Saturday, July 12, 2008

It's. A. Fucking. Cracker.


Get. Over. It.

10 comments:

Chet Scoville said...

Trouble is, he's tapped into a really old and primal bit of imagery. The reaction is certainly not rational, but it's sadly not surprising either if you're familiar with the history.

I hope he's being careful; this sort of thing can be really really dangerous.

CC said...

Chet:

I have to think that, while PZ is normally a bit controversial, he might have stepped in it this time. As a well-known academic, I think he has to exercise at least a little restraint, and this doesn't seem like a good move on his part. But we'll see what happens.

Chimera said...

I wasn't sure just how "serious" as "insult" this whole incident actually was, so I asked a Catholic. After he quit laughing (and calling Donohue a disgrace to Catholics around the world), he said that the "cracker" was just that: a cracker...

...until the faith of the communicant changes it into the body of Christ.

If the person with the cracker has no faith, there is no transsubstantiation.

So if some fool walks out of a church with the cracker in his hand, all he has is future crumbs.

And all this bloody fuss is simply someone stirring up shit because he's not getting the attention to which he feels entitled, the stupid shit-for-brains.

robert_m_sykes said...

The real issue is not the status of the wafer, which is a matter of faith, but Myers very public, vitriolic hatred of Catholics. There must be a few Catholics in his classes at UMM. Do not his words create a hostile work place environment for them? He is a biologist, and therefore a Darwinist. What would the situation be if he adopted a social darwinist argument (as did Darwin himself) to demean blacks?

James Bow said...

I'm pretty sure that Darwin never adopted a social darwinist argument.

Chimera said...

I've never seen any evidence that Myers hates Catholics, with or without vitriol. And his being a biologist does not immediately and inevitably translate to his being a Darwinist.

And all work places are hostile. Thoughts and words do not make them more or less so.

People need to bloody grow up and quit thinking they're entitled to go through life without conflict of any kind.

CC said...

robert_m_sykes writes:

"The real issue is not the status of the wafer, which is a matter of faith, but Myers very public, vitriolic hatred of Catholics."

Au contraire, Myers doesn't despise Catholics; rather, he clearly despises the idiotic teachings of the Catholic Church, which is perfectly acceptable behaviour.

There may be a few Catholics in his classes who get their widdle feelings hurt but, really, if your beliefs are abysmally absurd and moronic, you have no right to object when someone simply points that out.

The lesson here is simple: If you don't want your religious beliefs described as idiotic, then stop espousing idiotic religious beliefs.

Simple, n'est-ce pas?

s said...

You can try splitting hairs by claiming that hating someone's beliefs is not the same as hating the person. Real life is different. Moreover, claiming that Catholics have no right to object doesn't make it so. They do have every right to object...and they will.

Myers is going to regret being such a dink about this whole issue.

CC said...

s writes:

"You can try splitting hairs by claiming that hating someone's beliefs is not the same as hating the person. Real life is different."

Um ... "hate the sin, but love the sinner." Where have I heard that before? Oh ... right. You might want to rethink that argument, s. Seriously.

s said...

Hmmm. That's very Christian of you.

However, I think there is a big difference between disagreeing with someone's lifestyle vs. antagonizing them.