. Many of you show a complete lack of faith that the Lord will judge and do justice in what is a spiritual, not a legal, matter. I am prompted to write to the Chancellor to let her know that in the spirit of the Lord’s forgiveness of my sins, I will pray for soul of PZ Myer and ask that she leave judgment to God. Firing him will only demonstrate that we don’t really believe what Jesus taught us.
     Perhaps it was intentional that PZ put a nail through the Eucharist to simulate the crucifiction. That only reminds me that Jesus did not and does not stop his crucifiers, even today. And he stopped those who tried to protect his earthly body, submitted willingly and even asked his father to forgive those who crucified him, even though they did not seek his forgiveness. I can think of no greater expression of love of the savior who came, not to condemn but to rescue.

156. @TJ
     I wasn’t saying it was different from a boycott. I was characterizing boycotts — all boycotts — as economic warfare. Social pressure is involved inasmuch as in Catholic terminology, “human respect” may cause some to not see something that they otherwise would feel free to see and in terms of the pressure applied to the companies involved and their advertisers and sponsors.
     What I was saying was that it is fine if he chooses to not see the film and fine if he recommends that others don’t because he sees it as poor art, morally harmful, or whatever — but that is distinct from calling for a boycott, distinct from engaging in active campaign mobilizing parts of society to have an effective veto over artistic decisions in Hollywood and elsewhere.
     Consider this:
     http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=48
     Where Donohue notes his previous call for boycott of Red Lobster for merely advertising in relation to a tv show. Donohue threatens the new advertisers with like boycotts and ends with “we will settle for nothing less than the removal of this show from TV.”
     He is not just content with not watching the show NOR is he merely content with having all those who share his moral beliefs be informed and in being so informed choosing like him to not watch the show. Rather he will not settle for anything less than no one at all being able to watch the show, “nothing less than the removal of this show from TV” — that was his goal, not “nothing less than Catholics being aware of the moral faults of the show and choosing to avoid being harmed in its watching.” And he accomplishes this goal by specifically punishing those who disagree with him and support the show (namely in this case the advertisers who see no problem with the show).
     You addressed not my example of the art exhibit.

157. Dear CT and url,
     You’re both absolutely right. I must apologize for reacting so emotionally to PZ’s actions and to the vitriol expressed against Catholics, Jesus and God on PZ’s blog. I wrongly moved all of this to the personal level, even after urging my fellow Catholics to pray for PZ on his blog just days ago. I’ve asked Jimmy to remove my earlier post and express my sincerest apology for encouraging folks to be in touch with Dr. Myers. Even if the contact was made peacefully, it would be inappropriate.
     Regina

158. Your welcome Mary,
     The Catholic League can persue this till they are blue in the face it will get them precisely nowhere. The Code of Conduct applies to behavior during working hours, I dont know why this is so difficult to grasp. As I have stated before the professors opinions are issued from his own personal blog and nothing is more protected by the First Amendment than a personel opinion. This state of affairs may drive you to distraction but its elementary, basic Constitutional Law.
     The Catholic Leagues hopeless quest to continue to try and get him sanctioned has everything to do with riling up its support base to keep the funds rolling in and nothing to do with any real hope that they have of achieving their aim. They will fail, the professors future employment is secure, the Catholic League cant touch him and they know it.

159. @regina
     I am glad and I want to apologize to you for being harsher than I probably should have been.

160. I am an atheist but its heartwarming to see Marty Durst’s post. An actual example, amongst all the vitriol, of what I have been led to believe is the appropriate response of a Christian to this type of situation. Thanks Marty!

161. John,
     You wrote (quoting the Chancellor):
     Importantly, she added that the school’s Code of Conduct prohibits such behavior. However, she also stressed that academic freedom allows faculty members “to speak or write as a public citizen without institutional discipline or restraint….”
     These statements seem contradictory. How can behavior be prohibited, but allowed? Does she mean that he is free to do anything as a public citizen as long as it is not on-campus? She makes it sound as if this is a free speech issue, but she is being a bit disingenuous, because she said, ” to speak or write…” That is NOT what Myers did. He did a physical act of desecration with property that was not, properly speaking, his. Not all acts are covered under free speech.
     Academic freedom does not cover desecration of privately held (as in, by belonging rightfully to someone other than P. Z. Myers) objects. The Eucharist belongs to the Church. Without the Church, it does not exist. She bakes the bread; she brings it into the Church; she confects it; she distributes it ( and she has a right to say how and to whom). The Church would not have given the Eucharist to an individual, knowing that he planned to desecrate it. It was, therefore, obtained under false pretenses. Academic freedom does not cover receiving fraudulently obtained goods.
     What lawyers are you talking about? The status of the Eucharist as private property is a gray area of the law, at best. No lawyer, in his right mind, would make a definitive statement on such a gray area without some sort of precedence. This is not like buying and burning a flag. It is more like smashing a stolen tv set.
     The Chancellor needs to pull way back and think about what she is saying. If this is her response, then she really doesn’t understand the situation. I have no idea what she has been informed about this situation, so I would wait awhile before making any definitive statements.
     The Chicken

162. John –
     Whoa there pal…
     Since you seem to be our resident legal scholar because you know some guy who is a lawyer, enlighten me on the finer points of the law concerning a person who PUBLICLY accuses another person (falsely) of “contact(ing) a terrorist organization, known for its indiscriminate killing of civilians, in the hope they will inflict violence against this academic.”
     Let’s not kid ourselves, you were referring to a post of mine. So don’t even come back with the “oh – I meant some OTHER Catholic on some other site” line of jive. It’s called hyperbole, and it has just rendered every single syllable you have posted here (in my opinion) completely irrelevant and unworthy of consideration.
     1. I did not contact a terrorist organization.
     2. Mosques are neither “terrorist organizations” nor are they known for “indiscriminate killing.”
     3. Think of me as as a messenger, helping the Exalted PZ Myers spread his message.
     4. Even people of the Islamic faith – in spite of the low regard in which you hold them – deserve the decency of being told when somebody is dumping garbage on something that they hold sacred.
     5. Even Muslims have the right to have their voices heard. I’m certainly not going to cover for PZ Myers.
     6. I have no intention of setting off a chain of events that leads to violence against PZ Myers or anyone else.
     I am stunned and outraged at your bigoted comments…to the point that they outrage me just as much as what PZ Myers did. Do you have any other convenient stereotypes to fling out there? Do you hate all Muslims? Do you see them all as terrorists? Or is it all people of Middle Eastern descent?
     Let me guess: In your world, people are basically broken down into groups of [blank]-wearing, [blank]-eating, [blank]-haired, [blank]-eyed, [blank]-skinned, [blank]-speaking, or [blank]-worshipping such-and-such?
     Why don’t you take your bile to one of the skinhead sites?

163. Christians forced to shut up….!! BobCatholic, please supply just one instance where a Christian has been forced to shut up in the USA, just one!!
     Easy. I’ll provide many of them.
     Christians arrested for speaking their mind peacefully in Philadelphia.
     http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40929
     http://www.darrelldumas.com/imprisoned_for_saying_jesus.htm
     In Texas, a U.S. District judge decreed that any student uttering the word “Jesus” at his school’s graduation would be arrested and locked up. “And make no mistake,” announced
     * Judge Samuel B. Kent, “the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court.”
     * In Missouri, when fourth-grader Raymond Raines bowed his head in prayer before his lunch in the cafeteria of Waring Elementary School in St. Louis, his teacher allegedly ordered him out of his seat, in full view of other students present, and sent him to the principal’s office. After his third such prayer “offense,” little Raymond was segregated from his classmates, ridiculed for his religious beliefs, and given one week’s detention.
     * In New York, kindergartner Kayla Broadus recited the familiar and beloved prayer – “God is great, God is good. Thank you, God, for my food” – while holding hands with two students seated next to her at her snack table at her Saratoga Springs school early last year. But she was silenced and scolded by her teacher, who reported the infraction to the school’s lawyer, Gregg T. Johnson, who concluded that Kayla’s behavior was indeed a violation of the “separation of church and state.”
     How’s that for FOUR instances?
     Oh wait, we’re not anywhere close to some of the juicy things!
     We have people trying to turn Christianity into a hate crime!
     http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=cfi&categoryid=papers
     Gee, we have this happening in Canada, Sweden, and other foreign countries where freedom of religion doesn’t exist. Sorry, I don’t want that here. We shall not have an atheocracy. Those were tried in other countries, and 100 million died in the 20th century. No thanks. I don’t want to see more dead.
     I also notice you didn’t touch any of the other fairy tales. Does this mean you agree that mirror worshipping is bad? Then yell at TZ Myers because he’s doing that big time.

164. @Bob (and this plain “Bob” not the “BobCatholic”)
     Your whole post is out of line. What John (I presume) and I both referred to was not a post you made but one made by a “Tim Brandenburg”

165. @ CT
     Understood. Given the flood email Prof. Myers has probably received, I am all the more appreciative that the Chancellor, having received her own plethora of emails, still found the time to read and respond to my email.

166. Of course, you are persecuting someone over the make believe. Grow up.
     As a matter of fact, based on his juvenile actions, I think it’s clear that P.Z. Myers is the one who needs to grow up.

167. The legal status of prayer in educational institutions is as follows:
     Students are absolutley permitted to perform self-directed prayer provided it does not upset the educational running of the school.
     Public school sponsored prayer is unconstitutional.
     School districts that interfere with a students right to partake in their own self-directed prayer, and you are correct there have been many instances of this happening, are breaking the law and should be subject to appropriate legal sancion.
     I am an atheist but also a libertarian and I take the First Amendment very, very, seriously. I would support a believers right to worship without state interference as vigorously as I would support an atheists right to state their position, in other words the classic “Voltarian” defense of freedom of expression.
     The point I was trying to make was that in the US there are no state directed attempts to suppress the beliefs of christians. If you have any instances of these please reference them for me.

168. Masked Chicken, thank you for your lucid (as always) comments.
     Johnny,
     First, my name is Mary Kay.
     Second, this is not “driving me to distraction.” I have this quaint notion that university students should have an environment conducive to learning and not being subjected to some immature idiot’s hostility.
     Third, if the university’s Code of Conduct is applicable only to working hours, it is unique. Every other profession’s Code of Ethics applies both at work and away from work.
     Fourth, Myers’ hostility to Catholicism does create an antagonistic environment. I don’t know why that is so difficult for you to grasp.
     As others have noted, Myers far overstepped “personal opinion.” His actions of desecration are the issue.
     Your are totally clueless about the Catholic League. My reaction would have been the same if the Catholic League didn’t say anything. It has nothing to do with “funds rolling in” but apparently you have such a materialistic, cynical mentality that anything transcendant is beyond your comprehension.
     While it would be preferable for Myers to put some big boy pants on and be responsible for his actions, whether or not that happens is not a win or loss for the Catholic League. To paraphrase Mother Theresa, they and all Catholics are called to be faithful, not necessarily successful.

169. Someone didn’t read my post:)

170. I just realized that the atheist influx (other than CT) showed up about the time that Myers closed comments on his thread.

171. BobCatholic: You are correct, what is occurring in other countries with respect to hate crime legislation is simply despicable.
     Intellectual freedom is the hallmark of a civilized society and by that measure many other so-called civilized countries; Canada, many European countries, fall far short of that mark.
     The USA is the only exception, where the natural right of freedom of expression is enshrined into its founding documents. In my view “hate speech” is the only speech worth defending; why on earth would you just want to defend the consensus. This is why I take such great exception to attempts to threaten an individual’s means of employment just because he espouses views you find despicable.

172. “Your outburst woudn’t have anything to do with the fact that religious faith is now openly challenged and questioned, a situation quite different from that which prevailed in the past.”
     Let me guess… you’re not a history major, are you?

173. Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if PZM is sending his goons our way. They gotta get us Christians to shut up and go to the back of the bus.

174. >This is why I take such great exception to attempts to threaten an individual’s means of employment just because he espouses views you find despicable.
     He’s not merely “espousing” – he’s gone waaaaaaaay beyond that.
     >The USA is the only exception
     Nope. It is following the rest of the world. “Hate Crime” laws and SOCAS are being used to silence Christians and to make them second class citizens.
     Sorry to tell you, but we have an Atheocracy here. Only a matter of time before Christians are rounded up for their beliefs. OH WAIT, that has already begun.

175. “not a history major…” LOL

176. Mary Kay:
     No evidence has been presented, that Myers’ is hostile in the classroom to Catholics. None. You are just assuming he is but have no evidence whatsoever that that is the case.
     Again, nothing is more constitutionally protected that your right to hold unpopular opinions and state them loudly and obnoxiously to others to the point of driving them to distraction. If the Universities Code of Conduct does in fact infringe that right it will not survive constitutional scrutiny.
     You have presented no evidence that his views on Catholicism creates a hostile working environment you just imagine that to be the case. He teaches biology not Catholic doctrine.
     Riling up the support base by generating some “outrage” is a classic way for organizations to help the funds roll in. You are very naive if you think otherwise. The Catholic League’s attempts to get Myers’s sanctioned is going nowhere.

177. John, you seem very determined to defend your friend, but I’m not going to spend any more energy on him.
     Myers is the one who created the outrage, not the Catholic League. You seem to have difficulty grasping that.
     G’night all.

178. John, I don’t think you understand the situation completely.
     This is not a legal question of free speech. I don’t know anyone who is seriously calling for legal action against Myers for his actions and certainly not his thoughts.
     People are calling for the University to discipline him. There are many people who openly express non-Catholic beliefs at every university and no one is asking for their jobs. Myers didn’t merely express his beliefs, he committed an intentionally hateful act. Even this were merely about his words (which I assert again it’s not) we all have to pay the consequences of exercising our right to free speech. Right now the university is betting that this situation will die down quickly, but if it doesn’t and they start to lose donations from it there may be consequences. Universities depend on donations. They have every right to discipline Myers if his actions (yes even his actions in his free time) cause the university harm.

179. BobCatholic, If a politician wishes to commit career suicide in the US all he has to do is admit to being an atheist. I know not a single example of an American politician serving in the House or Congress who openly admits to non-belief. In most of the country signalling your christian piety is practically a requirement for public office and yet you would have me believe that atheists rule the roost here!
     You still have not been able to provide a single example of state directed persecution of christians.

180. Professor Myers is a tenured Science professor with an active experimental research program (brings $$$ into the University). Good luck trying to get him fired (sarcasm).
     Besides, if he WERE somehow fired over this, people all over the USA (including me) would respond by desecrating the Eucharist. Some of us would do so regularly. Make it part of the daily routine like morning prayer. The wafer manufacturers would run out of stock. We’d also all buy his book and make him filthy rich.
     Some of you argue that religious students might feel uncomfortable in his class and accuse him of religious bias and that therefore he cannot function as an educator. By that argument, no religious fundamentalist who is public about his fundamentalism can function as an educator because non-fundamentalists might feel uncomfortable in HIS class and accuse HIM of religious bias.
     Anyway, I would be surprised if PZ mentioned religion in his classes. Unless he teaches History of Science as well as Biology.
     The effort to pollute science classes with a theory of the supernatural is at least as meaningful a desecration as what Professor Myers has done. Governor Jindal (R-La) is a disgrace to the Rhodes Scholarship and should be forced to pay back the money Rhodes Trust spent on his education.

181. OK, OK. The fake Hizbolla email was a bad joke and tasteless. I’m sorry. I had this thought that some lurker would take it back to him and he’d be looking over his shoulder for insane assassins.
     I did, however, really send an email to CNN.
     I’m sorry for the upset. Please forgive me.

182. @MC,
     The status of the Eucharist as private property is a gray area of the law, at best.
     A man in London, UK stood in a handout line and was given an object. Likely, three simple words were spoken, “Body of Christ.” Whether he heard those words, we don’t know and by itself, that’s legally insufficient to establish that the Catholic Church has any subsequent property right in the object any more than if she were handing out soup at a soup kitchen. It can hardly even be argued that people who stand in line to receive a handout understand and agree with Church teaching, whatever it may be on the subject, as it can easily be shown that the majority of the people do not. Even you admit it’s a gray area at best. In gray areas, do you not give the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
     @MK,
     Third, if the university’s Code of Conduct is applicable only to working hours, it is unique. Every other profession’s Code of Ethics applies both at work and away from work.
     The university’s student Code of Conduct was expressly revised in late 2006 to explicitly address off-campus activity to the extent of covering criminal offenses as defined by state or federal law, and offenses which present a danger or threat to the health or safety of the student or others. However, the faculty Code of Conduct was not so revised. It does refer to “threats”, but there is no explicit reference to off-campus activities, and there is arguably a lack of evidence that the professor threatens the safety, security and health of his biology students in an actionable way.
     Myers is the one who created the outrage, not the Catholic League.
     He, they and you all had a part in it, and continue to have a part in it.
     @Brian,
     Myers didn’t merely express his beliefs, he committed an intentionally hateful act.
     Even “intentionally hateful acts” can be protected expressions of belief.
     Universities depend on donations. They have every right to discipline Myers if his actions (yes even his actions in his free time) cause the university harm.
     If donations drop, some would blame Myers. Others would blame the donors’ own intolerance of protected expression and the university’s own reliance on such people.

183. Brian, Your analysis of the situation indicates that you are seriously in error. The Universtiy most certainly cannot discipline the Professor for his unpopular views, this would be a manifestly illegal act and if the University does seek to sanction him they better be prepared to write him a very substantial check once the dust has settled. The University of Colorado couldn’t even fire the depicable Ward Churchill for his abhorrent views expressed in an essay he wrote concerning 9/11 despite calls from the Colorado State goverment to sack him, if they had tried to fire him for his ideas he would have sued the University, got his job back and a hefty check for illegal dismissal. What did get the egregious Churchill fired was the discovery that he had comitted plagiarism and academic fraud. If you doubt what I say go the the FIRE website, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, they have fought many cases of this type and the Universtity always backs down or if taken to court loses and pays big time in the end.

184. Talk of prosecuting the professor for stealing the Eucharist is also drivel. Providing he didn’t conspire to have someone break into a church and purloin some wafers and not a smidgen of evidence has been advanced that he did, he’s broken no law. If someone was given the wafer during communion he/she is under on obligation to treat the wafer according to church doctrine, once given they can do anything they like with it. For all you know at the point of communion the individiual might have decided to become apostate and decided to prove his atheism by providing the wafer to PM. Again this is a legal argument that will get absolutely nowhere in the real world, just in the imaginations of some posters here.

185. Much earlier on this thread (e.g. Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Jul 24, 2008 2:47:54 PM), there was discussion of what policies (ethical? safety?) Prof. Myers might have violated. I think it would come under the heading of bias- or hate-crime:
     From an e-mail I received:
     “What he did—in both word and deed—constitutes a bias incident, as defined by the University of Minnesota. The policy says that ‘Expressions of disrespectful bias, hate, harassment or hostility against an individual, group or their property because of the individual or group’s actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion…can be forms of discrimination. Expressions vary, and can be in the form of language, words, signs, symbols, threats, or actions that could potentially cause alarm, anger, fear, or resentment in others…even when presented as a joke.’”
     I think it fits exactly–hostility against a group and its property, because of the group’s religion, in the form of threats and actions, causing anger.
     The university may not be able to fire him, but he should certainly receive the strongest reprimand or censure that their system allows.
     California Girl

186. “You are all human beings who must make your way through your life by thinking and learning, and you have the job of advancing humanity’s knowledge by winnowing out the errors of past generations and finding deeper understanding of reality. You will not find wisdom in rituals and sacraments and dogma, which build only self-satisfied ignorance, but you can find truth by looking at your world with fresh eyes and a questioning mind.”
     This is from who you are talking about. He points out that ritual, sacrament and dogma stifle the search for knowledge. As a result, sacred cows have to be eliminated when they are no longer useful. Catholic sacred cows lost their usefulness hundreds of years ago, in my opinion. It is wishful thinking that there is an afterlife, this is it, and if you look, what is here is paradise if you strive to make it so. What is here is extremely beautiful if you look at it instead of imagining another place nicer. It is hugely frustrating to see the wasted intellect, effort, and human suffering in the worship of the imaginary. That is why you are seeing the ridicule and derision welling up from the atheist community. We are tired of it. We don’t want to help pay for it any more. We don’t have to respect the religion and superstitions, only the people.
     I am getting on an airplane tomorrow to visit my family, an airplane designed by men and women with no assistance from the imaginary, flying without the assistance of the imaginary, over the mountains created by natural forces, to my family who I love and know love me. All of it naturally occurring without the imaginary. All of it beautifully complex and simple. All of it understood without faith.

187. California Girl:
     “The university may not be able to fire him, but he should certainly receive the strongest reprimand or censure that their system allows…”
     …which in this case is absolutely nothing.

188. Mary:
     “John, you seem very determined to defend your friend,…..
     I’m defending a principal, the First Amendment, that is as important to me, as the Eucharist appears to be to you.
     I on the other hand have never called for terminating someone’s employment just because I found their views to be deeply repugnant.

189. Myers committed an enormity beyond the ability of mere humans to deal with.
     God can deal with it: we can’t – other than be all the more vigilant about consecrated Hosts. All the more vigilant about mass crowds at Mass where the priests don’t know the people receiving the Body and the Blood of Christ.
     Yet, can anyone doubt that Myers creates a very hostile environment for Christian and Muslim students in his classes? That -is- a basis for his removal, or at the very least – if he is tenured, only giving him unimportant electives also taught by other professors, so that no student will have to suffer at his hands on the way to obtaining a degree. I think that this -is- legitimate, and that we cannot allow such hate to be forced upon Christian and Muslim students at our land-grant (Northwest Ordinance of 1787) university system. (Not to mention that said ordinance that makes the U of M possible requires that they teach not only the useful arts and sciences, but also ‘religion,’ which at the time in that historical context, meant specifically Trinitarian Christianity).
     Atheists and agnostics: it isn’t his speech which is the problem. It is his hateful desecration of Christ’s Body and Blood. It is his creation of a highly hostile and antagonistic environment in his classrooms, paid for, along with his salary, by the taxpayers of this State of Minnesota, created for the purpose of teaching the “useful arts and sciences, and religion”.

190. John,
     As a Catholic I am extremely hurt and angry, not because Professor Myers disbelieves in the Eucharist and publicy denounces Catholic beliefs and teachings, but because he took an object (indeed, I believe it is a Person) I hold sacred and deliberately abused It for the sole purpose of making me feel hurt and angry. I believe in and support the First Amendment. If Professor Myers had kept his views in the realm of argument/counter-argument, there would be no problem. When he decided to desecrate the Holy Eucharist, he crossed the line from respectful, rational disagreement into spiteful, mean-spirited, childishly offensive behavior, once more, only to provoke. I am undecided whether or not I will ask the university to terminate its associations with him, but I will be writing the university to express my concerns regarding Professor Myers’ apparent lack of personal and professional maturity.

191. When I’ve slept on it, I will also write, and I will also point out that not only the Catholics in Minnesota, but also the Lutherans are deeply horrified and offended by this deliberate blasphemy and sacrilege.
     I wonder what former governor Al Quie (sp?) will say about this? It is not inconceivable that he still has influential contacts in the capitol of *Saint* Paul.

192. Labrialumn,
     You wrote:
     Yet, can anyone doubt that Myers creates a very hostile environment for Christian and Muslim students in his classes?
     I do doubt it. His writing is mean-spirited, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s just his personality, which no doubt rears its head in his classes. But I’ve had mean-spirited professors and learned from them nonetheless.
     Heck, I’ve had professors who were openly hostile to religion, and I bucked up and went head-to-head with them in class and disagreed with them in papers I wrote. I didn’t always get As, but they didn’t fail me for it. That’s kind of the essence of respect and free speech, no? Two parties who disagree with one another are still able to have a mutually beneficial transaction: I learned something about the subject matter, and they got a paycheck (and, I hope, a sense of career satisfaction.)
     I am extremely loath to pick up the “hostile environment” stick to beat Myers with, since this is the same stick being used to beat down Christians and traditionalists of all stripes all over the world right now.

193. Tom Hail: Your anti-Catholic bigotry has been noted. Did it make you feel better to express it?

194. Tom Hail said:
     this is it, and if you look, what is here is paradise if you strive to make it so. What is here is extremely beautiful if you look at it instead of imagining another place nicer… We are tired of it.
     Tom Hail, when you are “tired” of “paradise,” just remember, “What is here is extremely beautiful if you look at it instead of imagining another place nicer.”
     Love,
     Yourself as Georgina

195. It is hugely frustrating to see the wasted intellect, effort, and human suffering in the worship of the imaginary. That is why you are seeing the ridicule and derision welling up from the atheist community. We are tired of it. We don’t want to help pay for it any more. We don’t have to respect the religion and superstitions, only the people.
     You have got to be joking!?
     1. One need not subscribe to religion in order to end up a brainless dolt.
     Witness for yourself the hundreds of lemmings on Myers’ blog who can’t actually think for themselves but instead blindly follow Myers’ will without a shred of their own (ever the sycophants to their god Myers!) and think that pre-school nonsense and mindless profanity can actually pass for sophisticated argumentation. Now that’s wasted intellect!
     2. If you really want to demonstrate your respect for the people, then that’s one helluva way of doing so. You might as well punch their mother’s/father’s/brother’s/sister’s eye out while you’re at it.
     I am getting on an airplane tomorrow to visit my family, an airplane designed by men and women with no assistance from the imaginary, flying without the assistance of the imaginary, over the mountains created by natural forces, to my family who I love and know love me. All of it naturally occurring without the imaginary. All of it beautifully complex and simple. All of it understood without faith.
     You really don’t want to get into this, do you?
     How many times need I remind you folks that such science, and even Science itself, was the result of Catholic scientists in the first place! So, yes, there was “assistance from the imaginary”; that is, it was the Catholic Faith of the first Scientists which were Catholic monks, clerics, and laity, that drove them to Science in the first place and inspired them to discovery and seek out the very workings of creation of God!
     Your kind still continue to avoid this whole subject with the rare exception of a couple of athiests from the blog who were intelligent enough to respond to my post with some dignity and reason.
     I would like to respond briefly here to these since I’d like very much to avoid the mob of the half-witted nuisance on that insufferable poor excuse for a Science blog.
     1. My point in the original post I put up was not so much to argue that because these (the first scientists which happen to be Catholic) were intelligent people, their spiritual beliefs must be correct — no, not at all.
     That wasn’t my point. My point was that if religion breeds stupidity, then you wouldn’t have had such multitudes throughout history of such Catholic men and women who demonstrated immense intellectual prowess and invention, and Science itself would not have even been borne out of the Catholic Church, which it actually came from, ironically enough.
     2. Let’s say if your agenda to wholly stamp out religion is successful. Do you really think that you would have rid the world of the idiocy you claim religion breeds in humanity and advance its overall progress? As mentioned, you should take a look at the numbers of idiots that populate Myers’ blog with their primitive thinking and mindless chatter.
     As for advancing humanity’s progress, need I remind you it was religion in the first place that inspired the first scientists (and even contemporary ones) to the birth of Science, to genious invention to the very technological advancements we have today!

196. Jack, you’re right that these people, such as Tom and Somg (who is spitefully willingly to inflict pain but too cowardly to sign his name) – have no clue that they wouldn’t have their science if it weren’t for Catholic scientists.
     John, you’ve shown yourself to be a broken record, either unable or unwilling to hear what others which makes a two-way discussion impossible.

197. Actually, it would be nice if these atheists would show some intereste in intellectual discussion instead of the juvenile behavior and words that they’ve shown so far. Intellectual discussion is more what this blog is about.

198. It’s not merely unfortunate that you fail to distinguish between beliefs (which deserve no special respect) and people (which do). It’s frightening.
     It’s also unfortunate that you think that the First Amendment must recognize your belief that a wafer is more than an object in which you invest deep significance. I understand that you believe it is more than that. But the law does not, anymore than the law could support a charge of “kidnapping” against whomever acquired the wafer.
     Nor does the idea that the wafer is “not his” hold merit. If someone simply took a wafer, put it in their mouth, but did not actually swallow it, there has been no crime committed. It is not “theft.” When someone hands you a food item, especially with the expectation that you are going to eat it, then you’ve given it away. You can’t hand someone something with the expectation that you will never get it back, and then seize it back from them later when they do something you don’t like with it. If the Church is worried about this, then it has every right to be more careful to whom it gives communion to. But it certainly doesn’t have the right invent non-existent crimes just because it is angry.
     What he did is perfectly within the realm of free speech, like it or not. Criticize him as rude, nasty, and all the rest with perfect legitimacy. But try to argue and justify your actions beyond that, and you lose all credibility, becoming EXACTLY like the Muslims who were outraged over the Danish cartoons and wanted to see people punished for printing them.
     If you succeed in putting enough pressure on the governor and school to get Myers fired, he will sue, and win on precisely this issue. All you will have demonstrated is that you have the political influence and power to attack people successfully.

199. I e-mailed a response:
     Dear President Bruininks,
     I write to express my great sorrow that a so-called educated man and one of your faculty has chosen to do such a despicable action as to desecrate that which we as Catholics hold holy beyond measure. It’s amazing to me that some of those who claim such exalted knowledge as to state with certainty that there is no God, spend an inordinate amount of time and effort challenging that which they believe does not exist.
     In any case, as a biologist, Professor Myers should be aware, not only of the physical evolution of humans, but also the social and religious evolution of our sub-species to the extent that spiritual beliefs and religious expressions are part and parcel of who we are. That I believe that God had a hand in this and he doesn’t should not be a barrier to civilized behavior between us, or between him and his students.
     Alas, he has gone beyond civilized manners to the extent that no one should have to associate with him, especially in any superior/subordinate or professor/student capacity. And, he has seriously called into question his ability to teach scientific truth with objectivity and a respect for the developing minds of his students. If I came to his classroom as a young student still debating within myself the issues of evolution and my faith, would he seek to ridicule me into his belief? What hubris!
     Viciousness does not become one who is a teacher of young minds. I ask you, as President of the University of Minnesota, to seriously consider whether Professor Myers can henceforth ever be a force for good at U.M.

200. Labrialumn:
     Its interesting that you write this:
     “Myers committed an enormity beyond the ability of mere humans to deal with.
     God can deal with it: we can’t – other than be all the more vigilant about consecrated Hosts. All the more vigilant about mass crowds at Mass where the priests don’t know the people receiving the Body and the Blood of Christ.”
     And then call for him to be fired:
     “Yet, can anyone doubt that Myers creates a very hostile environment for Christian and Muslim students in his classes? That -is- a basis for his removal, or at the very least – if he is tenured, only giving him unimportant electives also taught by other professors, so that no student will have to suffer at his hands on the way to obtaining a degree. I think that this -is- legitimate, and that we cannot allow such hate to be forced upon Christian and Muslim students at our land-grant (Northwest Ordinance of 1787) university system. (Not to mention that said ordinance that makes the U of M possible requires that they teach not only the useful arts and sciences, but also ‘religion,’ which at the time in that historical context, meant specifically Trinitarian Christianity). ”
     You have provided zero evidence that he is hostile to Catholic students in his classroom, none, zip, nada.
     He is writing from his own personal blog.
     “Atheists and agnostics: it isn’t his speech which is the problem. It is his hateful desecration of Christ’s Body and Blood. It is his creation of a highly hostile and antagonistic environment in his classrooms, paid for, along with his salary, by the taxpayers of this State of Minnesota, created for the purpose of teaching the “useful arts and sciences, and religion”.”
     SCOTUS has explicitly ruled that actions as well as speech can be considered forms of expressions, e.g. flag burning, and are covered by the First Amendment.
     His “hateful desecration of Christ’s Body and Blood” is covered by the First Amendment and is constitutionally protected speech.

201. In 1928, Pope Pius XI wrote a profound work on reparation titled *Reparation to the Sacred Heart,* (available in the EWTN library). For those who think the time is hear for the prayer of reparation for what has been done by Prof. Myers, I recommend this as a rich source of background ideas.

202. Cracker Jack:
     I know you would like to believe that the Western scientific worldview arose directly from a religious, particuarly Catholic viewpoint, but this is nonsense.
     The earliest originators of what is now considered to be a scientific approach to asking fundamental questions concerning the universe were the prescocratic philosophers followed by Aristotle, the first thinker to explicitly formulate the subject areas and goals of the scientific program.
     Pagan thinkers one and all.
     And anyway just because many important advances in knowledge and discoveries were made by self-professed christians it does not follow that the their scientific insights were generated from their theological disposition. In logic correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

203. It strikes me that it would be useful to survey Catholic students attending the University of Minnesota to see how they perceive the climate there. I don’t know who could orchestrate this, maybe the Catholic League, but it should be done. Particularly helpful would be to have the students identify professors or programs that have an anti-Catholic bias. My hunch is that this Myers episode is but the tip of the iceberg. The fact that so much anti-Catholicism was spewing from his university blog before the link was pulled probably indicates a certain level of sympathy in administration. Or maybe not. Time to check this out.

204. Nor does the idea that the wafer is “not his” hold merit. If someone simply took a wafer, put it in their mouth, but did not actually swallow it, there has been no crime committed. It is not “theft.”
     Help me to understand your position. Are you saying that because what Myers did was not technically illegal that it was acceptable adult behavior? Because to my knowledge the law does not set about to proscribe all unacceptable behavior. In other words, Myers may have the legal right to be an absolute jackass but that is not he issue. The issue is if being the jackass he is is within the code of conduct he is expected to uphold in his position as a ‘teacher’ at the University of Minnesota.
     Approaching a priest under false pretences with the intention of securing the Eucharist for use in a blasphemous act may not be illegal but it is still morally wrong and utterly contemptible. For a professor at a state university to encourage that is beyond the pale. It is odd that you are apparently falling back upon a legal technicality to justify the unjustifiable.

205. Woodrow:
     Your belief that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ in no way obligates Myer’s to reciprocate that belief.
     Additionally your words clearly indicate to me that you most empatically do not “… believe in and support the First Amendment…” as it is currently interpreted by SCOTUS. Myer’s words and actions broached no legal barrier.
     Myer’s has a constitionally protected right to engage in spiteful, mean-spirited, childish behavior soley designed and conciously intended to denigrate, ridicule and hold in utter contempt your most cherished and deeply held beliefs.
     Myers has broken no law, his behavior is one hundred percent lawful.

206. “I know you would like to believe that the Western scientific worldview arose directly from a religious, particularly Catholic viewpoint, but this is nonsense.”
     What we have here is a splendid example of denying a fact which is inconvenient to what one wishes were true.

207. It’s not merely unfortunate that you fail to distinguish between beliefs (which deserve no special respect) and people (which do). It’s frightening.
     You should address that to Myers who considered that his belief (a negative belief, but belief all the same) was more important than the pain he knowingly caused to many people.
     It’s also unfortunate that you think that the First Amendment must recognize your belief that a wafer is more than an object in which you invest deep significance.
     The Constitution allows freedom to worship without being hassled. Catholics will now have to be even more vigilant against people like Myers and Somg who spitefully and vindictively threatened desecration of what Catholics hold to be most sacred.
     Nor does the idea that the wafer is “not his” hold merit….When someone hands you a food item, especially with the expectation that you are going to eat it, then you’ve given it away.
     The Eucharist is NOT a “food item.” The Eucharist is only in the context of Mass, to be received only by Catholics, who understand what and Who they are receiving. Why do supposedly educated people have so much difficulty with something that simple? Why do people like Myers and Somg have so much difficulty with personal boundaries?
     If you succeed in putting enough pressure on the governor and school to get Myers fired, he will sue,
     Are you privy to his intentions?
     you have the political influence and power to attack people successfully.
     This isn’t about political power. That you think it is says a lot about you. This is about Myers’ action and inabiity to let others live and let live, his inability to respect people and their sacraments whose beliefs differ from his own.

208. Bill, what a classic example!

209. Bill912:
     I couldn’t help but notice in your response you declined to indicate what part of my statement was incorrect.
     Simply stating you’re wrong is not an arguement its just an outburst.
     Check any introductory text on Western philosphy.
     The presocratics lived around 500 BC. Aristotle was born in 384 BC and died in 322 BC. These philosophers and proto-scientists set the intellectual groundwork for the Western scientific worldview. All were born and lived hundreds of years before the birth of Christ and all were thoroughly pagan in their beliefs.
     In fact it was a major problem for the Schoolmen or Scolastics of the medieval period to incorporate Aristotle’s thinking which was pagan through and through into Catholic doctrine.
     If you think any of the above is incorrect kindly point out my error.

210. Myers has broken no law, his behavior is one hundred percent lawful.
     John,
     Unless someone is advocating that the police go to Myers’ home to arrest him for his brazen obnoxiousness your point is entirely unrelated to the question at hand. The question at hand is whether the University of Minnesota should continue to suffer the employment of this man.

211. What Mary Kay posted at 4:47

212. One could make a case that, since whoever took the Host did so under false pretenses, Myers committed Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, but I think that actually proving that beyond a reasonable doubt would be mighty difficult.

213. Mary Kay:
     Do you actually read what you write!
     You state “This isn’t about political power.” when you have inumerable examples on this blog calling on individuals to email University and State officials to terminate Myers’ employment. And you think this has nothing to with using brute political power to inflict revenge on someone whose actions you disapprove of. Astonishing!
     Myers is under no obligation whatsoever to respect your beliefs, he is perfectly free to disrespect you all he wants.
     Its ironic that you claim, falsely, that he is unable to “let others live and let live” since the only threats, physical (actual death threats) and loss of emloyment have come from Catholics wishing to inflict revenge.

214. Bill912:
     Still waiting for you to point out where the error is in my post.
     This enquiring mind want to know.

215. John,
     Aristotle laid the groundwork, but it was not put into practice in a systematic way except under the auspices of Christian civilization.
     Science requires the assumption of an orderly universe with laws to flourish, an assumption which was not shared by any of the previous dominant philosophies.
     For these reasons, science did not take off and flourish until Christian civilization gained ascendancy.

216. Dear Ms. Johnson,
     As a Minnesota resident, we am horrified by the actions of Professor PZ Myers, and it is an embarrassment to our state and to your University that you employ a bigot. It is very nearly as horrifying that you, as chancellor of the university, defend his actions under the guise of free speech. Ms. Johnson, if all Prof. Myers had done was to make a speech or write some words, inflammatory as they may be, we doubt anyone would be offended. It is obvious to anyone with an ability to make simple distinctions that he did far more.
     If you are laboring in ignorance, he publicly called for people to enter religious services under false pretenses, and asked them to take a sacred object of the Catholic religion (again under false pretenses), and send it to him so he could abuse it. Once he received the sacred object, he then pierced it with a nail and threw it into the trash. He also posted pictures of this for everyone to see. We hope you are able to discern that these actions go far beyond speech.
     It is a clear violation of University policy (not to mention common decency) and constitutes a bias incident. From your own policy, “Expressions of disrespectful bias, hate, harassment or hostility against an individual, group or their property because of the individual or group’s actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion…can be forms of discrimination. Expressions vary, and can be in the form of language, words, signs, symbols, threats, or actions that could potentially cause alarm, anger, fear, or resentment in others…even when presented as a joke.”
     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.”
     PZ Myers has done none of these things. It should be blindingly obvious that PZ Myers is not fit to hold a position at a university. If you fail to discipline or terminate Professor Myers, we must assume that you would also not discipline a professor who showed up in a synagogue under false pretenses, stole their sacred objects and then abused them, or a professor who defecated on Martin Luther King’s grave. After all, those actions are free speech too, correct?
     We have five children who are yet to enter college, and you may rest assured that none of them will be even considering the University of Minnesota system if this type of disrespect, bias, and outright hate is considered remotely acceptable. We are further outraged that you are permitting Minnesota to become the laughing stock of the entire nation for harboring this bigot.
     Thank you for your consideration…

217. Bill912:
     “One could make a case that, since whoever took the Host did so under false pretenses, Myers committed Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, but I think that actually proving that beyond a reasonable doubt would be mighty difficult.”
     Beyond reasonable doubt any attempt to make this arguement fly in a court of law and you would literally be laughed out the courtroom. But please go ahead and try, I would love to see how this one plays out.

218. Myers is under no obligation whatsoever to respect your beliefs, he is perfectly free to disrespect you all he wants.
     Myers is a state employee. He works for the people of Minnesota. His employers presumably include a large number of people he has no respect for. He is certainly free to seek employment with someone for whom he has a higher feeling of esteem. If he had any personal integrity he should leave his cushy academic post without prompting from the people he has feels no compunction against offending post haste.

219. John quotes my post, then posts essentially the same thing, then dares me to do what I said was virtually impossible to do. As per Mary Kay’s 4:47 post, I think that perhaps we are dealing with “unable” rather than with “unwilling”.

220. Dave:
     Your statement is incorrect.
     Probably the defining intellectual achievment of the presocratics was the positing of stable, orderly natural laws underlying the diverse phenomena observed in nature.
     Such a proposition is axiomatic to science and its formulation pre dates Christianity by hundreds of years. For much more information on this I highly recommend the first volume of Frederick Copleston’s (a Jesuit philosopher) nine volume series “A History of Philosophy”: Greece and Rome.
     Your other statement is also incorrect. Scientific progress began to accelerate at the end of the Medieval period during the Age of Humanism and contining on into the Age of Enlightement just as the Church’s hold on power was waning and secular forces were coming to dominate Europe’s intellectual landscape.
     The medieval Schoolmen tried hard to incorporate Aristotle’s pagan thinking into a religious worldview and ended up distorting and corrupting his major intellectual achievments, turning it into a vast sea of frozen logic.
     I need hardly mention that some of the most important scientific advances of the past were vigorously and aggresively opposed by the Catholic Church.

221. All in all, I’m not for taking any action against Meyers, except for individuals to call him out for his actions/words. I think there’s good reason to keep the bar very high for ‘hostile environment’ cases in universities. A lot of professors are hostile to their students. It’s part of the university landscape, regrettably. Sometimes, they’re just generally hostile, other times they believe they are actually enlightened and tolerant when they engage in hostile behaviour. Other professors know that they have an animus against certain stances from students, and try to check themselves from overreaching in reaction.
     We have no idea what sort of a professor P.Z. Meyers is. If lots of students in his classes brought forth evidence that he was spending his Biology classes lecturing about how “you Christians are nincompoops”, that would definitely call for university intervention, but right now, this is just a theory based on his on-line non-academic self-presentation.
     I’ve a feeling that his personality would grate on me as a student. He’s demonstrated self-righteousness of epic proportions. But that’s just a gut feeling, and you could say that for a lot of professors.
     I think this ‘hostile environment’ issue is totally separate from the host desecration issue, which probably does fall under the university’s hate code, but I’m not actually a huge fan of university hate codes either. They tend to be used as weapons by the proponents of trendy causes. And given that reality, I’m sure the university will continue as they’ve begun, and just say they don’t like what he did, and they wish he wouldn’t.
     The theft question is completely moot because the offended party, the Catholic Church, has not the slightest inclination to go to court, so we’ll never discover what the court had to say about it. Hypothetically, it would be easy for the Church to establish that Communion is not given as a food handout, but as part of an Act of Worship, in which it is consumed. But it could also be established that there is not a concerted strong effort to keep people from walking out with the hosts. I don’t know which way it would go, but ultimately it’s not a fight the Church cares to engage in.

222. John,
     Actually, the two people posting as John might want to make their identities distinct as they sound like they have differing views.
     But to respond, this is not about political power, this is solely about Myers’ actions. My statement that he did not live and let live is indeed true because he went out of his way to inflict pain on those whose beliefs differ from his own. If he had confined his view to simply disagreeing, none of this escalation would have happened. Funny how hard you’re working to excuse him from taking responsibility for his behavior.

223. “Yet, can anyone doubt that Myers creates a very hostile environment for Christian and Muslim students in his classes? That -is- a basis for his removal.”
     Correct if true, but any actionable evidence for a hostile environment would have to come from Myers’ students themselves, not outsiders angry about what they imagine his students are feeling or angry about what they imagine is going on in his classes. Any judgment that the environment is a hostile one would have to be based on specific complaints from students about Myers’ behavior on the job. Merely knowing his contemptible attitudes from his activities outside the performance of his job does not a hostile environment make.
     That line is clear at public universities and at most, not all, private universities. My school, for example, is a large private institution, but it operates like a public institution. I am not permitted to preach Catholicism in the class or pressure students to adopt my views, but I am under no requirement to hide my faith outside the classroom. If students know my religious beliefs and practices, no matter how much they might disapprove of my beliefs (and some surely do), I cannot be fired for creating a hostile environment. And believe me, there are students who think Catholicism is a deep personal affront. But as far as the university is concerned, my life off the job is my own unless I commit a felony. I am glad that the university provides that protection. There are relatively few practicing Catholics or even believing Christians in my field and our beliefs aren’t held in high esteem. But my job is safe because the university protects the views I express off the job.
     Here’s a real example from personal experience of how far this protection extends: An active Holocaust denier, Arthur Butts, has espoused odious views outside his job as a professor of electrical engineering at my school for over thirty years. He has been secure in his job despite the fact that he teaches Jewish students and despite the fact that it is virtually impossible to find a faculty member or student on campus that isn’t offended by his views. Butts cannot be fired, despite aggressive efforts by students, activists and the university. The guidelines would not permit it. Butts has not argued his views in the classroom and he has not given evidence of unfair academic treatment of students — not even the Jewish ones. You might argue that his well known views create a hostile environment for Jews in the classroom, but, according to the law, they don’t.
     So, can anyone doubt that PZ Myers has created a hostile environment? Yes, I can doubt it. He’s been an associate professor of biology for years. If he had been creating a hostile environment it would have almost surely been showing up in his student evaluations. He teaches large lectures, has taught thousands of students and they all complete anonymous evaluations. They also have ample opportunity to complain to the university about treatment by Myers. Until and unless the university has actionable evidence of on-the-job conduct that creates a hostile environment, Myers can’t be disciplined.
     If we’re going into the realm of imagination, here is what I think happens in Myers’s lectures. He shows up to class, he has tight lectures accompanied by visuals and they are timed almost to the minute to cover the material. He knows what will get him fired and he strictly avoids it — just like Professor Butts. Speculation that something different happens is based on a highly unrealistic understanding of what happens in university science classrooms.

224. Myers is under no obligation whatsoever to respect your beliefs, he is perfectly free to disrespect you all he wants.

     I suspect that if Myers were simply to make flagrant and unrepentant use of the n-word on his blog, we would not even be having this discussion.

225. Again for those slow to understand:
     This isn’t about free speech, Myers is free to argue against Christianity all he wants.
     What Myers did is far more akin to something that the courts have always regarded as not free speech: saying that your mother is a whore. Only what he did is far more than that. It is more akin to him raping your mother, stabbing her 11 times, and throwing her in the dumpster.
     That isn’t free speech, nor have the courts held that it is.
     To the self-proclaimed atheists who have flocked here for sport: Would you, would Myers, be just fine and happy if biology professors at the U were to, in their own ‘private’ i.e. very public, blogs, promote intelligent design or even creationism, so long as they wouldn’t teach it in the classroom – or at least, could not be *proven* to have this in the classroom? If I recall correctly an award-winning biology teacher in Faribault was fired (and later reinstated after a lengthy court battle, so long as he never taught biology again, a field in which he held an M. S.), because it came out in private conversation in the teacher’s lounge that he believed in a Divine involvement in evolution – something which he never taught in class. Did you or Myers take his side and defend his right to his position as a biology teacher?

226. “I need hardly mention that some of the most important scientific advances of the past were vigorously and aggresively opposed by the Catholic Church.”
     John-could you expand on this.

227. John,
     I’m inclined to think that you are not paying attention to what I’m saying. Yes, I KNOW that Aristotle laid the groundwork, and I said so. What I said before is that science did not and could not flourish until a culture with a philosophy that SUPPORTED the assumption of stable, orderly natural laws came to the fore. That culture was Christian culture.
     As far as the acceleration of scientific advancement, this is a matter of opinion. At first, anyway, science had to clarify basic principles and laws and this necessarily took a while. After the basic laws were in place, it was then easier to make further discoveries. Whether there was an acceleration beyond what could be expected is a matter of opinion, but the birthplace of modern science was in a Christian “cradle”; that is a fact.
     I deny that “some” of the most important scientific discoveries were hindered by Christianity. The one arguable case was Galileo, and if you knew more than the merest superficials of the case, you would know that Galileo was punished mostly for being an ass, rather than for his heliocentric views.

228. True, SDG. Anti-Catholicism, as they say, is the last acceptable prejudice.
     “You still have not been able to provide a single example of state directed persecution of christians.”
     Have you provided any examples of state directed persecution of atheists?
     Not being popular doesn’t count, I’m afraid. Most Americans just don’t trust atheists (figuring that they are – at bottom – incapable of reason). If they have a hard time getting elected, that’s not an example of state directed anything. It’s an example of democracy.

229. I have to add that it’s gratifying to see so many people suddenly interested in the Eucharist.
     I can’t guess how many of them might actually take the trouble to find out even the basic elements of the spirituality and theology of the sacraments, but perhaps a few. The rest seem to be merely “…full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

230. Michael:
     The queston at hand is whether there is legal justification to terminate Myer’s employment at the universtity.
     Since there seems to be a consensus now that he has broken no law no such legal justification exists.
     Therefore since he works at a state institution any attempt at retaliation by disciplinary sanction or firing him is unlawful.
     Everyone here really needs to understand something. You simply cannot go around getting state employees fired bacause they engage in speech and actions you find deeply insulting and inflammatory anymore than I could get any state employees that post here fired because of their flagrant disregard for the First Amendemnt, a principal that I hold as dear to me as you hold the doctrine of the Eucharist.

231. When Professor Myers says that “Nothing must be held sacred,” he means that all ideas should be subjected to critical analysis. Why, exactly, should religious beliefs NOT be held to this standard?

     I’ve got a better idea. Let’s hold the notion “all ideas should be subjected to critical analysis.” to its own standard.
     The first thing you notice when you do so is that it is literally impossible. You could not, even if you spent every moment of your waking life at it, subject every one of your own ideas to critical analysis.
     Furthermore, on inspection of its use, people throw that notion around very selectively. People who say it mean not “examine A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and all the rest!” but “examine F (ignore the rest)”.
     A principle which can not be applied and which no one even tries to use impartially has grave problems.

232. John wrote: “You simply cannot go around getting state employees fired bacause they engage in speech and actions you find deeply insulting and inflammatory anymore than I could get any state employees that post here fired because of their flagrant disregard for the First Amendemnt, a principal that I hold as dear to me as you hold the doctrine of the Eucharist.”
     You have a point, John, but there seems to be a crucial omission to that point: Employees of the state who deliberately engaged in behavior that African-American persons, or Muslim persons, or people with disablilities found deeply insulting and inflammatory would certainly be required to apologize or else face being disciplined up to and including firing.
     This is right and just – in a civil society, people should respect one another’s ethnic, religious, and cultural background.
     And generally, most civil people do.
     However, it would appear that you believe that persons of the Christian faith ought not to receive equal protection, nor does a civil society owe Christians redress from insulting and inflammatory attacks in the the same way it owes this to other groups.
     I can think of no convincing reason why all other classes of persons in our society deserve equal protection and civil treatment, but not Christians . . . other than bigotry. Against Christians.
     And that’s not a good enough reason. Not in a civil society.
     Admit it, John. Admit that it’s simple anti-Christian bigotry.

233. John,
     You must be being deliberately obtuse. Are you stating that the only way that Myers could be fired is if he broke a law? I can think of lots of things I could do that could get me fired from my job because they could bring disrepute on my company or be economically damaging it.
     The first amendment recognizes a broad right to free speech. It does not protect one from the consequences of that speech. Myers is bringing disrepute to the University of Minnesota and the administration should consider that in determining how to deal with him.

234. Dave:
     As it happens I know a great deal concerning Galileo Galilei’s “problems” with the Catholic Church. I have just pulled down from my bookshelf “Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography by Stillman Drake and Drake Stillman”. Drake who died in the early 1990’s was arguable the worlds most respected scholar in this area.
     Whether or not Galileo Galilei was “an ass” as you state it is irrelevant. There were internal political aspects to Galileo’s persecution, he was a much superior mathematician to his immediate contemporaries but a major part of his problem with the Church arose from a conflict over differing cosmologies. Galileo was correct. The Church was wrong. This whole sorry affair is emblematic of the fundamental conflict between a religious wordview that is rigid and driven by preexisting doctrine and a scientific worldview that is open ended and empirically driven.
     The cradle of Western Civilizaton is Ancient Greece. This is as about as uncontroversial a statement as you could make. The only place where you will find being taught that the Catholic Church provided the intellectual fuel for Western Civ. is a Catholic Seminary and a very poor one at that.
     It is somewhat ironic that the views I gave were primarily obtained from Frederick Copleston’s nine volume series a “History of Philosopy”. Copleston was a Jesuit philosopher who was so concerned over the shoddy, inaccurate, education being provided to Catholic students he was motivated to write his history.

235. Oh, and by the way I cannot recommend Copleston’s magisterial “A History of Philosophy” highly enough.
     All nine volumes are in print any catholic wishing to go into intellectual battle with die hard atheists like myself should read it. In fact this was the primary motivation for Copleston to undertake and complete this astonishing feat of the human intellect.

236. Dave:
     The one arguable case was Galileo, and if you knew more than the merest superficials of the case, you would know that Galileo was punished mostly for being an ass, rather than for his heliocentric views.
     You’d think from my comments here that I’m on John’s side – I’m not – but out of fairness, I’m always extremely bemused at how a lot of Catholics whitewash the Galileo affair. The truth of the matter is so much more complex than either the Militant Atheists or the Militant Catholic Apologists – both earnest well-meaning sets of people, I’m sure – make it.
     There’s plenty of reason to consider Galileo’s behaviour asinine, but his persecutors were acting like asses too, and on a much larger playing field. Not Robert Bellarmine, to be sure, who seems mostly to have been trying to stop all concerned from killing each other, and has been stereotyped as the villain for his diplomacy. But it was a mad world, shaken by the Reformation, and there was a lot going on. For example, Martin Luther was calling Rome’s toleration of Galileo an example of how the Catholic Church had deviated from Christ, and zealous counter-Reformers wanted Galileo condemned as a response to the Protestants etc. etc. etc.
     The “Blame Galileo” vibe I often get from Catholics is just not very historical. Galileo may have lent the spark, but others piled on the fuel and firewood.

237. …his problem with the Church arose from a conflict over differing cosmologies. Galileo was correct. The Church was wrong.
     Since you are such an expert on the subject you do realize of course that the Church has never taught a “cosmology”. Geocentrism has never been an article of faith in the Catholic Church. The expression of the opinions of various Churchmen do not count, because if it did you would also have to factor in the opinion of the priest, Nicolai Copernicus. As for your case against the Church, the only exhibit you have is Galileo. The history of the Catholic Church is one of support, not hostility to science. His is the exception that proofs the rule.

238. Dave:
     Galileo Galilei was most emphatically not “an ass”. In addition to being one of the greatest intellects in human history he was also a very devout and pious catholic.
     One of his greatest concerns over the Church’s treatment of him was that it would eventually embarrass the Holy Church and bring it into disrepute. He was right about that as well.

239. John – you have given the one example. Your statement indicated there were many others. Pleae provide a few more that you consider to have the gravity of the Galileo affair.

240. John,
     How unfortunate that you can not acknowledge when another has a point.
     Dave M is correct in his statement that “Aristotle laid the groundwork, but it was not put into practice in a systematic way except under the auspices of Christian civilization.”
     For the record, I am marking well the high value you place on natural law. That brings you closer to Catholic thinking than you realize.
     You really are fixated on political power, aren’t you? That explains your lack of understanding of both Catholicism and distorted view of history. Open your mind to the possibility of motivation other than political power.
     (Much, but not all, of the following condensed from Thomas Woods.)
     How many seminal writings (both Catholic and pagan) would have been lost if not for the monk scribes copying by hand?
     The modern university was not seen in ancient Greece and Rome, but began at Paris, Bologna, Oxford and Cambridge in the late 12th century.
     “New Science” rather than philosophy, began with Copernicus (a Catholic) and math applied to science, so foundational to science today, was applied by Galileo. Before the inevitable reaction (counting 4…3…2…1), the Church favored Galileo’s work until Galileo insisted on teaching it as truth rather than a theory when he did not have sufficient proof.
     You’re also forgetting that it was a Catholic pope who corrected the calendar to the one we use today.
     As for Aristotle, yes it took a while to reconcile two pieces of the puzzle. That in itself does not put science and religion against each other. It was (14th century)Buridan’s attempt to “fit them” in your phrase that gave rise to momentum and inertial motion.

241. Eileen,
     Geocentrism was never a part of Catholic doctrine. Fr. Copernicus did not receive any persecution for believing the exact same thing. Galileo was censured for refusing to agree not to publish his works until they were proven, AND for insisting on bringing the realm of theology into it. At that time, he had no proof – Arisotle’s objection to the idea still had force, and the Church, weary from having fought so many Reformation battles, was not in the mood to be lectured on theology by a pretentious layman.
     Was the Church wrong? Of course. But the main thing separating Galileo and Copernicus was not their scientific views, but their temperament.
     Here is an article containing more information, which you may or may not be aware of.
     http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html

242. >BobCatholic, If a politician wishes to commit career suicide in the US all he has to do is admit to being an atheist.
     Nope. He has to admit to being a practicing, serious Catholic.
     This means anti-abortion. That kills your career in the democratic party.
     This means anti-greed. That kills your career in the republican party.
     Please show me ONE practicing Catholic who ever made it to the presidency. JFK doesn’t count because he was required to discount his faith.
     If you look at who was president, it was always leftists or protestant.

243. I also notice something very interesting.
     Not one atheist who came here, has rejected the fairy tale that mirror worshiping is OK.
     Not one.
     If they did, they’d be yelling at Myers for doing so. But nope. They remain silent, accepting this fairy tale which has engulfed modern society since the 1960’s.

244. Galileo theorized that the sun is the center of the universe(not just the center of the solar system, but of the entire universe). Now, of course, we know that he was wrong. He was allowed to teach this as theory, as he had not been able to prove it, and agreed to do so. Instead, he went back on his word and taught(falsely, as it turned out), that the sun is the center of the universe.

245. Marty understands fully the meaning of the First Amendment.
     Correct if true, but any actionable evidence for a hostile environment would have to come from Myers’ students themselves, not outsiders angry about what they imagine his students are feeling or angry about what they imagine is going on in his classes. Any judgment that the environment is a hostile one would have to be based on specific complaints from students about Myers’ behavior on the job. Merely knowing his contemptible attitudes from his activities outside the performance of his job does not a hostile environment make.
     That line is clear at public universities and at most, not all, private universities. My school, for example, is a large private institution, but it operates like a public institution. I am not permitted to preach Catholicism in the class or pressure students to adopt my views, but I am under no requirement to hide my faith outside the classroom. If students know my religious beliefs and practices, no matter how much they might disapprove of my beliefs (and some surely do), I cannot be fired for creating a hostile environment. And believe me, there are students who think Catholicism is a deep personal affront. But as far as the university is concerned, my life off the job is my own unless I commit a felony. I am glad that the university provides that protection. There are relatively few practicing Catholics or even believing Christians in my field and our beliefs aren’t held in high esteem. But my job is safe because the university protects the views I express off the job.
     Here’s a real example from personal experience of how far this protection extends: An active Holocaust denier, Arthur Butts, has espoused odious views outside his job as a professor of electrical engineering at my school for over thirty years. He has been secure in his job despite the fact that he teaches Jewish students and despite the fact that it is virtually impossible to find a faculty member or student on campus that isn’t offended by his views. Butts cannot be fired, despite aggressive efforts by students, activists and the university. The guidelines would not permit it. Butts has not argued his views in the classroom and he has not given evidence of unfair academic treatment of students — not even the Jewish ones. You might argue that his well known views create a hostile environment for Jews in the classroom, but, according to the law, they don’t.
     So, can anyone doubt that PZ Myers has created a hostile environment? Yes, I can doubt it. He’s been an associate professor of biology for years. If he had been creating a hostile environment it would have almost surely been showing up in his student evaluations. He teaches large lectures, has taught thousands of students and they all complete anonymous evaluations. They also have ample opportunity to complain to the university about treatment by Myers. Until and unless the university has actionable evidence of on-the-job conduct that creates a hostile environment, Myers can’t be disciplined.
     If we’re going into the realm of imagination, here is what I think happens in Myers’s lectures. He shows up to class, he has tight lectures accompanied by visuals and they are timed almost to the minute to cover the material. He knows what will get him fired and he strictly avoids it — just like Professor Butts. Speculation that something different happens is based on a highly unrealistic understanding of what happens in university science classrooms.

246. Labrialumn:
     Its almost painful to have to say this but no one has been raped or stabbed and you simply cannot accuse someone of those crimes by way of invoking some tortuous analogy.
     And Labrialumn, private means private you simply cannot redefine words on a whim.
     And yet once again there is nothing more constitionally protected than an opinion howevere inflammatory that opinion is.

247. Have you provided any examples of state directed persecution of atheists?
     Not being popular doesn’t count, I’m afraid. Most Americans just don’t trust atheists (figuring that they are – at bottom – incapable of reason). If they have a hard time getting elected, that’s not an example of state directed anything. It’s an example of democracy.

     Excellent point, Tim J. I’ve heard it said that animus against atheists is the last acceptable prejudice, even saw an entire news segment exploring the idea and found it fascinating knowing that Catholics have been claiming that same thing for some years now. I have seen much prejudice directed toward my faith but none so far at atheism. Unpopularity is a far cry from active prejudice.
     I’d also like to compliment the defenders of Myers who’ve made their way over to Jimmy’s blog here. While I disagree with most arguments put forth to defend the professor’s actions, at least there are actual arguments put forth. This is such a big step up from the invective at Myers’ own blog. The tone of posts over there genuinely made me feel rather ill. So, kudos to CT and John and other relatively polite atheists here.
     And then there’s “Of course, you are persecuting someone over the make believe. Grow up.” just above. Sigh. at least there are no cuss words. So kudos to you too, scotth, for not swearing at us at least.

248. Mary Kay:
     Your phrasing is a little devious:
     “My statement that he did not live and let live is indeed true because he went out of his way to inflict pain on those whose beliefs differ from his own.”
     If he had inflicted pain on you, i.e. physically assaulted you, he would have committed a crime and be subject to legal sanction. But he did not. What you actually mean is that by his words and actions he inflicted pain on your psyche, i.e. he upset you. This is a perfectly legal thing to do. I am defending a principal, freedom of expression, the First Amendment, a principle enshrined into the founding documents of this country.
     By all means if you do not support the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights then clearly state this.

249. With no specific person in mind, I wonder:
     To the extent to which this incident provokes or is prone to provoke in the reaction of Catholics responses which on Catholicism are considered sinful, falling short of the ideal of love, and to the extent to which this bread is identified with love itself, how much of the reaction springs out of love for this bread and how much of it springs out of some other motivation of the human heart. Is it love of self or love of love that motivates? Is it a desire for self-respect or a desire for love to be loved that motivates?
     As far as I can tell, only Marty Durst has expressed love for PZM here, greater than an expression of disgust for what he did. If it is love of the bread which is love itself that motivates, one wonders why expressions of love for PZM are not more prevalent in the reaction among Catholics. The first reaction of anyone seems not to be “O that’s too bad for him; I hope he recovers spiritually” but rather “What a rotten awful evil thing he did” or even “He is an evil man.” Somehow Jesus’ teaching to call no one good has been turned on its head to mean call someone evil.
     I once read a Christian’s analysis of Islam as an “honor” religion in explaining the reaction to the Danish cartoons. It seems that Catholicism is an “honor” religion as well. The dishonor perceived to be done against the bread weighs heavier on the Catholic soul than the spiritual distress of the person who did the deed. It would be as though a doctor had a patient with cancer and instead of being moved to compassion and care for the patient first and foremost, he is moved to disgust at the horrific nature of the cancer itself. That is nonsensical but in the case of Catholicism and a person’s spiritual cancer, it is sensible inasmuch as honor to God is held in higher esteem than love of men. And that is where Catholicism and Islam are exactly parallel as is any other religion of man which includes cultic* acts
     *Please use a dictionary if you are unaware of the definition here.

250. Here’s a real example from personal experience of how far this protection extends: An active Holocaust denier, Arthur Butts, has espoused odious views outside his job as a professor of electrical engineering at my school for over thirty years.
     And no one is calling for Myers to be disciplined for espousing anti-Catholic views. If Butts had made a huge public spectacle of desecrating a sacred item obtained legally yet deceptively from a synagogue all while promoting his position as a professor at the university, I think the university would have had sufficient grounds to discipline him if reaction to the event harmed the school. I don’t understand why it’s so hard to see the difference between advocating one’s beliefs and doing what Myers did. I can understand the argument that it would be imprudent for the school to discipline him even though I disagree with it. But I can’t understand the argument that such an action is a violation of his rights.
     

251. Here’s a real example from personal experience of how far this protection extends: An active Holocaust denier, Arthur Butts, has espoused odious views outside his job as a professor of electrical engineering at my school for over thirty years.
     And no one is calling for Myers to be disciplined for espousing anti-Catholic views. If Butts had made a huge public spectacle of desecrating a sacred item obtained legally yet deceptively from a synagogue all while promoting his position as a professor at the university, I think the university would have had sufficient grounds to discipline him if reaction to the event harmed the school. I don’t understand why it’s so hard to see the difference between advocating one’s beliefs and doing what Myers did. I can understand the argument that it would be imprudent for the school to discipline him even though I disagree with it. But I can’t understand the argument that such an action is a violation of his rights.
     

252. @Brian
     Based on what you have said, I see no reason why AB should be fired for whatever views he may hold. I am a little surprised that you would judge otherwise.

253. italics off and sorry for the double post, not sure how it happened.

254. CT, read what I wrote. I did not say that anyone should be disciplined for their views. You exemplify the point I was trying to make in my post.
     As far as I can tell, only Marty Durst has expressed love for PZM here, greater than an expression of disgust for what he did. If it is love of the bread which is love itself that motivates, one wonders why expressions of love for PZM are not more prevalent in the reaction among Catholics. The first reaction of anyone seems not to be “O that’s too bad for him; I hope he recovers spiritually” but rather “What a rotten awful evil thing he did” or even “He is an evil man.” Somehow Jesus’ teaching to call no one good has been turned on its head to mean call someone evil.
     I don’t mean this offensively, but you’re probably best off not providing an analysis of Catholic theology. I don’t use the 100 level science courses I took in college to criticize Myers work for the university – my arguments would probably seem juvenile in comparison to the expertise of scientific community of biologists.

255. Marion:
     You are one hundred percent wrong.
     First you seem to admit that my point is valid, then you reject its validity.
     Look, once again I will state the legal situation here.
     I am employed by the state. If I was to suddenly join the KKK, the Communist Party of the USA, and any other extremist, religious, political or otherwise group out there advocating crazy nutjob views and ideas that are deeply offensive to the vast majority of Americans I am completely one hundred percent protected by the First Amendment from being fired by virtue of holding these views. This is the law.
     And I have great news for you Marion, if a christian is targeted in the workplace and sanctioned or fired merely for being a christian this is blatantly illegal and you have recourse in the courts for due compensation.
     There is an imporant point here that no one seems to get. You have a fundamental right to hold any view you want. What you do not have is a right to have that view respected by others or not to have that view subject to ridicule and contempt.

256. I’ve been away from the computer for a while, so there are a lot of posts I would like to respond to.
     Dear Paschwitz ,
     You wrote:
     A man in London, UK stood in a handout line and was given an object. Likely, three simple words were spoken, “Body of Christ.” Whether he heard those words, we don’t know and by itself, that’s legally insufficient to establish that the Catholic Church has any subsequent property right in the object any more than if she were handing out soup at a soup kitchen.
     The definition of private property does not start at the point that the property is used. It starts way before that. He may have received in ignorance. That does not change the pre-existence of property.
     Also, I have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone who stands in a “handout line” in the UK had better not be receiving the Eucharist unless they are in a Church and understand what they are receiving. Catholics do not give the Eucharist to delusional or demented patients in a nursing home, for example, for the very reason that they would not be able to make an informed response when they receive it.
     Dear John,
     You wrote:
     Myer’s has a constitionally protected right to engage in spiteful, mean-spirited, childish behavior soley designed and conciously intended to denigrate, ridicule and hold in utter contempt your most cherished and deeply held beliefs.
     Actually, if I could transport you back in time to the Constitutional Convention and drop you in the middle of the room, you might be very hard-pressed to make that point before you were escorted out of the room. I doubt that even Jefferson would have approved of it. The anti-establishment clause of the Constitution pre-supposes that religious belief would exist in the society (and be debated). It was not a way to give license to attack these religions, but to safeguard their expression without government intervention.
     Myers has turned the issue around. He wants government protection (as in “his rights”) to allow him to attack religion (any religion).
     Point 2
     You wrote, with regards to the proposition that it was pagans who started science:
     Check any introductory text on Western philosphy.
     No need to. You are quite wrong. It is true that the most direct line to the current Western method of doing science prescended from the Greeks (technically, the early Moslems, who translated and preserved the Greek philosophers), but they did not start scientific investigation, per se. There were many cultures who pre-dated the Greeks, such as the Egyptians, who had advanced systems of measurements and mathematics. What the Greeks did, better than anyone else, was to organize the method systematically. In fact, they were the first culture to really develop systematics to an art (one of the reasons much of their culture was so easily adopted, wholesale, by the Romans). Many other cultures talked about reason in their writings. The Greeks were the first culture to systematize it as logic. Many cultures (Egyptian, Babylonian, Phoenician, to name a few) had a system of measuring and an elementary understanding of both chemistry and biology, but it was Aristotle who made the first system (of biology, at least).
     Among the earliest people to establish a science were the Hebrews. They are the direct descendants of Christians (at least, in spirit).
     The history of early science is a bit more complicated than might be supposed in your or bill12 or Dave Mueller’s and I do not have time to write a treatise on the subject. I am an historian, myself and a scientist. I don’t think that sweeping generalizations about who founded science (including mine, but that was just by way of counterexample) get us really anywhere in the discussion.
     bill12,
     You wrote:
     One could make a case that, since whoever took the Host did so under false pretenses, Myers committed Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, but I think that actually proving that beyond a reasonable doubt would be mighty difficult.
     No, that would be easy (there is a clear trail of possession rights) if it could be clearly proven that an actual Host were stolen. What would be harder (indeed, impossible by material means) to prove is that it is, indeed, a consecrated Host. If it is not a consecrated Host, the person could have obtained it from anywhere and in that case, it would much harder to establish property rights, since in theory, anyone can make a non-consecrated communion wafer outside of the Church’s eyes. Only the Church can make the wafer into the Eucharist and from that point on, possession is indisputable.
     Dear Marty Durst,
     What you write about academic freedom is true but not completely relevant in this case. The correct equivalent, here, would be if, instead of merely holding and espousing anti-semetic beliefs (I do not know the man, so I’ll assume this is correct for the sake of argument), Aurthur Butts (or an accomplice) broke into a synagogue, stole a Torah scroll, brought it back home, desecrated it (after telling the entire world that he would do it), and then posted the pictures on the Internet. Butts may hold any position he wants and he may tell others about it (within reason). This does not rise to a level of anxiety for Jews (usually) that would cause them grievous psychological injury and is certainly protected under academic freedom. Seeing a Torah scroll destroyed on the Internet might cause considerably more anxiety and fear. It is conceivable that he would then be guilty of creating a hostile workplace.
     To Eileen R.,
     Your summary of the Galileo affair is about as balanced as one could possibly hope for. There were errors and arrogance on both sides, but Galileo remained a believer, despite what happened. That his ideas would (for the most part) be eventually proven correct is a point that everyone here should remember: a man is not always judged properly (pro or con) in his own lifetime. How history will remember Myers actions will have to wait for…history to decide.
     I do have another question, a serious question, for atheists who might be reading this blog, but I will post it in the next combox. I am sure that I have unwittingly offended and misrepresented enough people in my replies in this post.
     The Chicken

257. John, there’s nothing “devious” about my phrasing. But your statement, “By all means if you do not support the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights then clearly state this.” does qualify as devious and manipulative. It’s right up there with “Have you stopped beating your wife yet.”
     It’s too bad you persist in attempting to excuse Myers’ behavior. You actually began to have the semblance of discussion worthy posts.

258. Best way to handle this clown? Ignore him.
     He wants to be heard and written about.
     I say we pray for him and show him forgiveness. That is what he is not expecting.

259. “If he had inflicted pain on you, i.e. physically assaulted you, he would have committed a crime and be subject to legal sanction. But he did not. What you actually mean is that by his words and actions he inflicted pain on your psyche, i.e. he upset you. This is a perfectly legal thing to do.”
     Yeah, what’s the big deal? Look at Rush Limbaugh and his remarks about black athletes, or Don Imus and his, or Michael Savage and his anti-gay remarks. They all got to keep their jobs, right?… Right?…
     Ooooh…. I see some groups are more equal than others. If you are a Catholic, you have to be physically attacked before it matters, and even then, aren’t Christians supposed to turn the other cheek? We ought to be mailing bottles of holy water to Myers and begging him to desecrate that, too.
     “Thank you sir! May I have another?!?”

260. Brian:
     You are wrong.
     The whole point of the First Amendment, its philisophical raison d’etre, is too recognize a natural right to freedom of expression and to prevent retaliation by the authorities for holding unpoplar views.
     Whether or not the University is harmed is, from a legal standpoint, utterly irrelevent. Harm or damage to the University ostensibly arising from Myer’s views does not trump the First Amendment. It simply doesn’t.

261. Dear Atheists,
     I ask this question innocently out of pure ignorance. I ask that I not be mocked for doing so. Part of the problem in communication is that fundamental axioms of belief are not clearly stated allowing for one person to misunderstand another.
     Since I regard what P. Z. Myers did as an immoral act, whether or not it is currently illegal in this Country, I would like to ask a question: how do you decide moral questions?
     I really do not know and I would like to understand so that I can have a good basis for common dialog.
     The Chicken

262. @Brian,
     Would you then criticize Christians who analyze Islamic theology — your own blogger has analyzed Islamic theology and published analysis of it?
     On AB, I missed the import of your comment due to the confusing italics. I assumed the italicized text was something you had quoted, not your own words.
     I have given this whole matter another thought and I must withdraw my civil disapproval of PZM, though I still would not personally have done what he did and still maintain it was discourteous, I cannot say that the essence of what he did (to the exclusion of the Koran) was wrong — wrong on your analysis of it being legal but deceptive and your hypothesis regarding AB.
     If merely being deceptive, though legal, is what is of concern here. Then (1) and (3) should be of similar concern to Christians, yet in my experience they are not. In addition, (2) should be of concern if it is disruption that is at issue.
     1. A person deceptively entering a gentleman’s club not of a genuine desire to be a patron (just as the host-stealer was not a genuine patron of the church), but rather to expose and embarass the patrons by surreptitiously filming them.
     2. Similar harrassment that involves not deceptive entry and surreptitious filming, but standing outside the club (or adult video store) to film and expose those who enter it. (If you like SB have no issue with someone expressing the view that Catholicism should be banned and working towards the banning of Catholicism, other than your mere disagreement with her, then this particular example would not be fully applicable to you …. if you wish to say that their privacy is not a right then I wonder how you would then feel if someone exposed the full roster of Opus Dei which is quite strict in guarding the privacy of its members — not revealing who is a member without that member’s permission?)
     3. (This one is purely hypothetical). Supposing a Satanic religious gathering used a Satanic bible, and a Christian joined such a gathering and when these Satanic bibles were handed out for the purpose of enlightening those committed to Satanism, the Christian, knowing all this, receives one and afterwards just tosses it in the trash.

263. Mary Kay:
     If there is nothing devious in your phrasing are you claiming that Myers’ did inflict physical pain on you? Because if he did you most definitely have a legal case against him for assault.

264. “If Butts had made a huge public spectacle of desecrating a sacred item obtained legally yet deceptively from a synagogue all while promoting his position as a professor at the university, I think the university would have had sufficient grounds to discipline him if reaction to the event harmed the school.”
     That’s incorrect. Professors are, in fact, free to cause harm to the reputation of universities for saying or doing unpopular things on their own time. Universities are not like General Motors. Professors can vocally, publicly and directly criticize the university that employs them — even discourage students from attending the university. Moreover, they can also engage in actions harmful to the reputation of university, if those actions aren’t felonies. They cannot be fired for causing hostility or harm to the reputation of the university for anything they say or do, so long as it is legal. If their actions bring a decline in enrollment or donations, they still cannot be fired. What universities do in these circumstances is make it clear that the statements or actions of the professor in question do not reflect the views of the institution.

265. Whether or not the University is harmed is, from a legal standpoint, utterly irrelevent. Harm or damage to the University ostensibly arising from Myer’s views does not trump the First Amendment. It simply doesn’t.
     This argument is ridiculous. If you think I’m wrong, using your own time and resources run a public campaign against the company you work for expressing beliefs about how terrible they are and that no one should patronize them. Make sure that you perform exemplary work for them in the meantime. Let me know what the results are.
     You have the freedom to express any beliefs you want. You don’t have freedom from the consequences of choosing to express your beliefs.

266. Tim:
     No, Catholics have exactly the same rights under the Law as atheists have, not one more and not one less.

267. John, the words in your 12:27 post are convoluted and manipulative in order to twist the meaning of what I said. I’m not biting your bait.
     However, I will repeat Tim J’s 12:14 response which you have not answered:
     “If he had inflicted pain on you, i.e. physically assaulted you, he would have committed a crime and be subject to legal sanction. But he did not. What you actually mean is that by his words and actions he inflicted pain on your psyche, i.e. he upset you. This is a perfectly legal thing to do.”
     Yeah, what’s the big deal? Look at Rush Limbaugh and his remarks about black athletes, or Don Imus and his, or Michael Savage and his anti-gay remarks. They all got to keep their jobs, right?… Right?…
     Ooooh…. I see some groups are more equal than others. If you are a Catholic, you have to be physically attacked before it matters, and even then, aren’t Christians supposed to turn the other cheek? We ought to be mailing bottles of holy water to Myers and begging him to desecrate that, too.
     “Thank you sir! May I have another?!?”

268. Yeah, what’s the big deal? Look at Rush Limbaugh and his remarks about black athletes, or Don Imus and his, or Michael Savage and his anti-gay remarks. They all got to keep their jobs, right?… Right?…
     I am not familiar with Savage’s anti-gay remarks, but on the first two individuals, I do not support their firing from ESPN and MSNBC. However these were remarks that they said while on the job. Even if they weren’t on the job, these are private companies and private companies are free to fire those who may tarnish their corporate image just as a church is free to fire someone who doesn’t uphold the church’s image or basic beliefs even outside their employment. However, I think the law should be changed to ban the hiring or firing of someone for views or actions that take place outside of her employment in the case of not only govt. entities but also any artificial person (i.e. a corporation), including churches which choose to enjoy the benefits of being a corporation. Without such a law, someone’s employment circumstances will govern her life, restrict her speech and not working or being self-employed is not a viable alternative for many. Privately held companies (i.e. not incorporated) should be free to discriminate at will even in matters that do not bear any relevance in employment — I hold to this on libertarian grounds while justifying the former based on the liability and other benefits that being an artificial person provides, which status comes from the govt.

269. False Brian,
     Private companies can fire you for a number of reasons, although legitimate reasons for dismissal vary from state to state and will also be contingent on the conditions of your employment contract.
     Public institutions funded by the State are completely separate and you are absolutely protected by the First Amendment from reprisals from holding unpopular views however damaging to the institution some may regard your ideas to be.
     Brian, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights has no qualifications or exceptions for views that those in government may find offensive. None.

270. I would add to what John said by saying that whether private universities are protected legally in that way or not, that as a matter of social policy, private universities as Marty seemed to indicate above, should also not punish those who criticize the university or even who actively discourage enrollment in the university.
     I think Brian is unaware that professors at both public and private universities very often criticize their own institution with no repercussion.

271. Mary Kay:
     You were the one who claimed that PMZ’s actions inflicted pain on others.
     Inflicting pain on others, unless its via some medical procedure where consent has been given or by a parent or guardian adminsitering reasonable corporal punishment to a child, is assault. Assaulting someone is against the law. So if in fact PMZ did inflict pain on others, excepting the above situations, then he broke the law and should be prosecuted.
     If you have a problem with this basic chain of reasoning I fear I cant help you in this matter any further.
     As for the other point, private companies are free to hire and fire for any number of reasons, one of which definitely is harm to advertising revenue by the actions of an employee i.e. a radio presenter.
     The situation is very differnt at publicly funded institions for the reasons I’ve already given.

272. Why didn’t he desecrate himself? That is obviously what he holds most sacred.

273. John,
     The earliest originators of what is now considered to be a scientific approach to asking fundamental questions concerning the universe were the prescocratic philosophers followed by Aristotle, the first thinker to explicitly formulate the subject areas and goals of the scientific program.
     You appear to be largely ignorant of history in the matter.
     Did you not know that prior to such activities as the universities being established across Europe by pontifical action and the endeavor of the scholastics which delved intimately into the works of the Ancients, works as that of Aristotle (e.g., the Organon/i>) and the other Ancients were virtually forgotten?
     If you even invested some time investigating the History in this regard, you would have discovered (and I’m rather surprised that you don’t already know) that most works of antiquity to the extent of its application in the demonstrative science involved utilization of Latin terms and, more importantly, an interpretation of logical matters with respect to Latin world of the Middle Ages.
     (For any persons familiar with the matter, this would have been an obvious fact since Aristotle’s work was even referred to then as the Logica Nova because of how it was largely forgotten at the time and it wasn’t until systematic logicians of the Catholic Church revived these works of Aristotle for use in the dialectic of theology, from which eventually the Scientific Method would subsequently come about.)
     That is, what we find in the Logic as applied in the Scientific Method typically utilized today were those that actually arose not from a genuinely Aristotlian model (we can talk about that once you perhaps better edify yourself with the subject) or the like but the Latin Logical Tradition that arose from the scholastics of the Catholic Church due to their investigation into logical questions in connection with definite metaphysical and epistemological principles.
     If you would like to discuss any of this further, please do some research into the basics at the very least prior to asserting such an uninformed opinion as a matter of fact.
     – Cracker Jack

274. Italics OffYou appear to be largely ignorant of history in the matter.
     Did you not know that prior to such activities as the universities being established across Europe by pontifical action and the endeavor of the scholastics which delved intimately into the works of the Ancients, works as that of Aristotle (e.g., the Organon/i>) and the other Ancients were virtually forgotten?
     If you even invested some time investigating the History in this regard, you would have discovered (and I’m rather surprised that you don’t already know) that most works of antiquity to the extent of its application in the demonstrative science involved utilization of Latin terms and, more importantly, an interpretation of logical matters with respect to Latin world of the Middle Ages.
     (For any persons familiar with the matter, this would have been an obvious fact since Aristotle’s work was even referred to then as the Logica Nova because of how it was largely forgotten at the time and it wasn’t until systematic logicians of the Catholic Church revived these works of Aristotle for use in the dialectic of theology, from which eventually the Scientific Method would subsequently come about.)
     That is, what we find in the Logic as applied in the Scientific Method typically utilized today were those that actually arose not from a genuinely Aristotlian model (we can talk about that once you perhaps better edify yourself with the subject) or the like but the Latin Logical Tradition that arose from the scholastics of the Catholic Church due to their investigation into logical questions in connection with definite metaphysical and epistemological principles.
     If you would like to discuss any of this further, please do some research into the basics at the very least prior to asserting such an uninformed opinion as a matter of fact.
     – Cracker Jack

275. italics off

276. Anyone who stands in a “handout line” in the UK had better not be receiving the Eucharist unless they are in a Church and understand what they are receiving.
     My momma says they’re in line precisely because they don’t understand. She says they’re celebrating a mystery, and who understands a mystery? My brother says you’re welcome to your religious ideas about it, but civil law does not require a person to subscribe to them. And when my dad heard the words “better not”, he began cheerfully singing a Christmas song.
     It was not a way to give license to attack these religions, but to safeguard their expression without government intervention.
     My brother says Myer’s expression is no less safeguarded from government intervention. My sister says Myer’s expression looks like religious expression to her.
     Only the Church can make the wafer into the Eucharist and from that point on, possession is indisputable.
     My brother says American law does not hold that “only the Church can make the wafer into the Eucharist.”
     Inflicting pain on others, unless its via some medical procedure where consent has been given or by a parent or guardian adminsitering reasonable corporal punishment to a child, is assault. Assaulting someone is against the law. So if in fact PMZ did inflict pain on others, excepting the above situations, then he broke the law and should be prosecuted.
     Medical procedures are not the only consentual inflictions of pain allowed by law. For example, I think my neighbors might enjoy it in their bedroom, and other people do it in boxing matches. And of course, you didn’t limit your description to physical pain through bodily contact. There’s also emotional pain, such as the pain my sister felt when people laughed at her dress. None of these were criminal, so maybe you want to rethink your claims?
     Love,
     Georgina

277. Why didn’t he desecrate himself? That is obviously what he holds most sacred.
     Some would suggest that’s what he did! “They don’t in any way destroy the Giver of the Gift, or lessen the Giver… OR the Gift… All they can do is destroy themselves within themselves.”
     Love,
     Georgina as Yourself

278. Two points:
     John,
     You wrote:
     Inflicting pain on others, unless its via some medical procedure where consent has been given or by a parent or guardian adminsitering reasonable corporal punishment to a child, is assault. Assaulting someone is against the law. So if in fact PMZ did inflict pain on others, excepting the above situations, then he broke the law and should be prosecuted.
     You do know that the law does recognize the infliction of grave psychic harm as being abuse – ask any abused housewife? The question, here, is whether or not Myers’s actions reaches the level of grave psychic harm. That is for neither you nor I to decide, so quit trying to decide or seem to decide, arbitrarily, that it does not. Ipse dixit does not count. You simply do not know and neither do I. For all we know, if this were tried in court, a judge might be willing to accept a quantity vs. quality argument – that enough people have been hurt to a significant (but below grave) level, that it rises, in toto, to the level of grave abuse. I do not know, so I would prefer not to speculate. Clearly, neither side can claim victory in this area, yet, but I think a civil and an ecclesiastical court might reach vastly different conclusions on the matter.
     The law, at its best, is supposed to govern fairly and rationally, but there is no parity in this case, which would be a hallmark of fairness. I cannot steal something that Myers owns (and I will not argue but that the Church is the guardian and owner of the Eucharist and that the Eucharist was stolen or fraudulently obtained) and desecrate it in an attempt to show that he ought not to hold it dear.
     I do not mean to be offensive, even though this will come off like it, but since there is no consistent and coherent moral system within atheism, I fail to see how you can agree that any external laws are binding, except under pain of force. It would seem to vary from person to person. This creates a blind spot – as large as you could claim that the Catholic system of morals does to us – in trying to talk about Myers’s actions. At least Catholic have a unified (ideally) understanding of the morality of what Myers’s did.
     The Chicken

279. I like The Masked Chicken have a question which may hopefully allow for better dialog. What do you think Myers was intent in pulling his stunt?

280. Masked Chicken, thank you once again, for your clear logic.
     I had computer problems with my intended post, but now think I’ll just omit it.

281. Masked Chicken, thank you once again, for your clear logic.
     I had computer problems with my intended post, but now think I’ll just omit it.

282. “I had computer problems…”
     Past tense?

283. “Nothing is sacred.” The question is begged – would Myers have been so bold as to rip out the First Amendment from a copy of the U.S. Constitution and nailed it to the garbage in such an ignoble fashion? I suspect not because it seems that there is something he holds absolutely sacred, his right to free speech. At least that is the conclusion I have reached from reading the pro-Myers posts on this blog. Myers’ act is inherently virtuous because it is free speech. Anyone who disagrees with the virtue of his act, even those who call it evil, are really against free speech. The ultimate and absolute good in this case is free speech. Free speech is sacred. Where am I wrong?

284. Free speech which criticizes Myers or his actions is not virtuous. Free speech with which certain people disagree is not sacred.
     How’d I do?

285. CT:
     At public institutions of higher learning the Constitution and the Bill of Rights applies without exception. For public schools grades K through 12 the First Amendment only applies to a limited extent. Children do not entirely shed their First Amendment rights by stepping onto a public school campus but the school is permitted quite wide latitude to control expression in order to maintain school discipline and an orderly educational environment.
     The situation at private institutions of higher learning is slightly different. If the private institution states in its prospectus that it supports freedom of expression and a student finds that the school does in fact regulate the type of speech permitted that is potentially illegal due to breach of contract; you agreed to attend the school and pay its fees assuming they respected freedom of expression as clearly stated in their brochure and subsequently found out they did not in fact honor this promise. The school is therefore in breach of contract.
     Public institutions of higher learning, to their eternal shame, frequently try to trample on student’s and members of faculties First Amendment rights. Its always illegal and should be rigorously punished. Check out FIRE’s (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) website for many examples of this. FIRE always wins its cases.

286. Michael, he “desecrated” a spare copy of The God Delusion, a book he has sympathy for.
     Catholics sometimes “desecrate” in action things held dear by others. For example,
     http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=241630
     “Of course it’s fine. You can even make a little ceremony of burning or shredding your writing into confetti afterwards, to symbolise your freedom from those sins.”
     Some of those “sins” may in some cases be things held sacred by others such as loving homosexual relations, now in “ceremony” no less cast away as evil for all persons everywhere in “burning or shredding … into confetti”.
     Such sins may also include other things held if sacred by others such as premarital relations, or the worship of a false god — cast away as not only evil for the now repentant Catholic but as evil for all persons everywhere.
     This “ceremony” clearly does not involve mere words.
     And what of Christians who in public “exorcise” demons of homosexuality and other things that some may hold sacred or dear? I think some charismatic Catholics and Pentecostal Christians may do things like that. One cannot say that such is a mere expression of opinion as even on their own world view it is something more.
     And what if a Christian on television where to construct something that represented atheism and then smashed it with his fist to demonstrate his contempt for atheism, to demonstrate what he views as the evil nature of atheism? How would that be any different from what PZM did prescinding from the issue of the provenance of the bread
     If one examines the various Catholic responses, not all of which call for PZM to be terminated, one finds actually a diversity of reasons for objections to his conduct.

287. I think it is a simple question. Do Myers and his fellow travellers hold free speech to be sacred? When they say “nothing is sacred” are they really saying that their right to free speech is indeed sacred?

288. @Michael
     I don’t know what you mean by “fellow traveller” nor do I know what you mean by “sacred.” Give a definition of sacred and I will answer.
     In the meantime I can say that people should remain free to question whether free expression is something society should cherish or protect; people should also remain free to express their disagreement or contempt for the cherishing or protecting of free expression.
     I don’t know I’d call it “sacred” — I would call it something valuable.

289. what if a Christian on television where to construct something that represented atheism and then smashed it with his fist to demonstrate his contempt for atheism, to demonstrate what he views as the evil nature of atheism?
     What about Moses? “Moses then turned and came down the mountain with the two tablets of the commandments in his hands, tablets that were written on both sides, front and back; tablets that were made by God, having inscriptions on them that were engraved by God himself… As [Moses] drew near the camp, he saw the calf and the dancing. With that, Moses’ wrath flared up, so that he threw the tablets down and broke them on the base of the mountain. Taking the calf they had made, he fused it in the fire and then ground it down to powder.” (Exodus 32)
     What about Hezekiah? “He pleased the LORD, just as his forefather David had done. It was he who removed the high places, shattered the pillars, and cut down the sacred poles. He smashed the bronze serpent called Nehushtan which Moses had made, because up to that time the Israelites were burning incense to it.” (2 Kings 18:3-4)
     Love,
     Georgina

290. I hope that the Catholics and Muslims and people of good will who live in the area of the university protest and obtain an apology for Myers action.

291. CT what is the intent of the people in your examples – what are the reasons they act the way they do. What was Myers intent?

292. Michael:
     This is like banging my head against a brick wall.
     I have no idea whether or not PMZ would rip out the First Amendment from a copy of the Constitution. Provided he did it to his own copy and not someone elses its simply irrelevant to raise the question.
     Acts that others find profoundly and deeply offensive such as flag burning fall under the rubric of types of expression and have been ruled by SCOTUS to be completely constitutional. You may find such acts, as I do, to be little more than inarticulate grunts but they are protected nevertheless. Its ironic that those that actively trumpet their patriotism often want flag burning banned and those that commit such acts fined and imprisoned. Those individuals do more harm to individual liberty and the Constitution than any idiot with a lighter and an American Flag.
     You are all free to hold any opinion you want, including actively calling for PMZ’s sacking although that is not going to happen. Personally I find that calling for someone’s termination of employment due to his having said and done things you find deeply offensive is shameful and seems to me at least more motivated out of a desire for revenge than anything else.
     The only appropriate response to incoherent speech and bad arguments is coherent speech and better arguments.
     I have been deeply offended many times by what I have read and seen but I have never, and nor would I ever call for someones means of earning a livlihood to be terminated simply for saying something I disagree with. Such actions are more the hallmark of totalitarian regimes than a civilized society that respects and upholds natural rights.

293. In desecrating what [fill in the blank] hold most sacred… P. Z. Myers has fundamentally compromised himself as an educator.
     Did Moses “fundamentally compromise himself as an educator” when he came down from the mountain and trashed the people’s calf idol?
     What was Myers intent?
     Maybe PZ Myers thought of himself as coming down from his ivory tower to trash the Catholic idol.
     Love,
     Georgina

294. John,
     You wrote:
     FIRE always wins its cases.
     What is FIRE’s selection criteria? Does it only choose obviously winnable cases? It used to be thought that once a professor had tenure, that they couldn’t be fired except for moral turpitude or some such. This claim was shattered in the 1990’s based on economic arguments. I’ll bet FIRE did not participate in that one.
     Dear Georgina,
     You wrote:
     My brother says American law does not hold that “only the Church can make the wafer into the Eucharist.”
     Oh, please. American law has said nothing about the Church’s sole ability to confect the Eucharist. You brother does not know what he is talking about. At best, it is an undecided point of law. At worst, it is irrelevant because this goes to fact, not opinion. Either the Church does or does not have the sole ability to confect the Eucharist. An American law holding cannot change whatever the fact of the matter is, unless you want to give them God-like powers. They may say, for practical purposes they will not recognize it, but I am bound more to facts than to opinions of law and in conscience, and under certain circumstances, I may justly ignore them. So, I’m arrested and jailed. It has happened to better men than I.
     The Chicken

295. Dear John,
     You wrote:
     I have no idea whether or not PMZ would rip out the First Amendment from a copy of the Constitution. Provided he did it to his own copy and not someone elses its simply irrelevant to raise the question.
     So, you are saying that the host he destroyed was his own copy?
     The Chicken

296. Bill, yes. Weird thing. The anti-spam screen that says to copy these figures, was blank. No letters or numbers anywhere to be seen. By the time I got past that, Masked Chicken had posted. Since MC in more articulate that I am, I left as is.
     Will have to catch up tomorrow, if this is still going then.

297. I wrote:
     What is FIRE’s selection criteria?
     It should be, “What are FIRE’s selection criteria”?
     The Chicken

298. Um… dude. “can anyone doubt that Myers creates a very hostile environment for Christian and Muslim students in his classes?”
     No student has ever complained that PZ so much as comments on religion in his classes. He comments on Biology, not God. He grades students on their understanding of Biology. He makes it very clear, when asked, that he has only one standard in grading, and that is the students understanding of the material of the course.
     At no time has he ever been accused of being rude to a student, dismissive, unfair, or abusive.
     So yes, anyone can in fact doubt that he creates a hostile environment, especially when the one thing that everyone who says he does create a hostile environment has in common is that they’ve never been in his classroom.
     God, you people depress me.

299. The Chicken:
     I think you are slightly confused here.
     Threats of physical abuse directed from a husband to his wife or vice versa are completely illegal and subject to legal sanction.
     Inflicting pyschic harm to a spouse, for example be giving the cold shoulder, being emotionally distant, being hyper critical, staying away from home etc., may be grounds for divorce but are most definitely not illegal.
     The type of pyschic harm you are accusing PMZ of inflicting clearly falls into the latter category and there is no ambiguity or uncertainty here at all. No court in the land would entertain your petition for redress of greivance for what PMZ has done for one second. Your case against PMZ has no basis in American jurisprudence at all. You might have a case if we lived in a theocracy, but we dont, so you dont.

300. John,
     Just to make myself clear. I have not written the University to demand his sacking though in trying to see this from the University’s point of view I have a difficult time believing they are not considering it. It is simply bad P.R. for them. Does he deserve it? I think he does. That is my opinion.
     I thought my question was a valid one though you seem to disagree. In reading through you comments and others I have come to the conclusion that it is not true the PZ Myers holds nothing sacred. It is true that what he holds sacred is his freedom to do what he wants, even at the expense of others. You have made the point that, due to his privileged position at a state university, he does have that freedom as long as he does nothing illegal. That seems awfully elitist to me but what do I know? I am just one of those crazy Catholics who cannot tell a cracker from an imaginary God.

301. “…you people depress me.”
     You let total strangers determine how you feel?

302. “You let total strangers determine how you feel?”
     More correctly: the fact that I live in a world with people like you in it is depressing.

303. Dearest Chicken,
     American law has said nothing about the Church’s sole ability to confect the Eucharist. You brother does not know what he is talking about. At best, it is an undecided point of law.
     You don’t know what my brother is talking about. If you assumed my brother was proposing the contrary, you made a mistake. My brother said American law does not hold that “only the Church can make the wafer into the Eucharist.” And it doesn’t. Why should it? American law has no authority to decide what you claim. Nor does it with respect to the contrary.
     So, I’m arrested and jailed. It has happened to better men than I.
     Why would you be arrested? Did someone order you to break the law? In your Bible, Jesus said, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants (would) be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here.”
     Love,
     Georgina

304. Abraham Lincoln said that most people are about as happy as they set out to be. I try to remember his advice and not allow others to determine how I feel.

305. The Chicken:
     FIRE is totally non-partisan.
     In fact if you would take the effort to study the cases it has taken up and defended you would find that they fall into two broad categories. Defending the views of conservatives and those espousing religious belief from the scourges of political correctness.
     Ideologically, the majority of cases it has taken up have been to defend the constitutionally guaranteed rights of conservatives and religious groups targeted by college and university administrations purely on the basis of their beliefs. You know preventing people from being fired and standing up for people for expressing views that say liberals often find offensive, in other words stopping the type of retaliation and actions that people here are calling to be visited upon PMZ

306. Hi Jimmy, you write:
     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.
     I think that’s a pretty fair description of the best kind of science teacher.
     So why would UMM want to fire him?
     Superstitions and unsupported beliefs are no friends of science.

307. Forgive me if this is against Da Rulz. I wasn’t sure if it was cool to change up things a bit. Give this the ol’ delete if posting these is straying too far from the original topic. I have these questions and quotes that have come from various sources. One of them being a talk by Ken Hensley titled The Absurdity Of Atheism. It’s not that I have time to debate each one. I just like them for what they are.
     How does the atheist avoid the conclusion that his reason or thought process are just simply chemical reactions in the brain that may or may not lead to truth or knowledge?
     What is the objective, universal and absolute foundation for morality for the atheist?
     How was matter created from nothing?
     Are my sense of personal identity, my joys, sorrows, memories, ambitions and free will simply the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their chemical processes?
     If there is nothing but matter then is it safe to say that thought and reason are reducible to brain chemistry? If reason and thought are based on what happens to be going on in my head at any particular time in the form of chemical processes, then why would I be led to believe that anything I know is true?
     How does the atheist explain the laws of logic If nothing exists but matter? Laws of logic are abstract are they not? If atheism is true and there is no God and nothing exists but matter, how does the atheist justify/ account for logic and reason while remaining consistent with their worldview?
     “The nonbeliever wants to be rational but holds an irrational view of the universe. He denys the possibility of true knowledge by admitting to a chaotic universe even while he pursues knowledge and he tells us we don’t know what we are talking about”.
     In other words.. the atheist says “nobody knows for sure but I know you are wrong”.
     “If my mental process are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true. I have no reason to suppose my brain is composed of atoms”.

308. Dear John,
     As I pointed out, this is an evolving area of American jurisprudence. For adults, it is hard to get a conviction on emotional abuse because the scars are so hard to see and personality theory is not as advanced as physical medicine and this is a relatively new area of law.
     However, CAPTA (the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act) is a federal law and it defines child abuse as:
     “Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”
     Granted, college students are not children (for the most part) and professors are not parents or caretakes (except, possibly in an intellectual sense), but the direction of the law seems towards recognizing emotional harm as abuse.
     From the
     Child Welfare Information Gateway website :
     All States and territories except Georgia and Washington include emotional maltreatment as part of their definitions of abuse or neglect. Approximately 22 States, the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico provide specific definitions of emotional abuse or mental injury to a child.8 Typical language used in these definitions is “injury to the psychological capacity or emotional stability of the child as evidenced by an observable or substantial change in behavior, emotional response, or cognition,” or as evidenced by “anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or aggressive behavior.”
     I realize that the emotional harm inflicted by Myers on some of his students may not yet reach the level needed by law for abuse, but the law is evolving. It does, in my opinion, reach the level of creating a non-healthy workplace for some, under the Code of Conduct for UMM:
     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.
     I am not on the faculty senate there and so I cannot make any arguments there, only state my opinion, here. We probably disagree on this issue, as well. Fair enough.
     The Masked Chicken

309. Tony Sidaway, Thank you for dropping by and expressing your bigotry.

310. Dear Georgina,
     You wrote:
     American law has no authority to decide what you claim. Nor does it with respect to the contrary.
     I didn’t claim anything with regards to American law in my original post which you quoted in your original response. Your brother did.
     I pointed out that American law has no authority in my follow up post. I do not understand why you are now posting the exact same thing. I explained this to you in my last post to you, but it seems to me that you are making it sound in this post as if I said something different and that you are correcting me. I do not understand. My point stands: American law has no authority to define truth only practical governance. Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes.
     The Chicken

311. Chicken, I suspect you’re dealing with a jello-wrestler. (I’ll be glad if I’m wrong).

312. Thanks, everyone, for a really civil discussion. We disagree, but, for 300+ posts, the language has been (mostly) civil and the arguments (for the most part) reasoned.
     Please, be assured that, drive-by posters excluded, none of the regular posters, here, wish any malice towards P. Z. Myers. I do not speak for anyone else, but it is my impression from reading the posts that, although many of us would like to see him fired, we are willing, for the good of society, to abide by the judgments of those to whom these matters have been commended. Times change; laws change. What is legal now might be illegal in the future and vise-versa. Religion is a touchy subject, at best, to deal with outside of one’s own belief system. In general, I assume that most people involved on the frontlines are trying to do the best that they can to understand what is best for the individuals involved and society, as well, however this plays out. I think that even P. Z. Myers thinks that he was performing a good in doing what he did (although I, personally, think that his conscience was incompletely formed on this matter).
     In any event, I am going to say goodnight, for now and thanks for demonstrating that even with emotions running so high, it is possible to make good points in a discussion in a (mostly) civil manner.
     For sure, we will not resolve these issues. The best everyone here can do is hope for what is best and let things get sorted out.
     If I have offended anyone by my posts above, I ask for your forgiveness. It was never my intention. If your posts to me go unanswered for awhile, I will get back to them when I can. I am not ignoring you.
     The Chicken

313. Alm:
     All these are extremely interesting questions and attempts to answer them or at least make a stab at an answer have been made from theistic and atheistic viewpoints. As is the case usually in philosophy no position from either side of the debate is immune from attack.
     I am aware of the book in question and may check it out from Amazon.
     Everyone here should really try and read Copelston’s nine volume “A History of Philosophy” After all it was written by one of your guys, a jesuit no less! There may be more recent histories of philosophy but none compares to Copelstons, this is the benchmark work.
     Since someone asked, my own philosophical world view, at least with respect to morality and ethics is gounded in natural rights theory and with some modification is essentially Aristotelian in nature although its epistemic warrant is non-transcendental.

314. My Dearest Brother Chicken,
     You wrote, “Your brother does not know what he is talking about.” You are my brother. As you wrote, “American law has no authority,” you are my brother who said American law does not hold.
     Typical language used in these definitions is “injury to the psychological capacity or emotional stability of the child as evidenced by an observable or substantial change in behavior, emotional response, or cognition,” or as evidenced by “anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or aggressive behavior.”
     Such language may also fit Myer’s definition of religious indoctrination.
     Love,
     Georgina

315. Alm.
     It is difficult to know where to start with a suite of questions like that. There are a lot of assumptions in them, and it is difficult to answer point by point when many of your points contain hidden assumptions with which I do not agree.
     For example, your main point seems to be that materialism is somehow insufficient to account for logic and reason. This is a telling point to you, and completely nonsensical to me, because you and I have different assumptions.
     My own point of view is that I appear to be living in a material universe. There isn’t any compelling reason to think otherwise, and until one comes along, I treat the world as if it exists. Things happen in the universe. Physical “laws” and math and logic and all of these are just formal systems, invented by humans, to attempt to describe the things that happen in the universe.
     Dinesh D’Souza likes to pose what he thinks is a knockout blow of a question: “Why should an electron behave the same way here as it does in the Andromenda galaxy.” But the answer to that is simple: An electron is the word we use to describe something that happens. If something else is happening, we use a different word. So every “electron” behaves the same way because electron is a description, not an object.
     So logic is not something I have to account for, math isn’t something I have to account for, the law of gravity, relativity, whatever… I don’t account for these. They are formal systems that are useful in describing and predicting, to greater or lesser degrees of accuracy, things that happen in the universe.
     These formal systems are what I use, along with my senses, to create my model of the universe. These are physical, limited processes, of course. My reason cannot lead me to any absolute truths… and I’m not sure whether there are any absolute truths beyond the brute existence of things. However, there are human truths, things that, once you allow the existence of the material world, are true about all humans.
     And it is from these human truths that I personally draw my ethics.
     So whether my brain is composed of “atoms” or not is really not the question. Atoms are, after all, merely an abstraction, a way of describing reality. Reality isn’t composed of atoms any more than it is composed of phlogiston, but one abstraction describes and predicts reality well, and the other poorly. Ethics should be the same way: a system of ethics that is useful should describe human behavior well, predict human behavior and its consequences well, and lead us to an understanding of how to achieve desired outcomes.

316. To be an atheist, one must believe:
     1) That, billions of years ago, there just happened to exist
     2) These abstract “somethings” which just happened to be atoms
     3) Which just happened to get together
     4) In ways which just happened to look like natural laws
     5) That some of these atoms just happened to get together to form stars
     6) That, around atleast one of these stars, there just happened to develop planets
     7) That one of these planets just happened to be exactly the right distance from this star so that hydrogen monoxide could exist in a liquid state
     8) That this particular planet just happened to have certain exact quantities of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen
     9) That molecules of the above elements just happened to get together to form amino acids
     10) That some of these amino acids just happened to develop the ability to reproduce themselves
     11) That some of these organisms just happened to develop the ability to evolve into more complex organisms
     12) That some of these organisms just happened to develop self-awareness
     13) And that one just happens to be you.
     To anyone who can believe all that, I say: “Great is thy faith!”

317. Two things: First, I don’t have to believe anything of the kind to be an atheist. I just have to disagree with your claim that you know how the universe was created. Since you haven’t presented any evidence of that claim, and no theist ever has presented such evidence, it isn’t difficult for me not to believe you.
     Second… why are any of those things unlikely? What possible reason is there to think that these things are unlikely? Doesn’t judging those odds require a rather extensive knowledge of a system that in truth, we know very little about?
     Third… dude. Once you get point 1, everything else is pretty much part of the system. If you get matter behaving the way we see matter behaving, you will inevitably get at least stars and planets, hundreds of billions of them, in a variety of configurations and locations. So really, assumption 1 (things exist) covers 1-8. 12 and 13 are the same assumption. There’s nothing special or unlikely about me. If you have “self-awareness”, every self aware creature is “me” to itself.
     That leaves 9, 10, 11 and 12. 9 has been shown to happen spontaneously in a lab, with tiny amounts of building blocks and time. Given universal time and planetary sizes, another slam dunk. Now we’ve got 1, 10, 11 and 12. And I don’t have time to deal with those.

318. Wait. I just realized that 10 and 11 are the same claim. Once we get reproduction, we get evolution, which is just reproduction with variation against a background with some selective pressure (covered in 1-10). So if you have a universe (1) and you have reproduction (10) you get 11. Leaving you with the universe, which a theist can’t account for any better than anyone else, after all, why should there be a god as opposed to nothing at all, and 12, the development of self awareness. Given that we don’t know much about self awareness or evolution or even reality, its really tough to judge how likely it would be that evolution would lead to self awareness. Without some larger sample size than our own tiny solar system in our own little bijou galaxy, how can we claim such grand knowledge as you do?
     How great is your belief, bill, that you know everything! It is amazing to me that you think I must have faith in order to accept that my knowledge is most likely not complete enough to judge the odds of the cosmos being the way that it is. That I need faith to think to myself, wait, maybe some human religio–that has existed only on one tiny planet in the middle of an unimaginable universe for a tiny fraction of even human history–doesn’t have all the answers that there are.
     Just maybe, we don’t know.
     That doesn’t take faith, Bill. It just takes humility.

319. No, you believe in a much greater miracle than we do.
     And you’re right: you don’t have to believe any of that to be an atheist; but you would have to explain rationally all those “just happeneds”, out of an infinite number of possibilities for each “just happened”(and many others, as well) if you wanted your atheism to be based on reason.

320. Ethics should be the same way: a system of ethics that is useful should describe human behavior well, predict human behavior and its consequences well, and lead us to an understanding of how to achieve desired outcomes.
     But who’s “desired outcome” do we come to? And why are they desired? Why is your desired outcome for peace and tranquility better than my desire for “All for me and me for me”
     More real: if you think the “desired outcome” includes gay marriage and I don’t then how do we agree?

321. Seth writes:
     “My reason cannot lead me to any absolute truths…”
     Can my reason lead me to any absolute truths? Or are you making the absolute claim that reason cannot lead us to any absolute truths?

322. John,
     You wrote:
     There is an imporant point here that no one seems to get. You have a fundamental right to hold any view you want. What you do not have is a right to have that view respected by others or not to have that view subject to ridicule and contempt.
     There’s also an important point that you’re missing. He didn’t just hold an objectionable view; he deliberately desecrated something we hold to be sacred. Even if the law doesn’t distinguish between the two, we Catholics do.
     I agree that Myers’ job is likely legally protected. He may, in fact, have virtually ensured that he’s unfireable, as just about any attempt to can him at this point might be interpreted as a suppression of his right to free expression, regardless of the actual intent.
     Still, what he did was fundamentally different from merely holding an unpopular (or even abhorrent) view. If there had been no substantive difference between his holding anti-Catholic views and his desecration of something sacred, Catholics would not be so upset, and he himself wouldn’t have bothered to do anything more than type words on his computer keyboard. There may be no legal difference, but there is an objective difference, and Myers knows it. We’re not accusing him of thoughtcrime; we’re accusing him of invasive desecration. Do you really not see a difference?

323. PS- I looked up the professor you mentioned, and his name is correctly spelled “Butz”. Props to Northwestern for valuing his right to free expression.

324. This is the e-mail I sent to the the president and chancellor of UMM:
     “I wish to voice my grave concern at the continued presence of Mr. P.Z. Myers as a member of staff at your university. His recent act of desecrating both the Eucharist and the Koran is indefensible in any civil society. Mr. Myers has very deliberately and knowingly set out to offend deeply the sentiments of Catholics and Muslims all over the world, as also the sentiments of all religious adherents and all lovers of peaceful and civil co-existence. It goes without saying that such extreme and outlandish behaviour is completely at odds with the spirit of open-mindedness, tolerance and civility which ought to characterise all aspects of academia. I fear that if Mr. Myers goes undisciplined over this matter – and, indeed, if he continues to enjoy a position on the staff of your university – it will achieve nothing more than to cast a shadow over the reputation of the University of Minnesota as an institution fostering a truly academic and enlightened culture.”
     For the record, I believe the Vatican was opposed to the publication of the Danish cartoons.

325. Lots of people do things every day that they may have a “right” to do, but which are shameful, underhanded, and dishonorable things to do. A woman lies to and manipulates the man who loves her. A man abandons his wife and young children to take up with a new love. A trusted business associate makes deals benefitting himself, but undercutting his partner’s interests, but finds clever means to do so without breaking the law.
     People every day behave in horrible, hurtful ways that they have a “right” to do.
     And they and others of their ilk actually defend to the hilt the right of these persons to behave in these way, and challenge and take to task those who would move to challenge them.
     Is this really normal behavior? Think about the really good, normal, well-adjusted people you know. People who wouldn’t dream of hurting others. People who don’t go around putting others down. People who think twice even to send an undercooked steak back at the restaurant, because they don’t want to raise a stink.
     You know. Nice, normal folks.
     Then compare them with the profile contained in the following excerpt from an article about people with narcissistic personality disorder. http://www.narcissism.operationdoubles.com/youareanobject.htm.
     Begin Excerpt:
     “The narcissist doesn’t conceive himself as of our kind; what god with nothing but contempt for mere mortals does? So expect no more regard for your feelings from his alien mentality than you should expect from an extra-terrestrial who abducts you to use as a specimen for an experiment. No more than a lamb should expect from a wolf, a mouse from a cat, a baby seal from a killer whale, or a cockroach from you.
     In other words, narcissists relate to (others) as predators do. . .
     Narcissists are as unfeeling toward whomever they abuse as you or I are toward a spike we are pounding with a sledgehammer. This is a hard truth to accept.
     The good thing about accepting it is that there is no hating such a person. You can’t hate what you can’t relate to. You can no more hate a narcissist for being a narcissist than you can hate a snake for being a snake. You don’t take it personally when a snake bites you. Don’t take it personally when a narcissist does, either. It wasn’t you. It wasn’t anything you did. You were just there, that’s all. Handy.”
     End of excerpt.
     The narcissist expects to be able to slap you in your face, then howls that you are bullying him when you complain of the slap.
     And the narcissist has his or her defenders.
     Believe you me, from the research I have been doing, there is no winning any argument with them.
     When dealing with a narcissist, even one who has just committed homicide, it is you who are horrible, mean, and ungrateful.
     So there it is, folks.

326. Jesus Christ, why don’t you people do something worthwhile with your time instead of trying to get a man fired over a cracker?
     It’s a fracking cracker!
     What? Do you guys think you’re in a Harry Potter movie? You say magic words over a wafer and transmogrify it into Jesus? Grow up. Santa Claus isn’t real either.

327. It’s amazing. These anti-Catholic bigots, like Jeremy, spew their bile either without reading the bile of the other anti-Catholics before them, and the responses to the anti-Catholics or else don’t understand plain English. If they would read or understand, they might refrain from making asses of themselves.

328. But then, maybe the Jeremies are, in their own way, asking for our prayers.

329. And you’re right: you don’t have to believe any of that to be an atheist; but you would have to explain rationally all those “just happeneds”, out of an infinite number of possibilities for each “just happened”(and many others, as well) if you wanted your atheism to be based on reason.
     No, I don’t. Atheism is not the belief that I know everything. It is the statement that you have not provided sufficient evidence to support your claim about the beginning of the Universe and the nature of the being that you claim created it. Since you have no evidence to back up your claim, I simply do not believe you.
     That’s it. That’s all that atheism means, that I have the basic humility to understand that humanity does not have it all figured out, and is not special in some way beyond all other things.
     In order to “have to” answer all your questions, we have to assume a lot of things. For example, we have to assume that we know more about the universe than we do. A lot more. And your model of reality, in which somehow there are throws of the dice determining what happens, is ridiculous in the extreme. You have no reason to think that anything else could have happened, or that that thing is more likely than this thing. It doesn’t make any sense, really.
     Atheism isn’t a belief. Its a statement that I don’t believe what you say about gods. I am without a god, not because I think I know everything, but because I don’t think that you do. Present some evidence, not just meaningless statements about probabilities concerning matters you and I and the entire human race know nothing about, and we’ll have a common ground to discuss your truth claim from.

330. And you’re right: you don’t have to believe any of that to be an atheist; but you would have to explain rationally all those “just happeneds”, out of an infinite number of possibilities for each “just happened”(and many others, as well) if you wanted your atheism to be based on reason.
     No, I don’t. Atheism is not the belief that I know everything. It is the statement that you have not provided sufficient evidence to support your claim about the beginning of the Universe and the nature of the being that you claim created it. Since you have no evidence to back up your claim, I simply do not believe you.
     That’s it. That’s all that atheism means, that I have the basic humility to understand that humanity does not have it all figured out, and is not special in some way beyond all other things.
     In order to “have to” answer all your questions, we have to assume a lot of things. For example, we have to assume that we know more about the universe than we do. A lot more. And your model of reality, in which somehow there are throws of the dice determining what happens, is ridiculous in the extreme. You have no reason to think that anything else could have happened, or that that thing is more likely than this thing. It doesn’t make any sense, really.
     Atheism isn’t a belief. Its a statement that I don’t believe what you say about gods. I am without a god, not because I think I know everything, but because I don’t think that you do. Present some evidence, not just meaningless statements about probabilities concerning matters you and I and the entire human race know nothing about, and we’ll have a common ground to discuss your truth claim from.

331. And you’re right: you don’t have to believe any of that to be an atheist; but you would have to explain rationally all those “just happeneds”, out of an infinite number of possibilities for each “just happened”(and many others, as well) if you wanted your atheism to be based on reason.
     No, I don’t. Atheism is not the belief that I know everything. It is the statement that you have not provided sufficient evidence to support your claim about the beginning of the Universe and the nature of the being that you claim created it. Since you have no evidence to back up your claim, I simply do not believe you.
     That’s it. That’s all that atheism means, that I have the basic humility to understand that humanity does not have it all figured out, and is not special in some way beyond all other things.
     In order to “have to” answer all your questions, we have to assume a lot of things. For example, we have to assume that we know more about the universe than we do. A lot more. And your model of reality, in which somehow there are throws of the dice determining what happens, is ridiculous in the extreme. You have no reason to think that anything else could have happened, or that that thing is more likely than this thing. It doesn’t make any sense, really.
     Atheism isn’t a belief. Its a statement that I don’t believe what you say about gods. I am without a god, not because I think I know everything, but because I don’t think that you do. Present some evidence, not just meaningless statements about probabilities concerning matters you and I and the entire human race know nothing about, and we’ll have a common ground to discuss your truth claim from.

332. And you’re right: you don’t have to believe any of that to be an atheist; but you would have to explain rationally all those “just happeneds”, out of an infinite number of possibilities for each “just happened”(and many others, as well) if you wanted your atheism to be based on reason.
     No, I don’t. Atheism is not the belief that I know everything. It is the statement that you have not provided sufficient evidence to support your claim about the beginning of the Universe and the nature of the being that you claim created it. Since you have no evidence to back up your claim, I simply do not believe you.
     That’s it. That’s all that atheism means, that I have the basic humility to understand that humanity does not have it all figured out, and is not special in some way beyond all other things.
     In order to “have to” answer all your questions, we have to assume a lot of things. For example, we have to assume that we know more about the universe than we do. A lot more. And your model of reality, in which somehow there are throws of the dice determining what happens, is ridiculous in the extreme. You have no reason to think that anything else could have happened, or that that thing is more likely than this thing. It doesn’t make any sense, really.
     Atheism isn’t a belief. Its a statement that I don’t believe what you say about gods. I am without a god, not because I think I know everything, but because I don’t think that you do. Present some evidence, not just meaningless statements about probabilities concerning matters you and I and the entire human race know nothing about, and we’ll have a common ground to discuss your truth claim from.

333. Seth, that’s an interesting definition of atheism, but is it one that all atheists would accept? A lot of atheists express themselves not as “I don’t believe in God” but “There is no such thing as God. It’s a proven fact.” I think there’s a subtle difference there. It’s not that you are leaving open a window of doubt as to God’s existence, but that you are not trying to prove a negative. Your explanation of your belief seems quite rational to me, by the way.
     I do always groan a little when atheists announce that they’re “humble” because they’re not claiming to know the whole truth of everything. First of all, it’s silly, because Christians don’t even claim to have it all figured out, just to have received some important data. Perhaps it’s because personally unhumble Christians give the impression of having everything figured out to others?
     Secondly, there’s nothing humble or arrogant in itself about making a truth claim. The claim can be entirely false, and a person can be humble before it. Suppose I became delusional and believed that God had appointed me his final prophet, appointed to bring about a new utopia. I could be a very humble delusionary, proclaiming the truth not because I thought I had everything figured out, but because I’d *seen* and *heard* God demanding me to lead on, and I could not turn my back on what I knew.
     This is pretty much the position of many believers, if atheists are correct, but it’s got little to do with humility or arrogance.
     Disclaimer: Once again it’s probably worth saying that I’m a Catholic, notwithstanding the hypotheticals in this post

334. OUCH. I am so sorry for the multiple posting.
     To Martin and Paul. I’m not making an absolute statement, really. I’m just saying “as far as I know”. So as far as I know, no, human beings cannot arrive at absolute truths. But of course, I could be wrong.
     Now, as to how we determine what a desired outcome is… well. That’s a tough one. It really is. Most of the time, most of us agree on what a desired outcome is. We want a successful and stable society, with good opportunities for our children to grow up and lead successful and stable lives. Gay marriage is not an outcome, its a policy. The question to me is whether it serves the goal of a successful society or not. I think it does, precisely because I think that more freedom is better than less freedom in terms of the overal success of the society, and my childs opportunities in it. If you disagree, we can discuss these things.
     But to my mind, if you start bringing up god’s law, you’ve crossed a line. You are now saying that regardless of what is objectively true or observable, you have an inside line to the intentions of the creator of the universe. That is a huge claim to make, and I just don’t think you have the evidence behind it for our society to base its rules on that.

Comments are closed.