tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post2646818101174124465..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: CrackersStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-55185260522392499942008-07-13T19:52:00.000+00:002008-07-13T19:52:00.000+00:00I think the church should have sold the sodden waf...I think the church should have sold the sodden wafer on e-Bay or somewheres and the proceeds could have been used to pay off some of the pesky lawsuits brought on by the folks who were sexually abused by (a minority of) Roman Catholic priests as youngsters.<BR/><BR/>spikesapphoqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14568663706406638643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-54094291128140155462008-07-13T10:34:00.000+00:002008-07-13T10:34:00.000+00:00Alonzo's post (link by anticant) suggests that the...Alonzo's post (link by anticant) suggests that the action was clearly theft as there was an implied contract that the cracker would be consumed on the spot, although the response was disproportionate. <BR/><BR/>Does this imply that the cracker remains the property of the church in the same way that e.g. software remains the property of the manufacturer even though you have the CD's ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-2868928366190741402008-07-12T13:21:00.000+00:002008-07-12T13:21:00.000+00:00again, bill donahue misunderstands the 'body of ch...again, bill donahue misunderstands the 'body of christ' construct at it is currently explained. the consecrated wafer is an intermediary step (res et sacramentum). the real body of christ (as sam norton says, the 'corpus verum,' what aquinas calls 'res') is the individual people who are eating the host (one understanding), all believers (another understanding), or each and every member of the entire human race (yet a broader understanding). <BR/><BR/>donahue's comment (“it is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the body of christ”) takes on a different meaning when the very people he would pillory over the wafer, are thought of as the very body he seeks to revere.<BR/><BR/>but he is not alone. of the nine catholic priests i personally know, only two feel that the wafer is only an intermediary step to ward people making up the body of christ. the catechesis for this in the church itself, among clergy, bishops, and the average joe in the pews, is abysmally poor. and recent encyclicals only exacerbate the issue.<BR/><BR/>peace--<BR/><BR/>scottscott grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12334188123201041182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-2105115458579625252008-07-12T12:28:00.000+00:002008-07-12T12:28:00.000+00:00Pre-1914, people were far more unaware about what ...Pre-1914, people were far more unaware about what was happening in other parts of the world than they are now, and politics was almost entirely Euro-centred [colonialism didn't count]. <BR/><BR/>For a devastating critique of the Catholic Church, See "Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church", by David Ranan [available from Amazon].anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-69010560133007554902008-07-12T12:12:00.000+00:002008-07-12T12:12:00.000+00:00Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded a...Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows: “It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ.”<BR/><BR/>Yea, right.<BR/>The way some German Catholics treated Jews and gays in the concentration camps wasn't nearly as vile, was it?<BR/><BR/>As a general rule, I think we have a moral duty to allow ourselves to be offended - even if it's generally good manners not to offend other people unduly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-17776920251812642402008-07-12T11:25:00.000+00:002008-07-12T11:25:00.000+00:00anticant - In "classical liberalism" of the pre-Ve...anticant - In "classical liberalism" of the pre-Versaiiles, non-angst ridden variety, what would be the preferred solution?rqfaxlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-89127927245406448472008-07-12T10:51:00.000+00:002008-07-12T10:51:00.000+00:00Getting back to topic, Alonzo Fyfe has an interest...Getting back to topic, Alonzo Fyfe has an interesting post on this here:<BR/><BR/>http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/07/case-of-communion-cracker.htmlanticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-60311411211095104722008-07-12T10:00:00.000+00:002008-07-12T10:00:00.000+00:00The hallmark of classic liberalism is to tolerate ...The hallmark of classic liberalism is to tolerate everything except intolerance. Things started going wrong during my childhood in the 1930s, when one lot of well-intentioned people who were frightened of communism and felt guilty over the harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty made excuses for the Nazis as being a healthy antidote to Germany's social turbulence, while another lot of well-intentioned people wrongly believed that Soviet Communism was the gateway to a brave new world. Both made the mistake of betraying liberalism by turning a blind eye to atrocities for which there was accumulating evidence.<BR/><BR/>The issue is the same today, only most of the intolerance and persecution is perpetrated by religious factions who abuse our liberal tolerance by demanding 'respect' for their barmy beliefs and claim the right to do whatever they please because 'Jehovah', 'God','Jesus','Allah, or some other fictional sky-pixie is telling them to.<BR/><BR/>Surely it is the democratic task of philosophy to put these claims under the most stringent critical scrutiny, and I am glad that Stephen and some other professional philosophers such as A.C. Grayling take the trouble to do this. If we don't combat this irrational nonsense, it may well be quite literally the death of us all - including those who spout it so recklessly.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-29634109986011507962008-07-12T09:27:00.000+00:002008-07-12T09:27:00.000+00:00anticant - Is it not also that our society has not...anticant - Is it not also that our society has not worked out how to deal with intolerance while still remaining and regarding itself as tolerant?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-18418393125226250092008-07-12T06:10:00.000+00:002008-07-12T06:10:00.000+00:00"Why the handcuffs as soon as it comes to religiou..."Why the handcuffs as soon as it comes to religious topics?"<BR/><BR/>Because the policies of our rulers towards religious nutters - especially Catholics and Muslims - is motivated by fear of the consequences if they don't cave in to these peoples' barmy beliefs. <BR/><BR/>The latest instance is the alarming tribunal ruling in favour of the devout Christian registrar who refused to officiate at Civil Partnership ceremonies against Islington Council which, if sustained by a higher court, will drive a coach and horses through equality legislation and spark off a host of contentious claims to special privileges and exemptions at work and in public service provision the ground of religious 'conscience'.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-61148641441526320672008-07-11T21:42:00.000+00:002008-07-11T21:42:00.000+00:00I tend to try to err on the side of "you DON'T hav...I tend to try to err on the side of "you DON'T have the right not to be offended".<BR/><BR/>If I want to flush ten crosses down the toilet a day, you are free to be offended. But you should not be able to stop me doing it - even in public. After all, imagine how ridiculous I would seem if I tried to stop the Catholics eating their crackers, because it offended ME? Could I try to expel Catholics from universities if I were offended by their cannabalism?<BR/><BR/>I think Stephen's test is appropriate here: would anyone mount an indignant condemnation of a teenager who mocked Mrs. Thatcher at a Tory rally? Why the handcuffs as soon as it comes to religious topics?jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353716090668341520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-85303178005013912572008-07-11T19:59:00.000+00:002008-07-11T19:59:00.000+00:00"It's like Dark Age superstition and malice." I to...<B>"It's like Dark Age superstition and malice." </B><BR/><BR/>I took this to recall incidents like the one in 1243 at Berlitz, near Berlin, where, as a consequence of "torturing a wafer", all the Jews of Berlitz were burned on the spot.<BR/><BR/>What insanity! The insane beliefs that led to the massacre of Jews is unchanged to this day.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11587831604115543882008-07-11T14:35:00.000+00:002008-07-11T14:35:00.000+00:00Spam alert!Some more criticism of Myers here:http:...Spam alert!<BR/><BR/>Some more criticism of Myers here:<BR/><BR/>http://liberalrationalism.blogspot.com/2008/07/theres-no-goal-like-own-goal.html<BR/><BR/>(With a link to a youtube collection of own goals)Tony Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82354713187602056592008-07-11T11:41:00.000+00:002008-07-11T11:41:00.000+00:00@papilioHitlers last breath was some o.5 liters (a...@papilio<BR/>Hitlers last breath was some o.5 liters (assuming normal tidal breath volume). If we integrate up for a lifetime breathing for e.g. Jesus ( say 30 min -1 * 60min *24h *365d * 30y = 473040000), methinks the number gets large enough to possibly be of some significance <BR/>:-)<BR/><BR/>Cassanders<BR/>In Cod we trustAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-12077612857132054712008-07-11T10:13:00.000+00:002008-07-11T10:13:00.000+00:00Well...First off, people might like to read this p...Well...<BR/><BR/>First off, people might like to read <A HREF="http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3688" REL="nofollow">this post</A> and follow the link through to <A HREF="http://fratres.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/webster-f-cook-video-of-a-thief-and-his-excuses" REL="nofollow"/>.<BR/><BR/>I want to disagree with one aspect of Myers' post. He writes: "It's like Dark Age superstition and malice." Now I'm not certain of his meaning, but I think he means that the Roman Catholic beliefs lying behind this story are a product of the Dark Ages. If that is his meaning then he is incorrect.<BR/><BR/>The phrase 'the Body of Christ' can refer to three things - 1. the body of Jesus of Nazareth before he was crucified; 2. the community of believers; 3. the bread consecrated during the Eucharist.<BR/><BR/>In practice we can ignore 1 as it never figures in debates like this. What is significant is the way in which the other two senses have been understood in Christian history.<BR/><BR/>Let's call those two senses of 'the body of Christ' 'the church' and 'the host'.<BR/><BR/>In Christian understanding, one form of the body was 'real' or 'true'. In other words it was something that could be touched and handled, and was therefore worthy of reverence and immense - total! - respect. This was called the 'corpus verum'.<BR/><BR/>The other form of the body was only perceptible to the eyes of faith, it could only be received and understood mystically, in the context of prayer and worship. This was called the 'corpus mysticum'.<BR/><BR/>For the first thousand years or so of Christianity, the 'corpus verum', the body that could be touched and handled with reverence, referred to the church, ie the community of the baptised. So, your neighbour in the community was worthy of reverence and respect. Harming your neighbour, eg murder, wasn't just immoral, it was blasphemy. Correlative with that, the 'corpus mysticum' - that which could only be perceived with the eyes of faith - was the host, that which was consumed in the context of Eucharistic worship.<BR/><BR/>In the course of the twelfth century, in the Western church, these meanings were reversed, with awful consequences.<BR/><BR/>To begin with the more trivial, the 'corpus verum' began to be used to refer to the bread used in the Eucharist. Instead of this bread being something that could only be seen as holy by the faithful (and which didn't have a particular tangibility as <B>the</B> body) the host became _itself_ the object of worship. This can be seen through the institution of the feast of Corpus Christi in the mid-thirteenth century, and the associated development of eucharistic devotions, eg exposition, seen through the use of the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrance" REL="nofollow">monstrance</A> - the Body of Christ is being _demonstrated_ in this rite.<BR/><BR/>I happen to see this as a profound distortion of Christianity, but I needn't detain you with that, for the really malefic consequences of this shift came with the other side, ie that instead of all the baptised being the 'corpus verum', now the baptised were the 'corpus mysticum' - which had the consequence that church membership was no longer something public, it was something private, and only accessible to those with the eyes of faith. Of course, those 'eyes of faith' became identified with the institution, so, whereas harming a baptised believer would once have been utterly unthinkable theologically, with this shift in understanding you end up with the Inquisition - abuse of the body to try and establish the state of the soul. You also lay the seeds for the Reformation, and the whole gamut of western history that sees faith as something 'private' and personal, rather than public and visible.<BR/><BR/>It would be no exaggeration to say that everything that has gone wrong with Western Christianity since the 1200s can be traced to this shift.<BR/><BR/>And it's because it is traceable to the 1200s that Myers is incorrect to link this with the 'Dark Ages'. In the Dark Ages they had a different theology.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82339446789784078552008-07-11T10:11:00.000+00:002008-07-11T10:11:00.000+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30191574646274143692008-07-11T10:03:00.000+00:002008-07-11T10:03:00.000+00:00How is this different from going to a cafe (as a ...How is this different from going to a cafe (as a patron) and pocketing one of those little sachets of sugar for later? <BR/><BR/>Well its not theft surely because I could have poured it into my coffee at the cafe.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't contravene alcohol licensing laws or anything like that.<BR/><BR/>Its not a hate crime unless I do something like wave it at the proprietor as leave and shout "Ha! See! I take your sugar because I am racially superior to you!"<BR/><BR/>No violence is used in the taking.<BR/><BR/>So what is the problem with the sugar?<BR/><BR/>In the case of the cracker it would seem that the difference is simply the house rules. "All crackers must be consumed on the premises." Is this reasonable? Yes. Nonsensical and illogical maybe but easy to comply with and harmless.<BR/><BR/>Did Cook know he was acting against the house rules? Difficult to say. He knew at least a bit about the ceremony which suggests that he did but on the other hand he did not at first attempt concealment. <BR/><BR/>The response? Childish at first, becoming hysterical. What would we expect an adult to do on discovering this sort of behavior? Death threats in exchange for refusing to play along with pretend games.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-17911195688056406412008-07-11T09:15:00.000+00:002008-07-11T09:15:00.000+00:00Here is "jesus and mo" on the "crackers":http://ww...Here is "jesus and mo" on the "crackers":<BR/>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/07/09/wafer/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-40049730640383341062008-07-11T08:42:00.000+00:002008-07-11T08:42:00.000+00:00Cassanders:Someone told me when I was a kid that e...Cassanders:<BR/><BR/>Someone told me when I was a kid that every time I breathed I breathed two atoms of Hitler's last breath (I don't know why Hitler - it didn't occur to me then but occurs to me now that if it was true of Hitler it would be true of anyone dead for a reasonable length of time). I have considered doing the calculation, but chasing down all the figures is too much like hard work. There are plenty of assumptions - the carbon cycle for instance, because most of Hitler's last breath might actually now be at the sea bottom.<BR/><BR/>You could come up with a very rough average, but the confidence limits would be huge.Jithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14591821557158009912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-3671239083206181562008-07-11T08:37:00.000+00:002008-07-11T08:37:00.000+00:00Tony - well, over-reaction seems to be a worldwide...Tony - well, over-reaction seems to be a worldwide phenomenon: there are vicious circles everywhere...<BR/><BR/>Cook stole the wafer and that was bad. Then a church leader <I>"came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand," Cook said, adding she wouldn't immediately take her hands off him despite several requests.</I><BR/><BR/>Then Cook files a complaint on the assault. Then the Church files a complaint on the disruption. Then Cook receives death threats. Then Myers ridicules the Catholics. Then the Catholics issue death threats to Myers, and try to get him fired. <BR/><BR/>When the heat has died down, maybe the underlying idiocy might remain imprinted on a few memories.<BR/><BR/>"All it takes for idiocy to triumph is for intelligent people to look away," to corrupt a well-known phrase.<BR/><BR/>One could argue the extent to which offence must be avoided.Jithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14591821557158009912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-35693424871930870802008-07-11T08:09:00.000+00:002008-07-11T08:09:00.000+00:00In my youth I read "Walt Disney's": "Our Friend T...In my youth I read "Walt Disney's": <BR/>"Our Friend The Atom". (It was a nice piece of pro-nuclear propaganda. I expect a lage team of Authors was involved) :-) <BR/><BR/>In a chapter trying to vizualise/conceptualise the small size and large numbers that are characteristic of the atomic scale, a fairly interesting example was presented. <BR/>The authors had calculated the stunning number of individual atoms in each of your breaths that Leonardo Da Vinci once also had inhaled.<BR/><BR/>It has struck me that this example could have been elaborated much further and braver, and with possible relevance to the Eucharist issue. I suggest a similar calculation could be made for e.g. carbon, and a number could be presented for how many carbon atoms in you body that was part of any individual at 0 AD. <BR/>So if you believe that there existed ONE historical Jesus, your body do in fact contain a substantial number of atoms that also was present in Jesus. <BR/><BR/>And please note, a belief in bodily resurrestion and physical translocation does not have much implication for this calculation. The carbon in a human body is turned over several times through the life-span of a human.<BR/><BR/>Apparently no need for wafers and old cannibalistic rites. <BR/><BR/>Cassanders<BR/>In Cod we trustAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-38757242404497286392008-07-11T07:27:00.000+00:002008-07-11T07:27:00.000+00:00I wonder what the church did with the blessed crac...<I>I wonder what the church did with the blessed cracker when they got it back- how could they respectfully dispose of it?</I><BR/><BR/>Sally, I imagine that they would "respectfully dispose of it" in exactly the same way as they normally do - by eating it.<BR/><BR/>Apparently kidnapping God is an unforgivable offense, but eating him - well, that's just what you do with God, right?Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-79855498221052258652008-07-11T00:02:00.000+00:002008-07-11T00:02:00.000+00:00I personally love PZ's post. Simply because it got...I personally love PZ's post. Simply <A HREF="http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459" REL="nofollow">because it got Bill Donahue involved.</A> If you piss off that guy, you have to be doing something right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82505193747002693192008-07-10T21:51:00.000+00:002008-07-10T21:51:00.000+00:00Hi Papilio (I cut and pasted your name, so I would...Hi Papilio <BR/><BR/>(I cut and pasted your name, so I wouldn't miss-spell it like I did Myers!)<BR/><BR/>"What do you mean? That transubstantiation is not an idiotic idea?"<BR/><BR/>No - that I cannot see it as of any importance whatsoever that it is (or isn't) an idiotic idea. <BR/><BR/>I don't think the issue is with the volume of P. Z. Myers' barking. It's with the target of his wrath: it's the over-reaction that is the problem, not the ideas.Tony Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11273290409007147802008-07-10T21:43:00.000+00:002008-07-10T21:43:00.000+00:00Well I don't think it's a hate crime because I don...Well I don't think it's a hate crime because I don't think there was any intent on the part of Webster Cook to cause offense. If there was then it would be. Meyers compares what Cook did to murdering someone in order to claim that "hate crime" is inappropriate. That's not really the issue though: that's a question of how <I>bad</I> a crime it is. "Hate crime" covers, rightly, expression. It is fine for us to discuss the Invisible Pink Unicorn (may Her shoes never be shod) but if you and I were to stick posters of her all over a Sikh temple then we would be guilty of a hate crime. We would also be guilty of a hate crime sticking "God hates Fags" posters all over a gay-youth drop in centre. <BR/><BR/>Apart from the level of offense Meyers appears to be arguing that it can't be a hate crime if you are attacking something stupid. The underlying assumption is that you have to justify what you do and believe before anyone should respect it. I would agree that you would have to justify something (and that they cannot justify it) in order to impose it on anyone, but not to be entitled to do your own thing in your own church. <BR/><BR/>I think the priest's words were an attempt to explain just how offensive he found it. Clearly he's failed, but I think that's what he was trying to do. I do think he should come out and say that "these death threats are not on, you know. Anyway, we've a nun on the case and the whole thing is sorted". Without that then he seems to be complicit in the over-reaction. But, then again, he might well have done that and it not been reported. If he hasn't done it then his fault is one of inaction. <BR/><BR/>"I find the church's reaction far more worrying" I don't know. Inaction in the face of over-reaction or a supposed defender of reason making it plain that "reason" is "agreeing with me"? The Catholic Church is <I>supposed</I> to be irrational: Meyers is not. But more, if the Catholic Church should control those in its fold who act badly (the death-threat merchants) the rationalist community ought to act against <I>its</I> members who resort to positively anti-rational, arrogant pontificating.(Just as people dislike Islam because of the Islamic terrorists people dislike rationalism because of the authoritarian "militant-atheism" that Meyers has shown.)Tony Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.com