Cracker Attacker

PZ Myers has desecrated his cracker.

And pages from the Qur’an.

And pages from The God Delusion.

(It’s all just paper regardless of what it says, he says, and he’s right.)

desecrated.jpg

The cracker is the object with a nail through it.

Somehow, I think Catholicism will survive… though I’m sure the hate mail he has coming his way will say otherwise.

But c’mon, PZ, did you really have to destroy a banana?

Now, Ray Comfort‘s going to go after atheists! And we would never want that.

On a serious note, PZ makes this very important point:

Nothing must be held sacred. Question everything. God is not great, Jesus is not your lord, you are not disciples of any charismatic prophet. You are all human beings who must make your way through your life by thinking and learning, and you have the job of advancing humanities’ 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.

A nice way to (attempt to) end Wafergate.

  • http://www.romsteady.net/blog/ Michael Russell

    My favorite part of this whole thing is that he did it in a way that has a historical context that shows exactly how insane this whole mess is.

    As a side note, if you go down into the comments, PZ remarks how the first line of defense is going to be to say that the Eucharist wasn’t consecrated, but he chose the wafer he did specifically because he had video evidence of its consecration.

    Kudos, PZ.

  • http://www.romsteady.net/blog/ Michael Russell

    Couldn’t dig through and get the link in time to edit my original post…

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php#comment-1007264

  • http://www.BlueNine.info/index.php EKM

    1. How do we know that the wafer was REALLY consecrated? Just because PZ said so? Do these Catholics just believe everything they hear? Oh, wait, they do.

    2. If it is Jesus, then isn’t putting a nail in it appropriate? Maybe there has been more sinning than was originally anticipated.

    3. In all seriousness, will any of these Catholics be just as upset about the Quran as they are about the wafer? That would be a Catholic I could have some respect for. You might object that the Quran is someone else’s religion, but that’s the whole point. If you don’t respect someone else’s religion, then why should you expect respect for yours? I have not read more than a few comments on PZ’s site (there tend to be a lot lately). I am not going to hold my breath on this one.

    Perhaps a better, less controversial test would be to post pictures of two wafers: one consecrated, one not, and have Catholics guess which is which and how they came to their conclusion.

  • Wes

    But c’mon, PZ, did you really have to destroy a banana?

    Now, Ray Comfort’s going to go after atheists! And we would never want that.

    :D

    That cracked me up.

  • http://reasonableatheist.blogspot.com Bart Dorsey

    The Catholic League has noticed already.

    http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1465

  • Gabriel

    Crackers? If the catholics or other religious types get this upset over a cracker (crackers, really?) they have too much time on their hands. Go and bring comfort to the poor and discomfort to the rich. That or admit that your religion is as meaningless as the way you treat it.

  • Gabriel

    Oh my goodness, all of this cracker crap just dregded up an old memory. Rowan Atkinson does a standup routine dressed as a catholic priest. At one point he takes one of the eucharists and breaks it in half dunks it in the glass of wine and eats it. I laughed so hard I had tears rolling down my face.

  • Darryl

    That is a stupid thing to do. It proves nothing.

    Nothing sacred? Really? How about freedom of conscience? How about the right to life and liberty? How about the right to live as one chooses? None sacred? How about the right to not be tortured for someone’s convenience, or molested for someone’s sick pleasure?

    Idiot.

  • Ryan

    darryl: He means that nothing should be held sacred without rational thinking behind it. Obviously the things you mention are great things to uphold. But others may not be if people think rationally about them.

  • http://www.BlueNine.info/index.php EKM

    On July 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm Darryl said

    That is a stupid thing to do. It proves nothing.

    Actually, it does prove something.

    Nothing sacred? Really? How about freedom of conscience? How about the right to life and liberty? How about the right to live as one chooses? None sacred? How about the right to not be tortured for someone’s convenience, or molested for someone’s sick pleasure?

    It proves that Catholics think that only Catholics have these rights.

  • Justin jm

    I’ve been following the cracker (story? event?) almost since it began. I personally wouldn’t have done this, but I’m not offended. Prof Myers has perfectly illustrated the hysteria behind some beliefs. Who was it that said religious beliefs need ridiculing?

  • http://mnatheists.org Bjorn Watland

    The word sacred has no meaning without the context of religion, at least how the word has been used. A better word to have used would be “holy.” Liberty is not sacred, the association doesn’t work well here. It could mean that liberty doesn’t deserve respect, but respect and things which are sacred are not the same thing.

  • llewelly

    This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

  • Gabriel

    You can beleive anything you want but your belief doesn’t accord you special status. You can believe that the sun rises in the north and hides under your bed at night if you want to. Your belief in silly things doesn’t mean that you deserve respect or that your silly beliefs deserve repect. The great pumpkin isn’t going to rise out of the pumpkin patch on halloween and give toys to all of the good little girls and boys. It just isn’t. No matter how much you believe.

  • Siamang

    The great pumpkin isn’t going to rise out of the pumpkin patch on halloween and give toys to all of the good little girls and boys. It just isn’t. No matter how much you believe.

    But what if your pumpkin patch is really, really sincere?

    Clearly you nonbelievers have been sitting in hypocritical patches. If your patch was as sincere as mine, the Great Pumpkin would rise… and then He’d show you!

  • Ron in Houston

    Oh my! *rolls eyes* *shrugs*

  • ryot

    It’s good to see he went through with it all, very poignant.

    I can’t help but think that if Catholics really cared about the Eucharist they could do better than to make people eat these little flattened bits of styrofoam. When I was young and still went to church we had actual homemade bread. Our Jesus was so much tastier than the Catholics’ Jesus.

  • John

    Darryl – those are ideas. No object is sacred, but (debatably) ideas may be.

  • http://www.bernerbits.com Derek

    You knew he was gonna do it.

    I dunno, the whole thing still doesn’t sit well with me; I guess even as an atheist-leaning-agnostic I guess I still have the whole “don’t be an ass” mentality in my head. Certainly not even the most militant atheist would elevate the God Delusion to the same “sacred” status that the Quran and the Eucharist receive.

    I can’t help but wonder, if “sacred status” were replaced with something like “sentimental value”, how someone would take PZ shitting on someone’s old love letters because they’re “just paper”, or someone’s wedding dress because it’s “just cloth”, and if there’s any real justification behind that comparison. Just thinking out loud.

    But boy, those Hindus are a tolerant bunch with us eating beef and all…

  • http://nautblog.blogspot.com Sean the Blogonaut

    That was an interesting history lesson he gave on the use of the cracker to persecute the Jews.

    I still think a cracker challenge is in order

  • http://www.BlueNine.info/index.php EKM

    I started reading the comments. Even before I got to 110, there were a few duplicates. Maybe the server is getting overwhelmed.

    So far there is at least one comment that also suggested my “Spot The Host Photo Challenge”.

  • Spork

    *ahem*

    humanity’s

  • Siamang

    Oh the huge manatee!

  • Siamang

    Even before I got to 110, there were a few duplicates.

    There’s over a thousand now.

  • http://newref.blogspot.com/ James

    I really like the image of the wafer in the trash, along with the Qur’an. To really make a point, though, he should also have had an American flag in the trash can, too. People love to worship at the alter of nationalistic jingoism as much as anything else. It would go along with his statement “Nothing must be held sacred. Question everything.” Desecrating a piece of cloth with some specific colors & patterns on it is no different than something like a holy book or religious symbol. They all represent a belief in a imaginary set of ideals that some think should be worshiped and given allegiance to.

  • Unspeakably Violent Jane

    I like PZ – and I don’t like the Catholic fatwa’s – but I thought PZ’s actions were over the top this time.

    Is it necessary for us to understand a custom – a custom that doesn’t hurt anyone – in order for us to be respectful of the practitioners? If this was a tradition that didn’t have anything to do with God, would we still think the rudeness was OK?

    And what do you mean when you say “Don’t hold anything sacred?” That he doesn’t find value in something means that nobody can?

    How is this different than Phelps violating a funeral? After all, the person is dead, so what difference does it make?

  • Ubi Dubium

    I can’t help but wonder, if “sacred status” were replaced with something like “sentimental value”, how someone would take PZ shitting on someone’s old love letters because they’re “just paper”, or someone’s wedding dress because it’s “just cloth”, and if there’s any real justification behind that comparison.

    Well, PZ specifically said that one of his points is that none of these crackers is unique. The Catholics dispense them by the million – there is no way they can claim “sentimental value” for any one of them. PZ is not proposing anyone should damage something that can’t be replaced.

    And what do you mean when you say “Don’t hold anything sacred?” That he doesn’t find value in something means that nobody can?

    Perhaps he means that people should be accorded more respect than objects. Don’t hold “things” sacred. The Catholic League was making death threats to a teenager. Over a cracker. PZ is making a valid point here – nothing he can do to a cracker can begin to approach the harm they said they would do to a person. (Let alone the harm done by pedophile priests.) Yet the catholics make an enormous stink about the cracker, but try desperately to hush up the harm they have allowed to be done to children. The priorities of the catholic church are seriously out of whack.

  • Ron in Houston

    Jane

    I have to say I agree.

    However, there appears to be a clear double standard. Theistic asshattery must be loudly and violently condemned.

    However atheist asshattery seems to be perfectly acceptable as free speech. Besides their belief should not be entitled to any respect.

    News flash folks. If their beliefs are not entitled to any respect, then your non-belief isn’t either.

  • Anne

    Just try to keep in mind, folks that the entire thing began because the Catholics attacked some kid for hanging on to the cracker he got in church rather than munching it up as deemed proper by the priesthood.

    Retaliation and ridicule were definitely in order.

  • http://www.dday76.net Jason

    Maybe I’m wrong, but there also seem to be desecrated coffee grinds. It’s not my religion, but I think the starbucks crowd is probably the worst enemy PZ has incited…

  • Ron in Houston

    Anne

    That’s certainly one way to “spin” the situation. However, you have some student coming into THEIR mass and not following the rules. No one beat the shit out of the kid, all they did was try to stop him from doing what he wasn’t supposed to be doing in THEIR church.

    Sorry Anne, you come into my house and I’m going to try to stop you from shitting on my couch.

    If you shit on my couch then I’d say that more than just retaliation and ridicule are in order.

  • http://www.BlueNine.info/index.php EKM

    To Ron In Houston:

    No way Jose, that argument won’t fly. So what if it was THEIR church? So what if it was THEIR mass? This is an organization that thinks its belief in Santa KKKlaus gives them a right to control every aspect of everybody’s life. Until they get the message that they have absolutely no authority whatsoever, then extreme measures may be necessary.

  • Ron in Houston

    EKM

    You are advocating nothing more than anarchy.

    Your right to free speech ends at their door.

  • Unspeakably Violent Jane

    Ubi said

    Perhaps he means that people should be accorded more respect than objects. Don’t hold “things” sacred.

    Nevertheless, you have Phelps violating a ceremony that evokes a great deal of emotion in the participants and we feel that even though he may not understand the ceremony, he should be respectful of those who value it.

    And No Anne, the point of this exercise – per PZ – was to teach us that NOTHING is sacred.

    Not crackers, not love letters, not funerals. Some might say that attachment to some objects was a byproduct of our capacity to attach to people, and that the absence of attachment was pathological…..but NO it seems that NOTHING is sacred.

  • elf_man

    Hm. While I agree with the sentiment of the act, this is effectively a hate crime. It is the opposite of tolerance, which does not mean blindly accepting all views thrown your way, but saying “I disagree, I despise what you believe, but you’re allowed to believe it.” While many of these beliefs are dangerous, it is the authority and organization of the Catholic church (and many other denominations in their own ways) that create problems in actuality. There are plenty of Catholics out there that believe non-Catholics are, of course, wrong, but are willing to let them be; that is tolerance, and that is what needs to be taught. Knowing what the eucharist means to Catholics, an act of destroying it is as much as a declaration of war on these peoples’ beliefs; obviously the death threats are screwed up and ridiculous, many of the believers’ reactions are inappropriate, but although they take it as the literal body of Christ, it is to a larger degree symbolic of their entire religion and faith; when you attack the center of someone’s entire sense of reality what do you expect but violent response? The organism feels as though it is being lethally attacked, because these beliefs define life and death in their minds.
    If we want to breed a tolerant society, actions based on certain beliefs must be compromised, just as personal freedoms are limited in some ways to maintain that freedom for everyone. From the Catholic perspective, this is a deliberately vicious act, to the point that it breeds defensiveness over “waking them up.”
    As for “nothing is sacred”: well, yes, there is no anima, no metaphysical or spiritual component that makes things sacred, holy, whatever word you want to use. Things are only “sacred” in that we as humans give them meaning, as atheists should understand in terms of value systems and ethics. A funeral or love letter? All the more valuable to the people involved, because there is no metaphysical realm to sanctify it, it is wholly about us as mortal people. That cracker has a hell of a lot of perceived value imbued in it by a lot of people; that means when that value is broken, large scale physical backlash is the result. Remember, reason may be important, but humans are fundamentally emotional and irrational, and will respond as such.

  • Josh

    I think PZ’s point about nothing is sacred has implicit in it the idea that sacred means unjustifiably sanctified. In this case, it’s definitely true that the Eucharist is unjustifiably sanctified: it’s simply not Jesus. Similarly, the Koran is simply not the word of god.

    I agree with most people that PZ’s original request for a cracker to desecrate was probably an asshole move, but in the end, what has happened because of this? I think this has served as not a wake up call to Catholics, but rather as a wake up call to people who “believe in belief” as Dan Dennet put it. How many times have you heard “People don’t really believe that the eucharist is the body of Christ!” when people say that you are being foolish for thinking people actually (gasp!) believe their religion’s doctrines. Here, I think, along with the original incident in Florida, is undeniable proof that it’s the case that, yes, there are a bunch of people out there who really, really believe this kind of nonsense.

    And one that thing tends to creep up on us in times like this is a kind of relativism: “Oh, well, we wouldn’t want that done to a love letter, or to a funeral, or to x” but the problem is that a love letter has real meaning: it was (at least ostensibly) written by someone that cares about someone else and is an expression of that person’s love. It’s real. A funeral is real: it’s for people to mourn about someone they cared about, who they will never see again (funerals, obviously, are for the living, since the dead can’t appreciate them!). However, in this case, the eucharist REALLY ISN’T JESUS. It’s just a symbol that was made up some time ago, and is really quite creepy when you think about it… eating the savior? …eep.

  • http://www.BlueNine.info/index.php EKM

    Ron in Houston said,

    Your right to free speech ends at their door.

    No it does not. This is the Catholic Church. It deserves no respect because it gives no respect. Until they realize they have no business telling anybody what to do, they deserve scorn.

  • Unspeakably Violent Jane

    Josh, so because YOU don’t beleive it, its open season. If you go to another country, do you go out of your way to offend people by mocking their customs because you don’t understand them or they don’t appear logical to you? I’m guessing not. And I’m guessing you would think someone who did was a jackass.

    But the harmless ceremonies of theists should be mocked?

    I’m with elf-man on this. It’s bigotry.

  • Josh

    Josh, so because YOU don’t beleive it, its open season. If you go to another country, do you go out of your way to offend people by mocking their customs because you don’t understand them or they don’t appear logical to you? I’m guessing not. And I’m guessing you would think someone who did was a jackass.

    Again, you’re missing the point. It’s not merely that I don’t believe it. It’s that there’s no way in hell that the Eucharist is Jesus. It’s patently absurd. And it’s not as if I don’t understand the origins and the meaning of the practice, the history of the church is well documented. I’m merely saying that the difference is that while cultural customs are nice and all, the issue here is not that people were saying “You are disrespecting our cultural customs”, they were saying “You are literally harming Jesus!” That, I feel, is what pissed PZ off in the first place. Again, I don’t think PZ was entirely justified in calling to receive a eucharist to desecrate, but it seems highly understandable that the response that the kid who didn’t eat his cracker in Florida got would incense someone like PZ, or indeed, any rational person! Death threats over a piece of stale bread? You see, here’s where you have to not be a relativist: the Eucharist really isn’t Jesus. Unfortunately, these events have shown that a substantial portion of Americans really think it is. I mean, if you could show me that it was, I’d eat my words… but as it stands, I’m highly doubtful that a piece of bread could possibly embody a man who probably didn’t exist…

  • Axegrrl

    Ron said:

    That’s certainly one way to “spin” the situation. However, you have some student coming into THEIR mass and not following the rules. No one beat the shit out of the kid, all they did was try to stop him from doing what he wasn’t supposed to be doing in THEIR church.

    If you shit on my couch then I’d say that more than just retaliation and ridicule are in order.

    Ron, I might agree with that if the student was indeed ‘shitting on their couch’, but from the accounts I’ve read (and the interview with the student, Webster Cook, on Freethought Radio) he was doing no such thing ~ he’s Catholic himself and his friend was asking him questions about the service, etc and that was the reason they were there in the first place. From his account, he wanted to show his friend the actual wafer and that’s when he was ‘accosted’ by a church-goer.

    So, it doesn’t seem like Anne did any ‘spinning’ of the story at all.

  • Darryl

    Darryl – those are ideas. No object is sacred, but (debatably) ideas may be.

    Some things are sacred to me besides ideas. My children, my dear mother, and my good friends are ultra sacred. The relics of my departed grandparents are sacred to me. People who work hard, and dedicate themselves to something more than self-service are sacred to me. Nature is sacred to me.

    Just because PZ wants to deny that means nothing to me, just as it means nothing to the Catholics. I don’t have to respect their beliefs, but I do think that I must respect them and their right to believe, as I would hope they would me and mine.

  • ryot

    The difference between what people like Darryl are describing and what PZ did is that belief in the Eucharist is insane. Mementos are not, they are things with actual meaning, and even then they still shouldn’t be “sacred,” important, maybe, but to worship objects is just stupid. This cracker is a mass-produced bit of starch that people are willing to KILL for. He and the kid were sent death threats over a wafer. These people hold their belief that a baked good is their savior over two individuals’ right to life. There’s no excuse for that. This goes beyond their right to believe what they want, and as far as I know, he’s not stopping anyone from doing so.

  • geru

    Wow, someone over brought up the “hate crime” term. I would just like to remind you, that every day you wake up and go along you daily routines, you are actively braking someones most sacred beliefs.

    Albeit that PZ did this on purpose, but this was a conscious act of demonstrating for freedom of speech and for freedom from religion.

    Have you ever considered that if you happen to be a woman, you are mocking muslims every time you walk out of your house unveiled and without a relative male escort? It would be well within their ‘religious rights’ to be upset about this.

    I would imagine that every time you use the rights that have been granted to us by the laws of western democracy, you are blaspheming against a countless amount of fundamentalist believers, simply by living a life not dedicated to submitting to their God.

    Living a life led by rationality, personal freedom of choice, total equality, and being accountable only to the laws we all agree on, is probably the highest form of blasphemy to those, who truly believe in submitting to God in every aspect in their lives.

    I guess what this boils down to is that people will always be offended by anything that is even in the least bit outside their personal domain. Most of us learn to live with it, some insist on keeping certain personal preferences 100% sacred and universally holy. Seeing that the 6.68 billion of us simply must learn to get along, I cannot see how this can be accomplished if a handful of people declare that their ideologies are totally uncompromisable, and the rest of us just have to forfeit personal freedoms for their comfort.

  • geru

    Certainly not even the most militant atheist would elevate the God Delusion to the same “sacred” status that the Quran and the Eucharist receive.

    This is of course the whole point of this exercise. No atheist will be offended, because we don’t hold certain objects sacred.

    I can’t help but wonder, if “sacred status” were replaced with something like “sentimental value”, how someone would take PZ shitting on someone’s old love letters because they’re “just paper”, or someone’s wedding dress because it’s “just cloth”

    Desecrating _a_ wafer is not like defecating on someones wedding dress, it’s like defecating on _a_ wedding dress, I would say. There is a huge difference. You have a right to be offended if somebody destroys your wedding dress, you do not have the right do demand that no one destroys theirs. And no, stating that every wedding dress in the world is sacred does not make it so.

    This may be only an act of playing with words, but I guess there really is nothing sacred. In our present societies we have come to the understanding that killing and torturing are bad things most of the time. What I mean is that I don’t see why freedom and democracy and such should be considered as ‘sacred’, they’re just ideas that seem to be working for us for the time being, and thus they should be preserved. A cracker being the body of God and thus a sacred object is not something I would consider to be sacred and worth preserving.

  • geru

    Oh, and then there’s another simple reason why this is not a hate crime:

    Desecrating a cracker is not a crime.

    It was not an act of aggression of intimidation against a group of people and it was not a crime, ergo not a hate crime.

  • ash

    Ron in Houston said

    Your right to free speech ends at their door.

    i think most people could agree with this principle if it was accepted in reverse; i.e. their right to their belief also ended at their door, and they (and any other religious belief that could not be born out by reason and evidence) did not seek to impose their willful/ignorant damaging absurdities on everyone else.

    …actually, changed my mind, ‘Your right to free speech ends at their door’ is a bit of a silly principle, else broadcasters would never allow any expression of opinion for fear of litigation! of course, you have the right to turn your TV etc off, same as the particular Catholics involved had the absolute right to politely ask Mr. Cook to return the wafer and leave. and, let’s face it, if they’d done that, there would not have been a story or issue now.

  • elf_man

    Yeah, feel free to ignore the words “hate crime”, I meant it qualified by everything else I was saying. Not so much in a technical sense. You all are right, it is not a crime and I agree that valuing objects over people is vile.
    It’s more the public nature of this, as a direct response to the “wafergate” thing that makes it so fucked up. Whatever else he’s saying about his intention, Myers clearly knew the kind of reaction it would bring, and unfortunately, it isn’t a reaction that really helps anyone. True, the reaction to the original guy taking a wafer is absurd, but this is an act designed as well as possible to horrify Catholics. The only difference between this and spray painting something onto a church wall is that the wall has material value and it would be a literal crime; the Catholics would be pissed off for much the same reasons as they are now, namely for belief-based reasons, not the cost of the wall. It’s a fine line and, given the circumstances, I think Myers crossed it.

  • http://heathendad.blogspot.com/ HappyNat

    News flash folks. If their beliefs are not entitled to any respect, then your non-belief isn’t either.

    Is non-belief respected by them now? I don’t care if “they” respect my beliefs. They can do anything they want with a symbol my lack of belief and post it on the internet. I won’t care. They can rip up a picture of my wife and post the video on youtube. I won’t care. They can photoshop a horse cock on my daughter’s head and post it on a Web site. I won’t care. If I care enough to repond at all I’ll tell them how silly they are for thinking I’d bat an eyelash.

    What PZ did he did on his own Web site, “they” just couldn’t keep themselves from watching and getting worked up in a lather. A part of them enjoyed watching and getting worked up in a lather. PZ didn’t steal anything from anyone. He didn’t rip the cracker out of some old ladies mouth while she was trying to eat Jesus. He didn’t do this in front of a catholic mass and he didn’t threaten anyone physically. And someone on here called it a hate crime? Really?

  • http://starseyer.blogspot.com Mikayla

    Of course he didn’t destroy the banana! I’m sure he ate it and then threw away the wrapper, and gave the banana perfectly proper treatment.

    X->

  • elf_man

    “And someone on here called it a hate crime?”
    That was me, HappyNat, see my last post. Not the best choice of words.

  • http://heathendad.blogspot.com/ HappyNat

    I see that elf man, thanks. I didn’t see it til after I posted.

  • http://feveredintellect.blogspot.com Viggo the Carpathian

    “Oh the huge manatee!”

    I think my coffee hit the far wall… thanks for that.

  • Siamang
  • David Crespo

    Epic lulz.

  • Matt

    I’ve heard the idea here a few times that desacrating an object someone has an emotional attachment to – like an old wedding dress – is worse than desacrating the “cracker” Catholics use because crackers have no meaning.

    This doesn’t fly. Even if you don’t believe the cracker is somehow sacred, the catholics in the church do. It’s very similar to the wedding dress arguement. An old wedding dress is only there because of the emotional attachment to it. It has no use or purpose anymore, but we wouldn’t go into a friend’s house and tear up their wedding dress even if we think their attachment to it is silly and irrational. A demonstration against a funeral is an apt comparison. I could quite easily go and make a mockery of someone’s funeral. After all it’s the funeral of a dead person. Their is nothing there except skin and bone, no brain function, and I doubt someone could even argue it’s a person at all. However, I would bet many of the atheists here don’t hate funerals simply for the fact they are emotional based and have no basis in any type of logic. So why hate Christian traditions? Why not show them logically why you believe otherwise? Isn’t this the purpose of a “friendly atheist”?

    My point is not that you have to respect another person’s belief. It is that disrespecting another’s belief to their face (or in this case in the church) – in large part just to anger them – is no way to treat another who is just as much of a human as you are.

    This only showed how silly communion is to the people who already believed communion is illogical. It’s effect was to anger people – that’s all.

    I’m Christian, and this just seemed juvenille to me. It didn’t really piss me off, but I completely understand why this would anger a lot of Christians.

  • Darryl

    My point is not that you have to respect another person’s belief. It is that disrespecting another’s belief to their face (or in this case in the church) – in large part just to anger them – is no way to treat another who is just as much of a human as you are.

    This only showed how silly communion is to the people who already believed communion is illogical. It’s effect was to anger people – that’s all.

    Precisely. There is no need to respect a belief; but there is a need to respect people. It might be worth it to disrespect some people for a really good reason, but there is none here. In this context, it is pointless to desecrate a sacred object: for those for whom nothing is sacred it’s a meaningless act because it proves nothing; for those for whom it is sacred it is a despicable act, it will not change their minds, and it proves nothing.

  • Darryl

    What do you think? Does showing pictures of dead soldiers desecrate them?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X