Defending Communion

I think you are missing the whole point: it's a cracker. It is an inanimate object which people are treating as if it were alive, or somehow more important then a living person.

Belief does not make something true. A cracker is a cracker, no matter what words you say over it. It has as much magic as saying abracadabra over a glass of newt blood and frog eyes, or putting on one's lucky underwear before taking an exam.

PZ was responding to the ridiculous outraged caused by a student who absconded with a wafer, and was lambasted for it. He was pointing out the utter lunacy of thinking one can desecrate a piece of bread.

Burn a flag, rip up a picture of my spouse, throw out my lucky shirt, steal my gallon of newt blood...who cares? They are only THINGS. Superstitious amulets that some give way too much meaning to.

The view he "despises" is not belief in a wafer; it's that such a belief would drive people to try and get someone fired, or cause people to make death threats.

That it does cause such irrational and over-the-top actions shames the very object they are claiming to hold so dear and holy; and demonstrates the utter irrationality and mindlessness of these so-called "true believers".

It's a cracker. It's a thing. And those who value things over people have truly taken the wrong path somewhere.

Sadly, your belief that it is "just a cracker" does not make your belief true.

The best way to convince believers they are wrong is through arguments, reason, and persuasive art.

Rudeness and desecration only lends the aura of persecution to their beliefs. It is also bad p.r. for Meyers (outside of the loud and tiny bubble of his true believers.)

If he had wanted to make the point that Christians should not get "people fired" for their unbelief (in public jobs), he would have had a friend in me. Doing so while intentionally causing pain to others whose views he finds foolish is something else.

Meyers language choices ( such as "g-d d-mned cracker") indicate his goal was not particularly noble.

Finally, even if there is no God, Meyers view of what is "real" is too thin.

The belief that a "thing" that humans give meaning is still just a thing (like a wedding ring) undercuts human creativity and the value of their decisions. The meaning we give a thing is "real" . . . though it cannot be put in a test tube.

If a man went on a first date to Disneyland and cherished the mouse ears he got there . . . and then Meyers decided to deface them to show they were just a weird hat . . . then an important symbol of the man's life would have been attacked.

Of course (given our assumption of atheism), the ears have no meaning other than those given to them by the human. Still humans can give value to things and those things have (thereby) an importance to them.

Maybe they have picked stupid things to give value . .. maybe the reasons they give them value are foolish (though Meyers should start by getting a firm grip on Aristotle and Aquinas if he wants to make that claim). Pointing that out is fair enough.

Being boorish and uncivil is not.

Still my main point is that Meyers (who harms his own cause more than mine) is not the main threat to anything. . . and that Christians must continue (happily) to pay his salary in his public job.

Thanks for the comment. Sadly my travel will not allow me to post much on this thread.

What Darlene said below was eloquent and I completely agree.

I would add the following in response to what Reynold's wrote: "P.Z. Meyers seems intent on hurting people because he disagrees with them. Traditional Christians may be misguided in their beliefs, but to go out of the way to cause them mental anguish is inexcusable. Sharp intellectual arguments or satiric art is one thing, but to act as Meyers has is to cause pain without purpose."

Consider that instead of P.Z. "attacking" communion, he was "attacking" paranormal enthusiasts who fervently believe ghosts walk among us. Would you consider him causing mental anguish for pointing out that these paranormalists are misguided? Would it be inappropriate to point out to them that they are grasping at any evidence, evidence that might even be proven false, in order to support their belief? Or would you council P.Z. to just leave them alone in their delusion?

Your article Mr. Reynolds comes purely from the Catholic believer point of view. It does not even consider that P.Z. finds himself living in a world of delusional people who, when their delusions are pointed out, can get mad if not violent. And today we see these delusional people working their influence in government to change laws to abide by the delusion. Would you be happy to see paranormal research groups in every department of our government, funds given to study the paranormal, HHS funding to study paranormal healing, NASA funding to study ESP contact with aliens, DOD funding to study using ghosts in wartime? I doubt it, but that is where P.Z. is coming from and why there is some pushback from some like P.Z. to not just religion, but religion being used to make laws against access to abortion, stem cell research, laws concerning the death penalty, tax laws, etc. All P.Z. is trying to do is point out just how delusional one must be to believe a cracker becomes the body of a man believed to have been alive 2000 years ago, and when that is challenged, instead of debate using facts, an emotional response is received.

What I find interesting is that pointing out the delusion is causing anguish. That says something about your faith when someone outside the faith mocking your faith hurts you. Christians should consider the hurt they cause when they put crosses on their license plates, or fish icons on their cars or "Jesus loves you" bumper stickers. Have the faithfull ever considered the anguish they cause when they smugly point out to non christians that they are going to hell while the believer is going to paradise?

Keep your religion (and its associated delusions) in your church Mr. Reynolds and the P.Z. Meyers of the world will be glad to leave you alone.

I should add that the "mere words" are not what I am attacking on Meyers part.

Say what you will in a free society! No theist should ever be much concerned with what some global village atheist like Meyers says.

He went beyond words and called for actions unnecessary to his argument (or lifestyle) that will cause severe distress to his neighbors. It is hard enough living in this pluralistic world without going out of one's way to hurt our neighbors . . .

The hurt was not necessary to Meyers living out his secular life, making his argument, or living his life.

Off to my many travel adventures. (Meyers might point out that the best argument against intelligent design are airlines.)

To reiterate once again, the Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopalian Eucharist is a great symbol of the life of a simple preacher man. Scientifically and realistically, it is nothing more than a low-calorie, sometimes stale wafer and/or inexpensive, sometimes sour wine.

The comment by "Fate" misses the point. He says:

Keep your religion (and its associated delusions) in your church Mr. Reynolds and the P.Z. Meyers of the world will be glad to leave you alone.

Good!

Now Meyers (or his friends) should stay out of those churches with their stated desire not to stop at words but to desecrate the Eucharist.

This is not about words.

Meyers (and believers) can say whatever they wish. No harm done to theism (as far as I can tell) by people who speak as Meyers does!

This is about his rude and unnecessary call (unnecessary to make his argument) to desecrate what others hold sacred.

I am not a Catholic . . . and don't even play one on television (!) . . . but would oppose any Christian acting this way to anyone.

John,
If Jesus existed and was tortured, then those who did the beating and killing and those who were able to help but failed to do so are the ones who bare responsibility. It's insane to suggest that by gossiping someone takes on guilt for a crime that they had absolutely nothing to do with and could not possibility have stopped. If you want to criticize the actions of a person, say, for gossiping, then do so on the basis of the actual consequences of that act and not on some imagined, sadistic picture of an innocent man being tortured. Grow up.

John,
If Jesus existed and was tortured, then those who did the beating and killing and those who were able to help but failed to do so are the ones who bare responsibility. It's insane to suggest that by gossiping someone takes on guilt for a crime that they had absolutely nothing to do with and could not possibility have stopped. If you want to criticize the actions of a person, say, for gossiping, then do so on the basis of the actual consequences of that act and not on some imagined, sadistic picture of an innocent man being tortured. Grow up.

Theologically, the consecrated bread and wine hold Jesus' body and blood, but only to the believer who receives the sacrament. In the hands of an unbeliever, it is cracker and grape juice. So, no desecration can be accomplished, and it simply shows the stupidity of the would-be desecrator in the theology he/she dispises for no logical reason. The same is true for the burning of an effigy of Bush or the Flag, or for that matter a bra or draft card. Unless...the desecrator actually BELIEVES the object holds that to be dispised! So, is Professor Meyers a closet professor of Christian Faith? If so, then it is indeed desecration, and he has actually committed the Mortal Sin and he will stand to be corrected in some future scenario in front of his Maker. Luckily for the Professor, Jesus' physical body and blood was desecrated so that all desecrators can ultimately be saved from their folly. Yes, Prof. Meyers, there is hope for you, you lucky guy!

Mr. Reynolds,

First let me say I am glad to see you are a participant in the discussion. Too many of these blogs are just statements by the blogger who then disappears, causing the blog to decend into tit-for-tat nonsense. This is refreshing.

Second, I am not approving of what Myers is doing. I am simply pointing out that there can be a reaction when religion becomes evangelical, in-your-face, and sometimes mocking of atheists. I am saying that you should consider what Myers is doing is a reaction, not an unprovoked attack. You see, to an atheist, believing a wafer is the body of Jesus is as delusional as believing that flying planes into buildings gets you paradise and 72 virgins. And if you think the christian delusion cannot take on a dark side please interview a few abortion doctors or embryonic stem cell researchers to learn about the fear they live under and from whom.

Fate,

If I drop out soon it is due to travel . . . not lack of interest. I owe very much good to the secular people in my life (mentors, former students, and friends.)

I agree that Christians do sometimes cause unneeded pain to them. Sadly, I have done that myself at times.

Of course when Christians engage in acts like killing abortion doctors that is very evil and should be (and is) roundly condemned by all believers.

I don't see why more secularists just don't condemn the actions urged by Meyers (not his ideas or words) . . . since he has obviously beclowned himself.

The inability of secularists to do anything but rally around him on public blogs would not speak well of them.

We all have "leaders" we wish would vanish . . . or even become clowns ourselves through foolish things we say . . . but Meyers seems to like what he said and seems intent on doing it.

That is folly for my good secular friends!

JOHN MARK REYNOLDS

You wrote, "Roman Catholics believe these "consecrated communion wafers" are the Body and Blood of Christ".

I am a Catholic and I used to believe that the Eucharist is Jesus but ever since the Holy Spirit came into my body and revealed to me that the Eucharist is Jesus, I now know it.

You also wrote, "The philosophy behind this is complex, finding roots in Aristotle by way of Aquinas.".

We, as humans, sometimes try to make the simple so complex with fancy scientifically sounding words such as "transubstantiation" when Jesus said very simply, "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood", really it is that simple, there is no need to to try and explain the unexplainable.

What is simple and true is simple and true, whether anyone believes it or not, remember what was written, "The mysteries of the Kingdom have been revealed to the little ones", these might not be the exact words but they get to the point.

Another thing that you wrote, "Meyers blasphemes a God he does not know, but we fail in our duty to a God we do know."

There is a difference between knowing God and believing in God. Before God the Father came into my heart, I believed in Him but now I know that He is real. Before God the Holy Spirit came into my body, I believed in Him but now I know that He is real. Before the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, I believed that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus now I know that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus.

The reason that I say the Catholic Eucharist is because I was at a Catholic Mass in Ocean City, Md when this happened.

I refer to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as He but God is not a He, a She or an It but is a Being of Pure Love even tho Jesus Who is God-Incarnate was a Male.

Since we are humans, we need to use human language in speaking of God, God tho is a Trinity of Pure Love.

God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

Isn't it interesting that some people seem to get so upset about other's people's beliefs, both believers in God and those that believe that God is not real?

You bring up some very good points that seem to say that if someone calls themself a "Christian" then they should at least try to be one, is this accurate?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I'm confused by a lot of the comments about this article. It seems to me that those who espouse reason above all else happen to be the ones shunning it with their comments.

What Mr. Reynolds is stating makes perfect sense and reason to me, an atheist. Theists and atheists should be able to live side by side without mocking what others hold as important. In this circumstance, it is not necessary to demand proof that the theists' god exists but that the symbol (regardless of its religious nature) is something held dear. In all logical sense, to deface a symbol shouldn't mean anything. But, last time I checked, logic is only half of the human brain. The other half, the emotional side, is just as important and shouldn't be so easily dismissed. Without either, human beings would have become extinct long long ago.

Can any of you, regardless of whether you have a God or believe it to be a superstition, really claim that someone tearing up a picture of your husband/wife or spitting on your wedding ring would NOT offend you or at least cause you pain emotionally?

This really doesn't sound like a religious matter to me. It sounds like it is a matter of treating all humans with dignity.

Isn't blasphemy a crime without a victim?

This is NOT blasphemy.

This is the desecration of religious icons and a deliberate violation of the right to worship without threat of intimidation or violence.

Do you think the authors would be calling for toleration if he had instructed his followers to take part in Jewish ceremonies under false pretense, take religious icons and then desecrate them in public?

All in the name of what? Intimidating Jews...

Do you think the author would approve???

Ii had never heard of this guy Myers, before nor of this incident, so I did a google search on his name, and got a little background information.

I think this article is not written in good faith, but leaves alot out of the controversy about what the contending "sides" have done to each other.

The main problem that (some) Christians have with this man is that he is a scientist who seeks to block the promotion of "intelligent design" as a substitute for science. I cannot find fault with him for that.

If conservative Christians set themselves up against science, and set themselves up in opposition to equal rights for all people, then they are engaging in a struggle which they cannot win.

I personally feel that many conservartive Christians and relgiious people in general have a sense of entitlement regarding their religion and demand respect for their beliefs which they are not prepared to extend to others.

Daniel,

Don't try to fit the story here to your personal bias.

This attack is on Catholics, who accept evolution and do not promote ID.

"The public university cannot prosper if we hire a man or woman to teach a subject and then fire them because we find their personal views repugnant."

What about holocaust denial? Or 911 Truth?

What happened to Ward Churchhill?

I think we can expect publicly funded universities not to employ staff that incite hate against religious or minority groups.

PZ has shown his extreme unbalance and unfit intellect for the job.

Also, how do you think Catholics or religious now feel taking his classes?

Anonymous

Since you know so much about it, why don't you tell us more?

Why should I get worked up worried about something that I have never even heard of, and don't know anything about?

You did not aacknowledge my thoughts about (some) Christians wanting respect, which they are unwilling to extend to others.

Might you be one of these people?

Nothing to get worked up for you, Dan.

However, regular folks and Catholic who see this act of theft/desecration as a violation of the right to worship freely might want to write a letter or two.

Do we want a liberal or illiberal society?

Here is the address of the UMM chancellor:

Chancellor Johnson
jrjohnso@morris.umn.edu

Daniel-

The problem you're having is that you're finding incorrect reasons for this. You cite that previously people had been set against him because he was a scientist against ID. Problem there is that the Catholic church is pro-evolution and pro-science, since science is not at all a contradictor nor threat to its doctrine. So he had no reason whatsoever based on any Christian criticism of his stance to support that kind of activity which is solely to be inflammatory against the Catholic church.

There comes a point when someone stops 'proving a point' and starts 'being a prick', and words like that well cross it. He's just guilty of what Fundamentalists are, and it's inexcusable all around.

would your opinion change if he were expousing a theory that blacks were inferior, that the kkk was the only true politicial party, that every student had to follow islam in his class.
the fact of the matter is - we all have to deal with how our beliefs effect those around us and how we can also be effected by those beliefs and their effct on others.
just because your title is professor does not give you a magic robe that protects you from the fallout your beliefs cause.
teachers, politicians, police, doctors, everyone, have to deal with their beliefs and how they effect the way others will deal with them.
teachers claim this special right, and so do actors. they claim its their right to say what they want and when we dont go to their movies because we dont like their politics, well we are trying to silence them. they not only demand the right to say what they want, the demand that we spend our money to support them, even if we disagree.
no special privileges for teachers, or anyone else.
you say it you live with it.

David - we as Catholics cannot miss the opportunity here. I've often found that people who have no passion, whether it be hatred or love, are the ones who rarely convert. Typically the more anger one shows toward Christianity, the more they are in touch with reality. That is, they still have not seen the Truth, but they know something very important is going on, and they are rebelling against it with every ounce of energy they can muster. This is a good sign. Most of the time they convert and become very devout Catholics. The number of disinterested agnostics vastly outnumber the angry atheists. The ones that give me pause are the ones who don't seem to care about anything.

To those of you who are offended by "Jesus loves you" or a fish symbol on a car, have you ever thought about why you are offended? Could it be you are under conviction?

Sorry if this offends you, but there is a God, He loves you and never rejected you -- you rejected Him-- and He waits for you to seek Him.

There are some seriously sick, self-serving, self-aggrandizing people out there. Taking the bait of their lunatic ravings and attempting even an intelligent, softly-phrased response simply legitimizes their rants and encourages their illogical polemic. That we have the P Z Meyers' of the world means nothing to me. I do not plan to use the methodology of science to attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God any more than I would use the tools of faith to discern the pi meson. Put another way, AC cream separators don't run on DC current. Period. Science and religion are not incompatible so long as one doesn't attempt to use the tools of one to meddle in the other. The ranting, mindless non-believers are no more significant than the ranting, mindless dogmatists, and the rest of us suffer needlessly for the presence of both. I am secure in my own Catholic faith, don't feel the necessity to justify it to anyone, and am unbothered by the nutcases running loose in the world, both extreme camps of which would seize and destroy anything of value to the other. That way lies madness. My thanks to the original author for the thoughtful commentary. Meaningful answers are not found in the rants of mindless respondents to the original post, no matter how much noise they make.

There are some seriously sick, self-serving, self-aggrandizing people out there. Taking the bait of their lunatic ravings and attempting even an intelligent, softly-phrased response simply legitimizes their rants and encourages their illogical polemic. That we have the P Z Meyers' of the world means nothing to me. I do not plan to use the methodology of science to attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God any more than I would use the tools of faith to discern the pi meson. Put another way, AC cream separators don't run on DC current. Period. Science and religion are not incompatible so long as one doesn't attempt to use the tools of one to meddle in the other. The ranting, mindless non-believers are no more significant than the ranting, mindless dogmatists, and the rest of us suffer needlessly for the presence of both. I am secure in my own Catholic faith, don't feel the necessity to justify it to anyone, and am unbothered by the nutcases running loose in the world, both extreme camps of which would seize and destroy anything of value to the other. That way lies madness. My thanks to the original author for the thoughtful commentary. Meaningful answers are not found in the rants of mindless respondents to the original post, no matter how much noise they make.

Christian writes:

"To those of you who are offended by "Jesus loves you" or a fish symbol on a car, have you ever thought about why you are offended?"

Boy, you Xians are full of yourselves. I haven't seen so much righteous indignation since Reagan wailed against his fictional welfare queens.

Nobody is "offended" by these things because - to be honest about it - religion doesn't rise to the level of being able to cause offense. Mild amusement? Sure. Abject bewilderment? Maybe. But offense? Get a life.

I'm not offended by kids who believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy, but it would be remiss of me as a sentient, intelligent person to not challenge any ADULT who averred that Santa & Toothie were real, and that our laws and our lives needed to bow and scrap before their sayings and magical powers.

Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but your god is just as mythical as are Santa and Toothie.

I think the only offense here is the offense against rationality, and that is coming from your religious perspective, not from the perspective of the non-fantasist.

your savior is a cracker. *nelson laugh*

Some theologians have often quoted a probably Apocryphal statement of Queen Elizabeth I at the time of the Elizabethan Settlement of the question about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. She purportedly said: "Christ took some bread and brake it/He made some words and spake it/ and what those words do make it/ I believe and take it." And then she added (with more authority) to that as the QUEEN and Absolute Ruler: "And, gentlemen, I WILL HAVE PEACE in MY REALM." There may have been dissenters but they were loathe to publicize it!

What a contrived stupid article about the eucharist. The metaphysics behind the Eucharist which means "Give Thanks" is clearly delineated in the gospels by Jesus Christ, in which Jesus say "This is my body, this is my blood". Now earlier Jesus talks about unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can have no life in you. The Greek text word for eat is the same word used by Jews when they designated to chew the bones of food. So of course the Jews reacted negatively to that.

Now the Thomistic interpretation uses the Aristotlean distinction between essence versus appearances - called accidents and substance in the latin because the latin language had no word for essence or "ouzia" in the Greek. The essence of a thing is its quiddity - what it is in itself.
So the bread and wine continue to look like bread and wine even though they have actually become the body and blood of Christ.

Now you either believe it is what we catholics claim it is or you don't. If you don't then it doesn't make sense to demean it and you do then it makes even less sense to demean the presence of God who you will soon come before in judgment.
So much for the claim that atheistists are brilliant more likely just arrogant.

Now you should be able to understand the meaning of Matthew 7:6 when Jesus says, "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you." (RSV)

Now you should be able to understand the meaning of Matthew 7:6 when Jesus says, "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you." (RSV)

Now you should be able to understand the meaning of Matthew 7:6 when Jesus says, "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you." (RSV)

WARNING: THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN IN BAD FAITH.

Not one single mention of the very event that triggered this whole tempest in a teapot. The student Webster Cook entered a communion line, received communion, did not ingest the wafer, was allegedly rough-handled by church-goers, and left church with the wafer. After this, the student was blasted with e-mails to include death threats, and was targeted by the infamous Bill Donahue, self-appointed Chairman for Catholic Hurt Feelings, who called for the students expulsion, no doubt triggering more nasty e-mails and death threats.

PZ Myers blog piece, whether in good taste or bad, was a defense of this student from the witch hunt of the Catholic community.

I don't personally feel Dr. Myers' actions were civil or appropriate, but you'd think a smear-job would at least include the context in which Dr. Myers' wrote the blog.

All of this info is readily available on Dr. Myers' blog, "Pharyngula", and Bill Donahue's website, "the Catholic League".

oooooogahhh boooogaaaahhh!

You'll all fry in hell you wounded swine. God will fry you with his other babies. You're all guilty. You always will be. Frrrryyyyyyyyy! sizzle sizzle.

I've had communion with leftover hamburger buns and squashed grapes.

The symbol becomes part of the reality in which it participates, but it's still only a symbol.

The beauty and sacredness of communion is in the ritual and the connection with God, not the stuff you put in your mouth.

Some of the most powerful spiritual experiences I've had are when serving communion and looking into people's eyes.

Christian wrote: "To those of you who are offended by "Jesus loves you" or a fish symbol on a car, have you ever thought about why you are offended? Could it be you are under conviction?"

Hardly. But tell me, does the Darwin/fish symbol bother you? It should. It was put there by someone tired of seeing Christians putting fish and crosses on their cars to state that inside this car is a Christian, as though that is somehow important in some way. Its telling you that your religious expression is based on ignorance.

Christian wrote: "Sorry if this offends you, but there is a God, He loves you and never rejected you -- you rejected Him-- and He waits for you to seek Him."

I never rejected God, he rejected me through his church's actions toward me and others. His church discriminated against blacks and in many areas still does. His church's priests are not normal people ... just wierdos who were utterly uneducated (one told me rocks grew slowly, like plants, and that's how we get mountains). I experienced the cruelty of the nuns. I remember Catholic summer camp that had grates at the entrance "to keep blacks out". I remember one nun who attacked a student sending him to the hospital. But most of all I remember the fear that was imposed, a fear that if you stepped out of line GOD would be on your like white on rice. They demanded money and questioned my parents when they did not give the "customary amount", intimidating them into giving more. I saw little love from my church or others I attended, and God help you if you question anything like "Father, how did the kangaroos hop from the ark to Australia?" because that would get you a smack upside the head but no answer.

Sorry for the rant. There is a lot more but I'll save the bits. You get the point. I understand the church is not God but while I see evidence of a church, I see no evidence of a God and quite frankly either do you except in your imagination. So please do not attempt to threaten my soul. I've overcome the fear and guilt the church imposed. I just feel sorry for those still trapped by the fear and really hate to see it applied to those still under its spell. That is how I see your religious symbols on cars, just arrogant pushing of fear, loathing, and a sophamore mentality of us versus them.

I'm heading out to put a Darwin symbol on my car. Its not arrogance, its just me expressing my love for you and hope to save your soul from the evil of mindless religion and guide you toward the salvation of reason and education. So please, don't be offended but if you are maybe your convictions are not what you thought they were.

For Joe who wrote at 4pm

You wrote:

"I've had communion with leftover hamburger buns and squashed grapes."

You may have had *YOUR* communion but you haven't had *Catholic* communion (*THE REAL PRESENCE*).

You wrote:

"The symbol becomes part of the reality ..... but it's still only a symbol."

For Catholics, your statement is spot wrong! Nothing symbolic about it ....... THE BODY AND THE BLOOD OF OUR LORD , JESUS CHRIST!

See John 6: 51-59

John Mark Reynolds; getting it wrong almost from the gate. If you had read beyond what Billy over at the Catholic League provided you it would be clear that indeed Prof. Myers' statements were indeed a, "great argument", and even perhaps "artful satire" but the jury will have to await his decision on what future actions to take.

Rather than doing the reader the disservice of providing only a 30% view into this tempest, why don't you discuss what preceded PZ's posting such as the physical attacks on Cook, the death threats he received, the public planning of "squads" to break into Cook's home and "rescue"?

Going further, with all the public outcry associated with Crackergate, why hasn't a single national Catholic official stood up and denounced the incredibly un-Christian behavior of those church members in Florida who attacked Cook? Or encouraged those who drew parallels between murder, rape, kidnapping, and the absconding of a cracker to get a little perspective.

No, instead, it would seem the sheep would rather bear false witness and play the victim; making it appear that PZ awoke one morning and announced to the world, "Hey! I had a great idea! I want to offend a bunch of Catholics! Send me crackers!"

Why are Chrisians so angry?

They're alwyas so angry about every little thing, even though they're dominant and priviliged, in every way.

This thread makes me dispair for America. Looks like we have substantial belief for the transubstantiation of the elements. hoo boy. I am not against having sincere beliefs, or having a feeling for sacred moments. But folks, sometimes a pastor asks me to go to a store and buy juice and a loaf of fresh bread for the communion service. And its because these are important to a symbolic ceremony that Christians share. But that's where the line gets drawn.

Nothing "happens" to the elements. They stay bread and juice. There is no divine cannibalism going on. Afterwards, the unused pieces of bread have no obvious significance because the bread goes into the trash and the juice goes down the drain.

And, sadly, the pederast priest goes off to his children's hour.

Magical thinking and superstition is going to pull down the remnant of what constitutes Christianity. We need to live in the world. Tight minds, responsible actions, morality based in respect for common humanity.

Get real. Check the ingredients on the box of wafers.

Dr. Myers is showing the silliness of Christian superstition with this stunt. If he were poking fun at scientology, wicca, or the gods of ancient Greece, would the christians on the WP blog speak out against it?

There is a difference between mocking a religion and mocking a clearly delusional aspect of a religion.

I would be offended if Meyer desecrated a cross because it is a symbol of Christianity. It is a symbol with no claim supernatural power or properties. However, I have no problem with Meyer desecrating cracking that is alleged to be the body of Christ. He is mocking the absurd belief that a consecrated cracker has some supernatural property. He is not mocking Catholicism, he is mocking one ridiculous aspect of Catholicism.

Dave,

I've had Catholic communion, in Rome on Easter Eve. I couldn't tell any difference.

I have seen great sadness in a nun's eyes when she couldn't serve me communion during a retreat I was on, because I was a Protestant.

I'm not sure what the scriptural basis is for denying a Christian communion.

In the Methodist church, we have an "open table." We do not presume to judge who gets it and who doesn't.

Seems to me that's what Jesus would have done.

That being said, I respect your denomination's doctrine to limit it to whomever they please.

OUTLAW TORN

I considered your post of 1:01 PM a good post and if people, atheists and theists and all in between would actually read it and think.

There sure does seem to be some "atheists" that are just as "religiously fanatic" about their "beliefs" as some who call themselves "christian" and seem to know nothing about God except for His Name.

If God was even remotely like what some who call themselves "christian", who would want to have anything to do with Him?

Something that really seems to shine thru on some of these posts, on On Faith not just this particular post, is that some seem to be mad at God for giving people free will when they do not even believe that God is real or that we have free will.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Is there any evidence that a consecrated host is anything more than a piece of bread? If not, then why should the Catholic opinion that it is the body of Christ enjoy any greater respect than any other unsubstantiated opinion?

"Meyers is invincibly ignorant of sophisticated philosophy or theology..." There is no basis for a belief in Jesus nor God(s). There is simply no empirical, testable evidence that would suggest anything supernatural let alone a God(s) that have created the universe. This is trying to argue against the claim that the Emperor has No Clothes (The Courtier's Reply) by claiming I have no knowledge of cloth, weaving, thread, nor fashion. I simply do not need any of this knowledge to see that the Emperor is Naked.

Nobody has found any reasonably sound evidence for a historical Jesus. The overturning of the money changers' tables should have generated numerous historical records. There are none. The list goes on and on.

Arguing or discussing a philosophy which is based on confused, contradictory stories is absurd.

For Jim 1138.

You wrote:

"Nobody has found any reasonably sound evidence for a historical JESUS."

Au contraire!

The following are secular (non-christian) writers who reference the historical JESUS.

1. Tacitus (Annals XV. 42. 2-8)

2. Josephus (Antiquities XVIII 63f)

3. Talmud (200-500 ce)

4. Seutonius

5. Pliny

6. Thallus

7. Others

For Arensb at 5:47 pm.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

But, if that is your heartfelt opinion or, you are not Catholic, please refrain from receiving Catholic Communion. Thank you.

Dear Dave -

Your list of secular authors who "reference Jesus" is fraught with perils. None was a contemporary of Jesus. Most reference Jesus by noting that the Christians they were persecuting spoke about a guy named Jesus, but that's hardly proof that he existed.

Josephus is a special case as early Xians forged references about Jesus into his works, forgeries that modern scholars have shown definitively as forgeries, spectacularly so in the case of the Testimonium Flavianum.

And citing Pliny is certainly a two-edged sword as his writings say that early Xians were more likely to denounce Christ and renounce their faith than they were willing to be put to death for their faith. Pliny's writings certainly put the lie to the "they went to their deaths for Christ" fables.

I'm afraid there is no "au contraire" to Jim138's post.

For Joe at 5:30 pm.

Without repeating your post ....

1. The nun did the right thing. Bless her!

2. The criteria for reception of Catholic communion comes from the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Pope and Bishops). As a Methodist, you would have to receive the approval of the local Bishop (and, only under special circumstances) or convert to Catholicism in order to receive Catholic Communion.

3. Methodists have an "open table." Fine! Catholics don't.

Joe, I respect your faith. When in a Methodist church, I'll play by your rules. Please respect my Catholic faith. Please do not receive Catholic communion.

Dear Mr. Mark,

Sorry! I stand by my post below. There is plenty of secular references regarding the historical JESUS!

You wrote: "None (of the historians I noted) was a contemporary of JESUS."

Most historians never are/were contemporaries of those they write on. Historians today are writing on George Washington but never knew him. Besides, it takes at least 200 years after an event before it can be accurately written on. WW II is not yet history.

You addressed Pliny and Josephus but not the other four especially Tacitus. Why?

Yes, there is a B-I-G "au contraire" in Jim's post.

On a brief break from my travels:

First, I would be equally offended if someone urged invading any groups meeting with the sole reason of defacing their holy objects.

Second, I have argued (on my blog) in the past that no atheist should be fired from a public job for his private views.

Third, Meyers was responding to the reaction of some Christians to a weird situation regarding the Eucharist. He did so, however, by going too far the other way.

If he had stopped with some good old fashioned mockery, who would have complained? However, no amount of "context" can justify the boorish and uncharitable call for action by Meyers.

The "context" does not matter . . . since Meyers called on defacing the sacred objects of many Christians which nothing in the context can justify.

Fourth, Christians who send death threats are obviously calling for worse things than anything Meyers has done. Anyone who deals with the Internet general public knows not to try to extrapolate from "email received" to general opinions in a community. Sadly, it is the disturbed and the weirdlings most likely to write.

However, as a "thought leader" and a professor, surely Meyers has a higher standard for his own behavior than the ravings of Internet spammers!

He called for a highly offensive act. I promise that if a Christian called for defacing another sacred object without the consent of the owners I would be up in arms.

Given that "non-belief" is not organized and has a range of opinions in it, there are no "atheist" leaders to comment. Still it is sad to see so few secularists with platforms. willing to bluntly say that whatever the merits of Christianity, what P.Z. Meyer called for was dumb and offensive.

Just shows, I think, that (as with Christians) good slogans (in the case of secularists: reason! tolerance! or with Christians: love!) do not always translate into good behavior.

It is hard to be a good neighbor. . . and God knows I am not always one myself.

Finally, as far as I can tell most secularists do not accept the remarkable belief amongst extreme secularists that Jesus did not exist. Most secular scholars I read don't accept the gospels as "history," but find a strong residue of history in them.

An easy to read take on the New Testament (and evidence) by a believer is the book "The New Testament" by Ray Brown . . . a very, very good scholar who was also a Christian. I don't agree on all of it, but I think it fair.

One need not accept the gospels for example as being true (in the way I do) to believe that they report on a person who existed and who was killed by the Romans. Any other view is difficult to sustain given the reaction of Jewish and Roman critics and the documents produced by them and by Christians in the first century. Following normal rules of evidence (used in ancient philosophy for example), there seems no good reason to reject the notion that Jesus existed and died by crucifixion. That his life was "mythologized" by his followers is a reasonable position, though not the one that I think is suggested by the evidence from the texts themselves.

I appreciate my chance to interact.

I am not (myself) a Roman Catholic and do not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation . . . so I do not think my motives are particularly personal here in my defense.

Mostly in higher education we can have a good hard fight about issues . . . anyone who has been in grad school knows that theists aren't dumb and atheists aren't all wicked. I have managed to learn from pagans, Mormons, Roman Catholics, Calvinists, atheists, agnostics, and Evangelicals (to name a few actual cases). . . but it is hard to learn when you are sure that nobody outside your group has anything to say.

I am a very conservative, traditional Christian. . . but I need not be dogmatic (epistemologically!) about the dogmas I believe to be true. Even where I am very sure I am right, there should always exist the good Socratic openness to other ideas . . .

Or so it seems to me.

John Mark Reynolds:

Please let me commend you first, for interacting with your blog. So few do that!

Next, I agree with just about all that you said. And I am a liberal Christian.

Thanks!

Arminius

I should add that in looking closely at his blog I discover to my chagrin that Professor Myers spells his name Myers not Meyers as somehow got stuck in my head.

Sigh.

I once did a post (as a life long Packer fan) where I spelled Favre's name "Farve" the entire way . . . I even checked the "does Meyers end in a s thing" and somehow missed this silly typographical error.

I apologize to Professor Myers . . . but think my point is just the same!

Dave @6:59 p.m:

Thanks, but you didn't answer my question: is there any evidence that a consecrated host is really the body of Christ?

(Followup to my previous comment.)

Or, to put it another way: if the eucharist were not, in fact, the body of Christ, how would you be able to tell?

The bread Christ was referring to was HIS WORD. His Words, the bible, is the bread of life and not some idiot biscuits.

If Christ meant it to be his literal body, the Apostles would have sliced his body and eat them when he died.

When can false religion LEARN? WHY ARE THEY SO DUMB?

*****

TRANSUBSTANTION? If atheists are acting like fools to think that all the wonders of this world just exist all by themselves, CATHOLICISM is as IDIOTIC as these people to think that biscuits would truly become the body of Christ.

Imagine, they can make biscuits into the body of God where they can't even transform it into anything as the flesh of the lowly WORM.

WHAT BLINDNESS !! WHAT STUPIDITY !!

The apocalypse is just around the corner set to be fulfilled by the FOOLS of the world.

****

A Quote from Jose Rizal

" Consider well that kind of religion that they are teaching you. See whether it is the will of the God or according to the teachings of Christ that the poor be succored and those who suffer alleviated. Consider what they are preaching to you, the object of the sermon, what is behind the masses, novenas, rosaries, scapularies, images, miracles, candles, belts, etc., etc.; which they daily keep before your minds; ears and eyes; jostling, shouting, and coaxing, investigate whence they came and whether they go and then compare that religion with the pure religion of Christ and see whether the pretended observance of the life of Christ does not remind of the fat mik cow or the fattened pig, which is encouraged to grow fat not through love of the animal, but not grossly mercenary motives. "

When can people learn that there is NO HOLY WATER; NO HOLY BISCUIT; NO HOLY ROSARY; NO HOLY POPE, and NO HOLY COW. The only way to be holy is to repent of sins and live a life in accordance to the word of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

All these rituals are just FOR SHOW. A "SENSE OF HOLINESS" where there is really none. As Jose Rizal had said, examine the LIVES OF THESE PRIESTS and see for yourselves how these people live.

Dave: Tacitus was born well after the alleged life of Jesus: not a historical document. Flavius Josephus' reference to Jesus is about as blatant of forgery as one can get. Got anything better?

Come on. This is Jesus, Son Of God you are talking about. Not Burt, son of Bud the stall mucker. Where are the libraries filled with eye witness accounts of His miracles! Well? Maybe Paul just made him up from scraps of all the hundreds of Spirit Saviors that abounded at the time?

If you are going to worship a cracker, at least have it be of a Goddess that you have some evidence of.

Want to make a Million dollars? All you have to do is to identify 20 consecrated hosts from 20 unconsecrated wafers in a double blind test. Actual cracker count and rules may vary. You can even eat them for the test. For more information see: http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html

"First, I would be equally offended if someone urged invading any groups meeting with the sole reason of defacing their holy objects. "

This refers to other religions as well, right?

"Second, I have argued (on my blog) in the past that no atheist should be fired from a public job for his private views. "

Agreed!

"Third, Meyers was responding to the reaction of some Christians to a weird situation regarding the Eucharist. He did so, however, by going too far the other way."

"If he had stopped with some good old fashioned mockery, who would have complained?"

Oh yes, death threats and calls for expulsion and firings over a religious custom? :imitates light hearted laughter: What loving hilarity! it'll all blow over in a few weeks, they're just beefin'!

"However, no amount of "context" can justify the boorish and uncharitable call for action by Meyers."

I don't think when the Last Supper was being carried out, little cross patterned wafers was what Jesus used. The fact is the he blessed them, and it was taken by those that believed. It loses its meaning if either of these curcumstances are not met, if one does not believe in the blessing of the bread, they are taking only bread from it. if the bread is not blessed, yet taken by believers, they are also taking only bread.
I sometimes rip open a loaf of bread's inside and eat that before buttering the crust and getting to that. If I do that to a person, that a hefty load of violence...and butter.

"The "context" does not matter . . . since Meyers called on defacing the sacred objects of many Christians which nothing in the context can justify."

Remember that next time you must talk about the Danish cartoon depicting the face of Muhammad. Because I remember plenty of folks telling rioting Muslims to lighten up, despite the fact they held that drawing his face, much less the context of said political cartoons(Terrorism) was the ACT of defacing something sacred to them. A step futher than calling for the act, correct?

"Fourth, Christians who send death threats are obviously calling for worse things than anything Meyers has done."

Agreed!

"Anyone who deals with the Internet general public knows not to try to extrapolate from "email received" to general opinions in a community. Sadly, it is the disturbed and the weirdlings most likely to write."

We welcome you to our club, please partake of the cookies and juice.

"However, as a "thought leader" and a professor, surely Meyers has a higher standard for his own behavior than the ravings of Internet spammers! "

Indeed! he has the ravings of Bill Donahue, well respected for those that believe his word, I hear! He also has the words of this article as well, who took this situation out of context...and he has first hand experience from the loads of hate mail that has come his way!
The fact is, he has now earned the wrath of the blogosphere, that's easliy a lot of folks, a lot of thoughts, but not a lot of ideas, sadly.

"He called for a highly offensive act. I promise that if a Christian called for defacing another sacred object without the consent of the owners I would be up in arms. "

There's a bullet riddled Qur'an and a chocolate Jesus statue waiting for your rescue. Unless you have managed to cover those...though I'm sure there's more recent material, its a big world.

"Given that "non-belief" is not organized and has a range of opinions in it, there are no "atheist" leaders to comment. Still it is sad to see so few secularists with platforms. willing to bluntly say that whatever the merits of Christianity, what P.Z. Meyer called for was dumb and offensive. "

Funny thing, those heathens, Human dignity actually trumps any violence done to consumable foods? Wherever do they get these ideas?

"A picture of my wife may just be paper, but it would upset and hurt me if someone took it from my office and defaced it. "

But I bet you don't insist that the picture, once you've consecrated it, actually becomes your wife, do you?

If you did, maybe some joksters, who were uninterested in insulting your wife, would deface the picture just to show how ridiculous that belief was.

And maybe some catholics are so against taking the host out of its holy context, because they realize it will be exposed for the simple cracker that it is.

To answer a few questions before going back to the Hell that is Travel in Modern America:

I have been asked (by an anonymous poster) if I would defend other religions.

My answer is: of course. I have learned a great deal from many different religious people. More to the point, I try not to offend my neighbors uselessly or when their practices (however I view them) do not interfere with my own.

The Golden Rule is a good rule for this!

My anonymous critic/friend says of Christian reaction to profaning the Host (threatened by Myers and another person):

Oh yes, death threats and calls for expulsion and firings over a religious custom? :imitates light hearted laughter: What loving hilarity! it'll all blow over in a few weeks, they're just beefin'!

I say:

People who called in death threats were quite wicked and (I am sure) mentally unstable.

Calls for expulsion are imprudent in most cases. (BTW: I do believe that a private company or concern has every right to fire someone for being an ass. The definition of what that means depends on the owner. If X works for Catholic Y and decides to attack Y's deeply held beliefs, then I personally don't think Y should fire X, but Y can. A public concern like a university must, and should be more tolerant.

If Myers had attacked those calling for such actions, I would have agreed with much of what he would have written. He went further than this, however, and called for an intentional defacing of things some people think are sacred.

This is boorish in a pluralistic society. Myers is a public figure and should know better than to incite such things. However, reading his blog (which everyone should do) does not indicate much intellectual charity toward those who disagree with him.

I always worry about anyone who thinks everyone who disagrees with their worldview is a knave or a fool. That seems, ahem, not only uncharitable, but unlikely.

I believe things Myers thinks are stupid for grownups to believe.

Fair enough. He is within his rights to say so.

He went too far when he called for ritual acts of desecration.

The critic says:

I don't think when the Last Supper was being carried out, little cross patterned wafers was what Jesus used. The fact is the he blessed them, and it was taken by those that believed. It loses its meaning if either of these curcumstances are not met, if one does not believe in the blessing of the bread, they are taking only bread from it. if the bread is not blessed, yet taken by believers, they are also taking only bread.
I sometimes rip open a loaf of bread's inside and eat that before buttering the crust and getting to that. If I do that to a person, that a hefty load of violence...and butter.

I reply:

You are entitled to your beliefs about the Last Supper. Good for you. Argue for them and against my own beliefs.

Do so as hard as you can.

However, do not come to my house, ask for a picture of my wife (because you say you are a fan!), rip it up on line, and expect me to be happy. Don't then defend yourself by saying, "It was just paper."

Sure.

It was paper, but it was also paper that "stood in" for my wife. Obviously, there are many, many, many worse things you could do, but the absolute childish and unnecessary nature of what you did makes it hard to justify. Why cause me such pain?

Why not write what you think of them while giving me space to do what ever I am doing?

Isn't this prudent? Isn't this charitable? Isn't it good to do to others what you wish them to do to you?

A critic says:

Remember that next time you must talk about the Danish cartoon depicting the face of Muhammad. Because I remember plenty of folks telling rioting Muslims to lighten up, despite the fact they held that drawing his face, much less the context of said political cartoons(Terrorism) was the ACT of defacing something sacred to them. A step futher than calling for the act, correct?

I say:

Rioting was bad.

Publishing the cartoons is a right we should defend. The fact that Myers and the cartoonist has a right to do what they are dong . . . and they do. . . does not make it a good idea.

I think the cartoons were imprudent, boorish, and publishing them not the actions of good neighbors.

My critic says:

He also has the words of this article as well, who took this situation out of context...

I reply:

How out of context?

Nothing in the other situation justified sneaking into people's churches and defacing their most sacred symbols.

People should not do that unless they cannot avoid it. Myers could avoid this needless offense, so he is a very bad neighbor.

Do secularists really want to live in a world of such tit for tat given their minority status?

My critic says:

There's a bullet riddled Qur'an and a chocolate Jesus statue waiting for your rescue. Unless you have managed to cover those...though I'm sure there's more recent material, its a big world.

I say:

People who shoot Islamic holy books are also boors. While a chocolate Jesus statue is in horrid taste, I fail to see how it is comparable in status to the Eucharist.

My agreeable critic says:

Funny thing, those heathens, Human dignity actually trumps any violence done to consumable foods? Wherever do they get these ideas?

I respond (a bit waggishly):

The problem is not "violence done to food" anymore than the problem with flag burning is "violence done to cloth." Instead, the problem is a view of reality so stunted it sees no meaning (even human made meaning) in flags, pictures, or sacred spaces.

Human dignity also extends to treating others as we would wish to be treated . . . and this Myers failed to do.

"The inability of secularists to do anything but rally around him on public blogs would not speak well of them."

This is your opinion, but not mine, so please do not state it as a fact.

I happen to agree with PZ and admire his courage. It shouldn't take courage to call a cracker a cracker, but apparently it does.

Maybe PZ should do something like after liberating some transubstantiated hosts, offering hostage money for the church to take them back, or maybe working out some peaceful transfer of the hosts back to their chalice inside a catholic church. Maybe trying to actively engage church leaders in protecting the hosts from the infidels
would make some catholics see the hilarity of it all.

PS - I was raised Catholic and was taught the concept of transubstantiation at the age of 7, lonb before I studied volume, gravity or other real phenomena. What an incredible waste to fill a curious kid's mind with such nonesense.

Dar Dave -

The unreliability of witnesses to Jesus' existence - including Tacitus - are nicely covered here:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#10

Enjoy.

First posted on Susan Jacoby's thread. From an atheist blog (link provided). The non-interventionist, non-religious, non-atheist, non-socialist, non-capitalist, romantic, existentialist, Freddie shares his views on New Atheism or anti-theism:

Saturday, July 12, 2008

I am not you, atheism by Freddie (L'Hote)

I don't believe in God, I guess, in any conventional terms, and I'm non-religious. But Jeezy Chreezy, the public face of atheism turns my stomach. It is an unrelenting, never ending foray into self-aggrandizement, debasement of one's opponents, and ridicule of things one doesn't believe in. If someone was a political commentator, and operated the way Meyers, Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens did, would anyone listen to them? No. As much as the success of the Ann Coulters of the world suggests otherwise, we largely understand that a basic level of decorum, mutual respect, and the assumption of good faith should under gird our national dialogue. Indeed, without these assumptions, the dialogue is not worth having.

But then there is atheism, where it is apparently the case that you can always come closer to righteousness by expressing still-greater contempt for those with which you don't agree. Now, this is all very strange; though growing, the atheist minority is stilled dwarfed in this country and in this world by the religious. And how can you possibly change people's minds if you're constantly ridiculing them? Doesn't make much sense.

But I suspect that it makes perfect sense. It makes sense because the goal of the new atheism has never been to convert. It has never been to include. It has never been to change minds. The ridicule is the goal; the contempt is the end; the sheer fun of sanctimony, self-righteousness and loathing are the purpose. Go to Youtube and look for all the young atheists proudly telling their webcams that Jesus is a lie and religion is a fantasy and God is a disease and on and on.... Do they really want to convince anyone? No. What they want is to feel that they are better than others. They want to insult for the joy of insulting. They want a sense of superiority, one I imagine is often denied in their lives, and by ridiculing something others find sacred, they find their method. This is classic adversary philosophy: I think this thing is true because in its being true it debases you and elevates me.

The new atheism has made its challenge, then. And here is my answer. I don't believe in God, in any meaningful way. I am not a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Jew, or whatever else you will. In questions of public policy I feel religion has no place, and rational discourse has to rule. I don't want religious artifacts in the public square, I don't want creationism taught in public schools, and I don't want any religion privileged in any way by government. I am, in most every way that matters, a natural ally of atheism.

But atheism has expelled me. It has expelled me because it has in its heart contempt and loathing and fear of the other. So I reject it. I don't reject all atheists; many atheist are uninterested in ridiculing the religious-- they simply want to be left in peace, and not have religion forced on them or on the law. That, to me, is a principled atheism, and one I am happy to coexist with. But this new atheism, this anti-theism, has only contempt at its heart, and I reject it as thoroughly as it has rejected me.

http://lhote.blogspot.com/2008/07/i-am-not-you-atheism_12.html

July 16, 2008 4:33 AM

E Favorite says:

I happen to agree with PZ and admire his courage. It shouldn't take courage to call a cracker a cracker, but apparently it does.

I reply:

The problem is not his religious opinions, as ill formed as they are. The problem is not what he says. If Myers had stopped with his opinions on religion, as light headed as they are, then my post would not have been written.

The problem is his calling for the unneighborly and boorish policy of taking things others believe sacred and spoiling them for no reason.

You say:

Maybe PZ should do something like after liberating some transubstantiated hosts, offering hostage money for the church to take them back, or maybe working out some peaceful transfer of the hosts back to their chalice inside a catholic church. Maybe trying to actively engage church leaders in protecting the hosts from the infidels
would make some catholics see the hilarity of it all.

I say:

Or perhaps it would show that a certain kind of secularist has not kept up in philosophy of religion . . . and turn off most people who are not Catholic (as I am not) and make them sympathetic to Catholics.

Perhaps those who find hilarity in causing unneeded pain (just to make a point they could make in other ways) are not doing their own cause much good?

I admire many secularists. I don't admire the kind of "new secularist" who is a fundamentalist in his arrogant certainty.

Why is it so hard to see that what you are calling courage, Aristotle would call rash and useless intemperate behavior?

Professor Myers did something mildly "dangerous" . . . if getting loads of crank email is dangerous . . . but that is not courage if what he called on people to do was to behave as louts. It is not courage to deface a man's wedding ring, just to "prove" that all it is "just gold" though it might (sadly) be dangerous.

SATANISM is a tax-exempt RELIGION in the US. Satanists require religious symbols for DESECRATION in their worship, for mocking God and any symbol of God as understood by other religions is apparently PART of their worship.

Anyone who feels a compulsion to mock religions and desecrate their symbols either hasn't read the UN Charter of Universal Human Rights or is some kind of a perverse anti-theist. Needing consecrated Communion for mockery? Consider membership in the religion mentioned above.

Some background information on Mr. Mark's historical Jesus "authority", R.G. Price:

Educational background is not presented.

He pushes his book, "Jesus, a Very Jewish Myth" on his personal website, rationalrevolution.net.

The book was published by an on-line book publisher, "lulu.com". Hmmmm?????

Another view starting with a historical Jesus exegete and also an On-Faith panelist, Professor J.D. Crossan commentary:

From his book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

“ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

See Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion).

Other information:

See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style."

Besides the Josephus references (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html), NT exegetes use the following attestations to Jesus' crucifixion as proof he existed.

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.-

The Jesus Seminar after reviewing all the scriptural and non-scriptural documents from the time period, voted red (the event occurred) as follows:

Jesus was crucified

Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate

Jesus was crucified with the participation of the highest Jewish authorities

Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem

Jesus was crucified at Golgotha

people seem to get lost in their emotional attachment to the object in question- in this case- the eucharistic host-

which is what happened with mr meyers-

the point is, there is a value ascribed to it-

an intrinsic and intangible value-

let's take a non-controversial object-
the mona lisa-

it is after all, rag paper, some oil and pigment, and some egg-

not especially valuable materials-
but if a person decided to- say- defecate on it-
with the ill and singular purpose of just casuing others distress-

i think most reasonable people- atheist or non- would agree that it is the actions of- to borrow the mr reynolds language- a boor.

for people to defend the actions of a boor- is-
kind of boorish.

i find it amazing that adults would even argue for one minute to justify ugly intentions like that-

we tell even very young children to play fair, share their things, and not destroy other childrens toys-

i had a stuffed tiger when i was young and it had a great deal of meaning for me!

if some mean little kid tried to mess with my tiger to hurt me- some adult would be quite right to chastise them-

what makes mean spirited behavior any better because an adult does it?

if we don't applaud it in children- why would we applaud the same intention in an adult?

personally- i have come to the defense of people attacked on these boards regardless of their faith status-

because they are people!

do people really think terrible manners are ok if they happen to be targeted to one in a group they have some prejudice against?

well they're not!!

I pray and read the bible most days. Not so long ago I had rude thoughts about these things when speaking to my religious wife.

Over time, I learned that Christianity and much of what goes with it is based on faith and not intellectual rigour. In fact, a careful examination of what is contained in the bible and how it was created leads me down a path of scepticism and doubt. Consequently, I decided to accept much of what is in the bible at face value.

I made a choice. I decided that much of what is in the bible is beautiful, decent, fair, intelligent, dignified and admirable. Now I look to all of those things that can leaad me in a direction which I respect and admire. I am faithful but I am not highly critical and I do not carefully assess. I leave out the anomalies and extract the value that is there.

On the other hand, I have no time for religious zealots, such as the American right wing Church, that is brutal and condemning. I expect all people to be treated respectfully and honourably.

I pray and read the bible most days. Not so long ago I had rude thoughts about these things when speaking to my religious wife, a lovely woman.

Over time, I have learned that Christianity and much of what goes with it is based on faith and not intellectual rigour. In fact, a careful examination of what is contained in the bible and how it was created leads me down a path of scepticism and doubt. Consequently, I decided to accept much of what is in the bible at face value.

In making a choice I decided that much of what is in the bible is beautiful, decent, fair, intelligent, dignified and admirable. Now I look to all of those things that can leaad me in a direction which I respect and admire. I am faithful but I am not highly critical and I do not carefully assess. I leave out the anomalies and extract the value that is there.

On the other hand, I have no time for religious zealots, such as the American right wing Church, that is brutal and condemning. I expect all people to be treated respectfully and honourably.

reason,faith and delusion.
there is a difference,

noah came to mankind and told them to look at the earth,at the sun at the moon at the stars at the sky at the rivers at the sea at the plantation at life and death and think and reflect.

noah was trying to tell mankind that the proof is in the perfect universe ,an indication that the creator is all perfect all wise.

people in 2008 with all this advanced science and technolgy realy need to sit down and examine their faith ,reason or delusion.

the delusion is ,
people left the invitation of noah to their hand made gods.(like the son of god or the ;darwin; of god or the holy reasonism and rationalism)who they all died for the sin and sake of mankind????????????

blindness ,deafness and dumbness is so serious and can lead to the hell fire.

noah uppon receiving a word from the creator god ,started building a ship ,when disbelivers passed by him they started laughing and mocking at him,they told noah ,are,nt you suppose to be the messenger of god?what you doing now?you turned to be a carpenter?and look at you you building a ship on the dry land?something is wrong with you noah .

noah told them i mock at you as you mock at me.

the great flood washed the planet earth ,noah and his followers were only saved.

Let me first state that I have a great deal of respect for all religious practices even if I don't ascribe to any one religious view. That said I'm often puzzled by those who feel the need to defend their faith. To my way of thinking God does not need for mere mortals to leap to his/her defense when he/she is criticized by those who do not believe or who are skeptical of religious practices. The ultimate show of faith, to my mind, is holding fast to the belief that God transcends mortal understanding. Personally I do belief in the life and teachings Jesus but organized Christianity generally leaves me cold. And while I'm very sympathetic to the concerns of those who feel that their religious practices are violated by those who disagree in word and deed I'm not sympathic to the vitriol and seeming willingness to suspend religious practice in order to villify others and to asuage belivers egos. The history of organized religion is rife with examples of religion being used to punish or ostracize others so I say to all those who feel it necessary to condemn or ridicule non-believers let you without sin cast the first stone and remember the commandments don't say love only those who agree with you but love thy neighbor as thy self and let God sort it out for himself/herself.

I am not a member of any religion but I enjoyed Mr. Reynolds essay.

It is reasoned and respectful of others, yet he maintains an integrity regarding his own beliefs. Seems good to me.

I would add the metaphysical notion that the only god there is, is your own consciousness.

It seems as we grow in experience, awareness and understanding.....that to which we maintain an allegiance also changes.

At least this is the perception of an evolving being who gradually removes what is false in his own nature. The experience of serenity and peace of mind seems to be the reward.

Robert James writes:

"Over time, I have learned that Christianity and much of what goes with it is based on faith and not intellectual rigour. In fact, a careful examination of what is contained in the bible and how it was created leads me down a path of scepticism and doubt. Consequently, I decided to accept much of what is in the bible at face value."

What a remarkable statement. You're saying, in effect, that from your overview you concluded that there isn't enough evidence to justify belief in much of Christianity and the Bible, but you decided to believe it anyway.

Do you apply the same standards to the Bhagvad Gita, or Scientology, or astrology, or Pastafarianism? If not, why do you make an exception for the Bible?

In Canada, Myers would be brought before a "Hate" court, wouldn't he?

In Canada, Myers would be brought before a "Hate" court, wouldn't he? But then what would Sally do?

In Canada, Myers would be brought before a "Hate" court, wouldn't he? But then what would Sally do?

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

You need to read a little more. I recommend Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle." Like Robert Price, Doherty does not have a Ph.D. So what? Doherty is very thorough in his research and arguments. It stands nicely on its own. (Most of Doherty’s work is actually available for free on his web site.) Those with Ph.D.s in biblical studies have a stake in there being an historical Jesus. What would they do for a living without one?

Any open-minded person who is capable of studying the evidence concludes that Josephus' two short entries (one a very brief mention) are later Christian insertions. All except fundamentalist scholars admit that Josephus could not have written the extant Testimonium in the 90s CE: it refers to Jesus as the Messiah and claims Jesus was raised after three days, yet Josephus was a Jew. The fact that no Christian defenders noticed the entry until Eusebius in the 4th century indicates strongly that they didn't know about it. The early fathers constantly defended Christianity against pagan attacks, yet none ever found a use for Josephus’ entry. Further, as Doherty argues, it was very much against Josephus' style to say anything positive about apocalyptic figures like Jesus would have been. (Some of the early church fathers, such as Origen, appealed to Josephus, but never mentioned the most important piece that would have supported Christianity.)

If you do a little bit of research, and approach it without any bias, you will conclude that Jesus was not mentioned by any non-Christian writer during the entire first century. The list of figures dragged out by apologists, which typically include Thallus, Phlegon, and Mara Bar-Serapion. These are a joke, especially considering we have no writings of Thallus and Phlegon, and Mara-Bar Serapion does not refer to Jesus or even Christ. Such is the desperation of those committed to an historical figure.

Frank Zindler does a good job, in his book “The Jesus the Jews Never Knew,” of arguing that Tacitus is highly suspect, too. Either way, Tacitus’ information about Jesus could easily have been obtained from what Christians of his time thought about the foundations of their religion. And Tacitus was written after 110 CE. No one is really argument that, at a minimum, the elements of the Gospel stories were circulating around then.

You might now say that this is an “argument from silence.” In fact, the more interesting aspect of Doherty’s work is that he shows that a mythical Jesus explains the Christian record better, too. Ever read the New Testament epistles for information regarding Jesus? You would know virtually nothing about Jesus if all you read were Paul’s letters. Why is this? And why does Paul write about Jesus in such mystical terms?

If one lets the evidence for an historical Jesus speak for itself, it is very thin indeed.

Mo, Mo, Mo,

Noah was another OT mythical figure. Also, there never was a global flood and we are therefore not the descendents of Noah.

Mo and Victoria,

We still are waiting for you to complete the following survey/poll as a followup to the question to the Pew survey about USA atheists:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. That the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed?

7. That Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book, Infidel, is autobiographic and comments from the book such as

(paperback issue, p. 47:)

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

are true??????

First of all...PZ Myers on his own blog AND protected by the 1st ammendment of the constitution is allowed to criticize, EVEN in an untasteful manner, religion.

I would find it interesting if the same reaction from the christian community would be espoused if PZ Myers were to have criticized the muslim religion.

What this author also refused to mention in this post, besides jumping on the band wagon and demonizing Dr. Myers is that Dr. Myers has been receiving DEATH THREATS from god loving and moral christians and that he has been a product of a witch hunt from the Catholic League. They would like to see him fired or disciplined. This is absurd. After all, as christians, whatever happened to "turn the other cheek?" Hypocrisy at it's finest. But that's nothing new within the christian community.

It is becoming more and more apparent in this country and the world that you cannot criticize religious beliefs, no matter HOW ridiculous they are without fear of being beaten to death, blown up or at the very least, harrassed to no end. Religion gets a free pass from criticism and see where this has led us? Suprression of free speech due to fear of being beaten or worse.

This is what's absurd. All those that have a problem with PZ Myers need to do one thing and one thing only....stop reading his blog. Plain and simple. I don't see the christians up in arms about the thousand of anti-semitic or anti-muslim blogs...but when one scientist criticizes christianity, all of a sudden there as an uproar.

This is absolute hypocrisy.

If anyone thinks the evidence for the historic Jesus is (as one poster put it) "thin," and they are still open to argument (they have not reached the fundamentalist skeptic stage), then they should start by noting the Jesus Seminar (which is not mainstream Biblical scholarship . . . but pretty far to the left) accepts the historical Jesus.

The notion that Biblical scholars need the historical Jesus to stay in business is absurd. My first Greek class at University was on Homer's Iliad. Nobody really knows if Homer existed (there the evidence really is thin!), but we keep on studying the texts! If there were no Jesus, then the Bible would still be a powerful and fascinating book. People would still study it and earn advanced degrees reading it.

Such folk study texts and the text certainly does exist!

The major problem is that critics of the Jesus movement (and Christians were dying right away!) did not make the obvious rejoinder that they had (in Palestine no less!) no idea who people were giving their life for. They attacked Jesus on several grounds, but not that one.

The Pauline epistles contain few details of Jesus life . . . they are arguing this man was the son of God after all l. . . but they do plainly state that he was killed by the Romans and how.

Almost no scholars accept this idea, but somehow it has become very popular in fringe skepticism. I suspect it is because it is a magic bullet that ends all discussion or diverts it to something else.

When the vast majority of non-Christian scholars accept the historical Jesus, there really is no reason to continue endless threads trying to convince people of his existence. Given his social status, there is actually a pretty large and very recent (by ancient standards) series of "mentions.' His followers (orthodox, gnostic, and everything else!) liked to write (not so easy in that time) and left a record of his life.

Poke around the evidence for the "lives" of many of the ancient philosophers . . . if you want to see "thin"! There are a great many advantages to being self-taught in an area (like ancient texts), but one disadvantage is that you can miss the feel of the general topic. If one just goes after the New Testament without having a feel for how ancient evidence or texts work . . . then one can assert a great many things.

People tempted to take the "Jesus does not exist" argument seriously should read Ray Brown for a Christian perspective (first rank scholar), note that the Jesus Seminar (the last thing they are is fundamentalist!) accepts many facts about the life of Jesus, and note that the "scholarship" against the existence of Jesus boils down to a tiny handful (usually two people are cited) of folk.

The arguments of the extreme skepitics sound good in a comment box, but there is not much there to them . . . but go check on the claims about Josephus for example. Get a standard text on Josephus and see how they handle the Jesus material.

Metricsu,

I have read enough historic Jesus reviews to include the analysis of your heroes Doherty and Price (not Mr. Mark's "hero")to stand by the conclusions that there was indeed a simple preacher man by the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

St. Paul (5CE-64CE), a Jew/rabbi and his epistiles should be enough to convince anyone of the existence of this simple preacher man.

Some common references used by the likes of the Jesus Seminarians et al in their proof of Jesus' existence:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication
30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf
18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus,

Mo advises:
“people in 2008 with all this advanced science and technology really need to sit down and examine their faith , reason or delusion.”

This from someone who believes in talking ants, screaming rocks and lecturing donkeys. Somebody who believes that killing someone whose belief is different than his, or rotating around a cube in the desert would grant him a transit entry into a place with plenty of receptive young virgins reclined by rivers of wine and honey.

If Mr. Meyers truly wants to desecrate the means for communion, he need look no further than his own dinner table. Many churches use common bread, in rememberance of the fact that the Last Supper was, in fact, just a supper. It must be understood (and here I speak for Protestants, mostly. I don't pretend to understand Catholic tradition intimately) that the materials used for communion are as diverse as the people who partake of communion. Different cultures use different materials. In Japan, some communities actually use a modified tea ceremony, for example, rather than western style wine and wheat-based bread. Many churches simply use whatever is the local bread of choice, because that is no doubt what Jesus used when He instituted communion.

So I invite Mr. Meyers to desecrate the bread on his own table. It is the same effect; if he says that he is disrespecting Christian communion in doing whatever he likes to that bread, then so be it. I suppose he is. He is also insulting the bakers and farmers who worked hard to bring him nourishing food, and I think any self-respecting atheist would have more respect for his fellow man than to waste food for some petty religious fight. At least I hope so.

And if by sacrilege, he intends to simply eat it, well, then that is the most fruitless protest/offense I ever saw. After all, Jesus communed with the man who would betray Him to His death. A nonbeliever taking communion is not the end of the world. In fact, it might very well be the beginning of salvation.

This is a hate crime, not essentially different from spray-painting swastikas on tombstones in a Jewish cemetery. JRC

And Jesus taught us -

"Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you and pray for them that despitefully use you. Unto him that smites you on the one cheek, offer also the other; and him that takes away thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asks you ...as you would that men should do to you, do also to them likewise.

If you love them that love you, what thank have you for sinners also love those that love them. If you do good to them that do good to you, what thank have you, for sinners do even the same....love your enemies, do good and lend, hoping for nothing in return and your reward shall be great....with the same measure that you mete withal it shall be measured to you again...."

What's not to love----there is enough room for all of us in this world (including those who vehemently disagree with our choice in religion). They have the right to their feelings and opinions too.

I am sick and tired of you believers holding your irrational and dumb beliefs should not be ridiculed. Then again no one expresses the same reluctance when ridiculing alchemistry or astrology. Why is religion - a package of unique superstitions, afforded this special privilege? You believers are nothing but a bunch of whiners.

There is so much I can write in response to "Concerned" and Dr. Reynolds, and maybe I will later. But here are a few brief points.

1. The Jesus Seminar may be liberal, but they'd have very little to do if they concluded Jesus was mythical. They spend their time trying to determine what Jesus actually said in the Bible and what was added later. Surely, Dr. Reynolds, you can understand that the job becomes irrelevant if it is shown Jesus is mythical.

2. I'm surprised that, with a doctorate in philosophly, that you can, apparently with a straight face, make your bizarre comparison between the existence of Homer and Jesus. Nobody doubts that the Bible exists as a text, and so nobody doubts there were authors of the Bible. What I doubt is that a character in the Bible existed, just as one might doubt existence of characters in the Iliad. You've got to do a lot better than this kind of shoddy reasoning.

3. "Concerned" thinks that the list he/she offers is impressive. It isn't. We know that Paul was the first to write about Jesus. Yet Paul is almost completely silent about a human figure. In fact, as Doherty points out, there are numerous "positive silences" in the NT epistles. That is, where it would be almost impossible to exclude a human figure of one existed, Paul and the other epistle writers do so consistently.

4. There is no reason to date the gospels prior to late in the 1st century. No church fathers appeal to written gospels before about the middle of the second century. Earlier in the century there a snippets, but those can be explained by a growing tradition. And this is fully 80 years after the supposed crucifixion.

This article shouldn't be called "Defending Communion" but rather "Defending Catholics Hijacking the Lord's Table" I'm sure Jesus is real proud of you and the things you do in His name.

Perhaps the context of P.Z. Myers' outburst would be enlightening - read for yourselves:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php

Perhaps reading the context of Myers' outburst would be enlightening. Read for yourselves:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php

John Mark Reynolds: Thanks for your comments -

PZ says: “I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. .. [I “will]… treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart.”

“Defacing a religious symbol” – those are your words. PZ talks about “profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse” obviously (to me) making fun of the concept of the very possibility of disrespect for a cracker and never describing exactly what he would do to the cracker. How does one disrespect a cracker, after all?

I think of defacing a religious symbol as something like drawing a mustache on a statue or a picture of the virgin, or maybe writing dirty words in magic marker in the Bible or Koran. PZ isn’t suggesting anything like that. Besides, please consider that, unlike a cracker, books, statues and photos are already perceived as valuable items whether or not they are religious and whether or not some designated holy man has spoken some words over them. The cracker alone is not an item of any value, unless you’re very, very hungry and even then, most people would opt for a nice hunk of bread. No, the cracker only becomes special when a holy man, who may or may not be a very good man magically turns it in to flesh and blood - though it still looks just like a cracker.

Personally, I think the more you think about it, the wackier it seems and I suspect the Catholic church doesn’t want its members to think about it too hard.

You say, “The problem is his calling for the unneighborly and boorish policy of taking things others believe sacred and spoiling them for no reason.”

How has he spoiled it? By calling a cracker a cracker? You think catholics can’t see it’s a cracker? Perhaps your view of being neighborly is discreetly shaking your head wondering how people who seem perfectly reasonable otherwise could actually think a cracker turns into Christ and that it’s OK not only for them to think that, but OK to continue teaching that to future generations. Are you spoiling it when you tell 10 year olds that there’s no Santa? Isn’t it about time they saw the obvious?

Not all “new” secularists are like PZ – they’re not as vocal, they’re not as well known, they’re not as dedicated to the cause of educating (versus indoctrinating) people about the world around them. But I can assure you that many new and old secularists and people of other Christian denominations think catholics are mighty strange about holy communion. After all, most Christians gave up on transubstantiation centuries ago.

I’m sure there are Catholics (I know some) who don’t think the host is Christ incarnate, but still feel receiving communion is something special. Fine. I’m sure there are Catholics (I used to be one) who long ago abandoned belief in any special powers that priests have, simply by observing the obvious disrespect and distain that priests have for their flocks – and I’m not even talking about sexual abuse - just a lack of common human courtesy and compassion. Still society is supposed to respect them for no good reason that I can fathom.

You say “We [Christians] have an obligation to do what we can reasonably do to keep our services from being disrupted and our cherished ceremonies mocked” when in fact it was not the student who took the host who disrupted the service, but the nun who tried to pry it out of his hand as he came back from communion. The student was trying to be discreet. And PZ expressed no interest in mocking a ceremony – whatever he intended for the cracker was not going to take place in a church.

I love that you interact with your readers, but I suggest that you spend a little time considering that what seem like extreme voices (unlike the mellow secularists of your university days) are a generation of secularists who simply do not quietly and “respectfully” watch our 21st century catholic peers as they blindly profess belief in the utterly ridiculous. This is a status quo that is not worthy of preserving, in my opinion.

AND A NOTE ON HOMER – Sure you keep studying him, but you don’t worship him, do you? He’s not set up as the son of God and people aren’t killing each other 2,000 years later over who interprets Homer’s teaching correctly. Both Homer and Jesus could be completely mythical characters and still their teachings would be valuable – like the greek myths – which I was taught in grade school – as MYTHS with important meaning for understanding human relations. But I was not indoctrinated to think that the stories were factual and that I had to believe a certain version of them to achieve eternal happiness.

I hope you can see the difference.

I hate the term secularists, why do we need to create a modern word to substitute for what the self-proclaimed secularists actually are, PAGANS.

From the free dictionary.com;
n.
1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2. One who has no religion.
3. A non-Christian.
4. A hedonist.
5. A Neo-Pagan.
adj.
1. Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
2. Professing no religion; heathen.
3. Neo-Pagan.

Pagans have existed more or less throughout human history. And if people choose to use the free will that God has given them to not believe in their Creator, well that is their choice. Hard to have much hope though if one only believes in the here and now, and that rights are only granted to us in society by benevolent governments and not inherited from our Creator as our Founding Fathers believed.

Catholics believe that after being consecrated by a priest during the Liturgy of the Eucharist that indeed the unleavened wheat host substantially becomes the Body of Christ. Christ himself said so and indeed celebrated the very first Eucharist on the road to Eramaeus (sp?). How God performs the transubstantiation is a mystery, just like how he formed the universe out of nothing is a mystery. At least for now, because for those believers who have faith and live the life taught in the Gospels, God does promise to share with us the answer to these and other mysteries.

Sad to be you, Pagan.

I've attempted to understand all the posting though it was difficult. All I can say as a Christian is that faith is a Grace (an undeserved gift from God). Since God has extended His Grace, faith, to each of us, those who have none chose to leave His gift unopened. For those who deny Gods existence-what you are saying is that you, your mom, dad, brothers, sisters,spouse and children are just grasshoppers. Smart ones, but just grasshoppers. There is a word that best describes what you may lack. HOPE!!. My hope for those of you in this category is that you and your loved ones find this Hope and don't follow your present course leading to nothingness.

"Sadly, your belief that it is "just a cracker" does not make your belief true."

So when the emperor believed he was wearing fine new clothes, it doesn't matter that everyone else believed their own eyes and saw that he was naked? His belief, because he held it strongly was just as valid as theirs? He should be respected for his belief, not mocked, and for heaven sakes, not told that everyone could see his nakedness?

This seems like an odd way to show respect.

I've attempted to understand all the posting though it was difficult. All I can say as a Christian is that faith is a Grace (an undeserved gift from God). Since God has extended His Grace, faith, to each of us, those who have none chose to leave His gift unopened. For those who deny Gods existence-what you are saying is that you, your mom, dad, brothers, sisters,spouse and children are just grasshoppers. Smart ones, but just grasshoppers. There is a word that best describes what you may lack. HOPE!!. My hope for those of you in this category is that you and your loved ones find this Hope and don't follow your present course leading to nothingness.

I've attempted to understand all the posting though it was difficult. All I can say as a Christian is that faith is a Grace (an undeserved gift from God). Since God has extended His Grace, faith, to each of us, those who have none chose to leave His gift unopened. For those who deny Gods existence-what you are saying is that you, your mom, dad, brothers, sisters,spouse and children are just grasshoppers. Smart ones, but just grasshoppers. There is a word that best describes what you may lack. HOPE!!. My hope for those of you in this category is that you and your loved ones find this Hope and don't follow your present course leading to nothingness.

Quote: "The God of Christianity does not watch from far off. He comes to suffer with us. God also gives humankind the freedom to reject His will, but does not sit as an impassive judge. Sin, falling short of the mark of what is best, always causes pain. God chooses to experience each wound so that He can judge with understanding and compassion."

Forgive me for being insensitive, but anyone who behaves like this, is not sane. Were it a human, he´d be diagnosed as a psychopath.

I am sick and tired of you believers holding your irrational and dumb beliefs should not be ridiculed. Then again no one expresses the same reluctance when ridiculing alchemistry or astrology. Why is religion - a package of unique superstitions, afforded this special privilege? You believers are nothing but a bunch of whiners.

Although the Emperor's new clothes is a well known tale, my reference to it was fully inspired by something PZ Myers wrote a couple of years ago as a parody of some theologians' reviews of Richard Dawkins "the God Delusion." Here it is:

The Courtier's Reply
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

Category: Godlessness

Posted on: December 24, 2006 10:16 AM, by PZ Myers

There's a common refrain in the criticisms of Dawkins' "The God Delusion" that I've taken to categorizing with my own private title—it's so common, to the point of near-unanimous universality, that I've decided to share it with you all, along with a little backstory that will help you to understand the name.

I call it the Courtier's Reply. It refers to the aftermath of a fable.

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

E Favorite,

I must disagree. You and others see the wafer, the host, as a 'cracker'. We do not. Once it is sanctified, it becomes something special - to us. Just because someone disagrees with this - and that is fine - does this give them the right to vandalize something that is special to us? Does it give them the right to violate the hospitality that we offer them? Would you do that to someone who invited you to their table?

The cross is also special to us, if not to you. Would you urinate on a cross just to make a point? I would never do anything like that to you or anyone else.

The problem with Myers reply is that it is a bad analogy that comes very close to arguing in circles.

In the parable the nakedness of the Emperor was obvious to all. They were not blind, they could see the nakedness of the ruler, but lied to curry favor.

In the case of Christians in the academy (especially folk like Swinburne at places like Oxford), they are self-evidently not telling lies about what they see to win favor in the academy! In fact, if anybody is tempted to lie about their experiences to win establishment favor at the university it is the religious believer.

The question to Myers and others is: how good are the philosophical arguments for God's existence. They reply: not very good. They are then told that they have not responded to the best arguments, since they are not up to date. They then reply that they already know the arguments are bad.

How do they know, if they have not read them?

I think they assume the "non-existence" of God is as self-evident as the nakedness of the Emperor, but this is obviously not true. Serious people with nothing particular to gain convert from atheism to theism. Some do it at some cost. (Of course, the reverse is also true.)

If I argued that it is so self-evident that God exists, that I don't have to read Myer, then that would be foolish. In the same way, Myer starts looking and sounding like he made up his mind for sociological or political reasons long ago and is not going to let arguments or reasons get in his way.

I hope that is not true and the blog format lends itself (as well I know!) to pithy overstatement, but the Myer analogy is really quite bad.

If when the little boy had said, "But the Emperor is naked . . ." nobody had agreed (or nobody much) and claimed (best the boy could tell) that they still saw cloths, then the boy might have been wise to wonder if he was just blind to something others could see. One can imagine the little boy growing up and becoming rich and powerful through other means and then using his wealth and power to create and entire cloths denying movement. Kids wanting to rebel against the "establishment" could be persuaded to deny their own experience or explain it away ("You see what society has taught you to see!" said the cloths skeptic.)

In the parable, we are told by the all knowing narrator that the cloths are not there. We are told the courtiers were lying. We are told the king is a fool and the makers of the "cloth" knaves. That would make it foolish to side with the courtiers.

Unless Myers is claiming to be such a narrator for the cosmos, he cannot simply dismiss critics who argue he should read more.

In the case of God, we have no such certain knowledge either way. . . and the question is important enough that if one wishes to write a book on it or make proclamations about it, then one should at least have a decent competence in philosophy of religion (which includes many non-religious philosophers!)

Dawkins and especially Myers both lack this basic understanding. Dawkins book is best known by the index which fails to engage in any serious way with philosophers of religion who are theists.

Not satire? Ha. It represents the worst nightmares of the orthodox believers, that a Darwinist liberal atheist professor demands his minions to kidnap and torture the body of the Catholic god, a.k.a. a cracker. It has been a good ongoing laugh to be sure and it does not make Catholicism look good especially considering the fuss they are making over the issue.

"Who would intentionally cause pain to the misguided? How will that help anyone?"

PZ is just trying to demonstrate the Catholic belief in sacred wafers is an idiotic idea that deserves no respect. If some Catholics understand they're wasting their lives believing in nonsense, that will help them quite a bit.

I think we should leave the crackers alone and not urinate on crosses or tombstones either, of course - the latter being far worse, in my opinion, because the intent is obviously to hurt and humiliate, while not believing a cracker is God is merely an observation - or, if you will, an opinion.

Still - and mind you, I am only using words here - how can someone believe you can sanctify a wafer by waving your hands over it and uttering words? A rite is nothing but a means to create a sense of togetherness.

The recent post under my name that starts: "The problem with Myers reply is that it is a bad analogy that comes very close to arguing in circles."

WAS NOT WRITTEN BY ME. I figure it was probably written TO me, by someone (the essayist?) who mistakenly put my name, instead of his/her own, in the name box.

If you see this, please identify yourself.

Thanks

"In the case of God, we have no such certain knowledge either way. . . and the question is important enough that if one wishes to write a book on it or make proclamations about it, then one should at least have a decent competence in philosophy of religion (which includes many non-religious philosophers!)"

I don't have to know anything about astrology to know it's nothing more than childish nonsense. Religious ideas are the same. I don't have to know the boring details of each religious belief to know all religious beliefs are only for gullible children.

In the case of God, I can't disprove this magical creature, but I can't disprove there's an elephant orbiting Pluto either. But I can notice both ideas, a supernatural magic man who hides in the clouds, and an elephant in outer space, are equally improbable.

So if somebody wants to say an elephant orbits Pluto, or there's a magical sky fairy who performs supernatural magic tricks (miracles), it's up to the person making these claims to prove it. Until I see evidence for these idiotic ideas, then I will confidently assume they're false.

I've attempted to understand all the posting though it was difficult. All I can say as a Christian is that faith is a Grace (an undeserved gift from God). Since God has extended His Grace, faith, to each of us, those who have none chose to leave His gift unopened. For those who deny Gods existence-what you are saying is that you, your mom, dad, brothers, sisters,spouse and children are just grasshoppers. Smart ones, but just grasshoppers. There is a word that best describes what you may lack. HOPE!!. My hope for those of you in this category is that you and your loved ones find this Hope and don't follow your present course leading to nothingness.

Arminius: "The cross is also special to us, if not to you. Would you urinate on a cross just to make a point? I would never do anything like that to you or anyone else."

Really, Arminius - shame on you comparing urinating on a cross to calling a cracker a cracker - or even walking out of church with a cracker.

Urinating on anything is a pretty clear sign of disrespect. It's a stupid, gross unsanitary thing to do. We both know that.

I also know what Episcopalians do with the communion bread after church - they eat it, or take what's left home with them or give it to the poor. Of course it's a mere symbol of Christ, not Christ itself.

I wonder if there are stories out there of naughty altar boys who "defaced" the host like crazy after mass - and have gone on to live wonderful lives.

Are they just as bad as PZ or are they better people becasue they didn't talk about it publicly?

I apologize for posting by accident under the name of E Favorite what was intended to be addressed to him.

The post is mine as are the thoughts. As to the notion that the belief in the God of the philosophers (ala Plato) is like believing in invisible monsters rotating around Pluto . . . I would suggest that this is no more sensible than believing that skepticism requires no answer, because it is self-evident folly equivalent to explaining the existence of color to the color blind.

If serious scholars maintain a view against good sharp criticism for a few hundred years, then it is self-evidently not the same as the view of someone who decides they see a unicorn in their back yard.

Really this kind of argument is a good excuse for intellectually laziness and should be abandoned by both sides. Skeptics who can dismiss all religion as "childish" . . . are hard to respect.

E Favorite

Perhaps my analogy was too extreme. Nonetheless, the theft of a blessed wafer, whatever you may call it, is a slap in the face of someone who offers hospitality. It is an insult, and a denial of any respect or tolerance. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment - that is not violated by such an action. But any bonds of friendship will be shattered. Without mutual respect for our beliefs of lack of them, we will be in eternal conflict.

In my experience with leftover communion bread and wine, it is either specially reserved to be taken to those who, for health reasons, cannot come to the church, or else consumed at the end of the service by the priest(s).

How many E Favorites do we have here? I thought that at least one of her posts in her name sounded bogus.

It may surprise some to hear me say it, but I see no problem respecting people's right to believe that a wafer turns into someone's flesh, that a wafer is consecrated and that it shouldn't leave a church.

I don't believe in all the hocus-pocus woo-woo that goes with these beliefs, but as civilized people, we should have the capacity to allow people their fantasies as long as they don't impose them on the rest of us. Sometimes, having rights means having the courtesy and the DISCRETION of thought to NOT yell "fire" in a theater.

While I may have the right to walk up to the "Have Your Picture Taken With Santa" area of the mall and tell all the kids in line, "there's no Santa. It's all a fake!" doing so would be mean-spirited and gauche.

I, like most adults, know that a communion wafer is just a wafer, but that doesn't mean that we're allowed to trounce on the symbolism that underlies that wafer. The American flag is "just" a collection of thread and dyes that - in its material sense - is no more valuable than a pair of thread-bare underwear. But its symbolic sense is much more than the sum of its material parts.

That said, if any religious person wishes to move beyond the symbolic and express their "belief" that such a wafer is holy/the actual flesh of Jesus/etc, then they should know that I am equally within my rights to counter by expressing my just-as-strong "belief" that they are full of it, and that their wafer is JUST a wafer, irrespective of the wafer's symbolic value, which they accept and I reject.

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't believe that we rationalists need to engage in such arguments to win the debate, any more than the captain of a high-school debate team on the verge of obliterating an opponent needs to walk up to the captain of the opposing team and belt him in the mouth to seal the victory.

Gotta go.

Mr Mark,

Thank you, thank you. We agree to disagree, but agree not to disrespect.

BTW, I am here to learn, not win a debate.

Arminius

"Skeptics who can dismiss all religion as 'childish' . . . are hard to respect."

I say every single religious belief ever invented (and that's all they are, inventions) is extremely childish.

Religions say "I believe there's a magical fairy hiding in the clouds. My sky fairy can do anything. Its supernatural powers are unlimited."

That's as idiotic and childish as the idea there's a tooth fairy.

One of the problems with the Magic Man belief: If supernatural magic is possible, then anything is possible. Reality gets thrown out the window and people are willing to believe in any nonsense, no matter how idiotic it is. For example, the idea that Jesus (a worthless dead preacher man) gets inserted into a tasteless wafer when a priest says some magic words, is way beyond idiotic. I can't respect insanity, and there's nothing more insane than religious beliefs.

Mr. Mark

A round of applause for you.

Why are so many of the agnostics "looking at" a Christianity web-site? Looking for something they need? If so, my advice--don't "look at" rather "look up".

BILL ROBBERSON says:
"Why are so many of the agnostics "looking at" a Christianity web-site? Looking for something they need? If so, my advice--don't "look at" rather "look up"."

Dear Bill Robberson -

Perhaps you should follow your own advice and "look up" at On Faith's masthead, which clearly states that this blog is "a conversation on religion," not, "A Christian website."

Even if 99% of the conversations on this blog amount to little more than atheists and Xians arguing over Xianity, this blog isn't a Christian website. And, if you needed any more proof of it, I and the other atheists of On Faith are here to prove it!

Now, I have a few questions for you, Bill: what is a person who can't be bothered to read the mission statement of a blog doing blogging on that blog, and...do you really believe that people need to "look up" to see god???

Mr.Mark--Man do I feel stupid! I had been on the Christianity Today site just before this discussing the same subject. Sorry!

My comments were inappropriate. However, I did post on this site earlier, and I believe appropriately, as follows:

I've attempted to understand all the posting though it was difficult. All I can say as a Christian is that faith is a Grace (an undeserved gift from God). Since God has extended His Grace, faith, to each of us, those who have none chose to leave His gift unopened. For those who deny Gods existence-what you are saying is that you, your mom, dad, brothers, sisters,spouse and children are just grasshoppers. Smart ones, but just grasshoppers. There is a word that best describes what you may lack. HOPE!!. My hope for those of you in this category is that you and your loved ones find this Hope and don't follow your present course leading to nothingness.

Best to you,

Bill

John Mark Reynolds – thanks for identifying yourself.

I’m finding that there are all kinds of secularists, , having recently become one myself. (I identify as an atheist, but secularist and humanist also work.) Some are old-school secularists - raised in secular families, without a hint of religion, who have learned to blend in seamlessly to a majority religious society. Others came to it on their own as children or young adults, just realizing that the notion of the supernatural didn’t make any sense. Some come to it via science education; others by being really harmed by fundamentalist influences or strict Catholicism and knowing no loving God could be involved in those enterprises. Then others, like me, were “lazy believers” who studied religious history for the first time as adults and found very little there to believe in.

I suspect the secularists you refer to are of that old school – the ones who found their niche long ago and don’t want to rock the boat. I compare them to pre-civil rights middle-class blacks, who had learned to thrive in a white society by knowing their place. They weren’t in favor of the tumult of the civil rights movement any more than today’s old-school secularists care to rock the boat by actively confronting the superstitions of religious believers. It’s considered unseemly.

Then there are their liberal religious counterparts who also like the status quo. Their religious communities are comfortable social groups. They’re socially responsible, educated and don’t want to think too much about their beliefs (knowing at some level they don’t make sense) they just want to carry on as always. The new atheists bother them because they know that thinking too hard about their beliefs may cause them to lose their faith and the pleasant way of life that accompanies it. I think a lot of them know they no longer believe, but go along out of habit.

The last group are the conservative religionists who are terribly threatened by this new vocal but tiny band of atheists. I makes me wonder if they think we might be right and they might be wrong. I hope so.

Mr. Mark – I suspect that if you had been indoctrinated as a child to think the worst cracker you ever ate was the body and blood of Jesus, you might not be so temperate.

As I’ve mentioned here before, my Catholic upbringing was mainly pleasant. However looking back on it, I can help but think that I would have been much better off without swallowing the crazy doctrine of transubstantiation at the age of seven.

Imagine, learning your multiplication tables and transubstantiation at the same time! Learning both how to cross the street on your own and how to respect a cracker! (don’t chew – let it melt in your mouth, don’t touch it, don’t put it in your pocket – it will start bleeding, don’t eat or drink after midnight if you plan to take communion in the morning – you won’t be worthy.)

These are not sacred beliefs – this is scaring innocent kids half to death and filling their minds with codswaddle. And for what? Luckily my parents didn’t take it very seriously so neither did I.

I think we owe it to future generations to discourage this idiocy.

E Favorite:

I think you are missing the big group of us who think Christianity is good, true, and beautiful. We thought through skepticism in grad school . . . saw the appeal, but just thought it wrong headed.

The more history I read, the less appeal I found in secularism.

My point in saying this (which is true to my experience) is not to insult secularism, but to believe that there are not millions of religious who have thought things through, but are still traditional Christians is insulting and naive.

I don't think most secularists I know are that way because they did not think. There are so few of them in American society most had to choose to be who they are . . . and good for them for thinking.

Theists in the US are stuck being the default position for many so of course we have many thoughtless believers. Almost any tiny group of theists in the US outnumbers the secularist minority after all!

However as ninety percent of the population there are simply many, many millions of theists that thought long hard about leaving theism and were in professions where it would have easy to do so and did not.

The point is simple: there are too many theists for facile generalizations about them.

I was once in a position where nothing in me wished to be a theist. I went against my personal and professional desires. However, I found that horrid thing . . . following the argument where it led brought me to Jesus Christ.

I am not trying to persuade you, just pointing out that I read the what I was supposed to read in grad school and was not persuaded. I would have been happy to be persuaded!

That is not to imply (by mere testimony) that my experience was right and yours wrong, but that the extreme secularist assumption that if we all read and understood Dawkins (fill in your favorite atheist author) we would all be atheists/secularists. This is as naive as the Christians who think that if all secularists read Chesterton, they would say the sinners prayer.

Off to the airport . . .

"The point is simple: there are too many theists for facile generalizations about them."

The same is just as true of atheists. There are very few atheists who affirmatively act to attack religion; there are far more who are reacting to intrusions of theist ideologies (and there are many) into secular life. It is unjustifiably rude to tell another person or group, "You cannot do this because it is offensive to God" when you can offer no substantive proof of the existence of the deity of choice. If you wish to make a point to seculars that an action/belief/behavior is not acceptable you will get nowhere when you present your arguments based on the premise that everyone must believe in some all-knowing/all-seeing/all-powerful entity for which there is no secular proof.

What consistently bothers me, which is why I even have a dog in the race, is that the moderates on both sides (I say moreso on the theist than atheist but this could indeed be my own perception bias) refuse to speak up and speak out against the extremists who are espousing an obviously irrational position.

I can go to PZ's blog entries on Crackergate and see numerous examples of regulars stating, in effect, "You're close to jumping the shark here; I can't get behind that kind of behavior".

I can't go to a catholic or general religion forum and see large numbers of theists stating, "Hey, Bill Donohue isn't telling the whole truth!" or, "If Gonzales is comparing the mistreatment of the Eucharist to kidnapping he needs to get some perspective."

As a friend of mine said to me, "If you don't wish to be ridiculed, don't hold such ridiculous opinions."

"I was once in a position where nothing in me wished to be a theist. I went against my personal and professional desires."

Either there's a typo in your pronoun ("I went..." vs. "It went..."?) or this is a contradictory statement. Obviously something in you wanted to be a theist if being so was causing this tension.

I understand that the fact that you're still communicating with me suggests that you see some value in it, but when you make the statement that "...to believe that there are not millions of religious who have thought things through, but are still traditional Christians is insulting and naive" I wonder if you are doing so mainly to prove your point and to dig in further.

Read over what I said and you'll see that there's nothing about believing that millions of Christians haven't thought things through. That’s your interpretation and seems to me like a leap of logic. I was describing my impressions of the types of atheists I've noticed since I've become one. I was also describing my recent experience in liberal Christian communities, in which, by the way, some parishioners and even some clergy are not believers.

To direct the negative terms “insulting and naïve” to my thoughts, based on your interpretation of them seems pretty strong. It also makes me wonder if you were more looking for an opening to chastise another new atheist than in having a dialogue and possibly expanding your understanding of how this breed thinks. I have much more experience as a Christian than as an atheist. I would think it might be beneficial to examine the views of people like me. I agree that ther are “good, true, and beautiful” aspects of Christianity, but don’t think that teaching, even forcing belief in impressionable seven year olds that holy crackers turn in to the actual body and blood of Jesus is a belief that should be perpetuated.

John Mark Reynolds - my last comments were directed to you. Sorry - forgot to put your name in the text.

MetricSU,

And you have a degree in what? Or do you seek the advice of the practitioners of voodoo for your medical and theological needs??

washpost18:

Your statement about comments on Science blogs being moderate is an absolute joke.

The the VAST majority of comments from PZs section are the violently anti catholic, anti religious.

A beautifully written piece, Mr. John Mark Reynolds. It exemplifies the true Christian perspective, and not the warped view so many have of us.

John Mark Reynolds wrote: "In the case of God, we have no such certain knowledge either way. . . and the question is important enough that if one wishes to write a book on it or make proclamations about it, then one should at least have a decent competence in philosophy of religion (which includes many non-religious philosophers!)"

It would seem only fair then that if theists wish to write books or make proclamations about baked goods concealing actual human bodies, or virgin births, or people rising from the dead, or how the earth is 6,000 years old, then they should at least have a decent competence in science and the scientific method and be able to prove that these things are possible in the observable world. But of course, they don't. They are free to blithely make whatever preposterous proclamations they wish, write it all off as a supernatural "mystery", expect to have their assertions respected and rely on the philosophers of religion and theologians to move the goalposts to wherever necessary to give them cover.

E Favorite:

One wonders how many 7 year olds can even spell "transubstantiation" let alone understand it. It's curious that the RC church entrusts the actual body of Jesus to people who would probably just as soon be outside making mud pies.

Mr. Mark wrote: "I don't believe in all the hocus-pocus woo-woo that goes with these beliefs..."

Appropriate choice of words. The phrase "hocus pocus" is apparently a derivation of the Latin words spoken to consecrate the host i.e. HOC ESt enim COrPUS meum.

speed123 wrote: "The the VAST majority of comments from PZs section are the violently anti catholic, anti religious."

If it isn't too much trouble could you cite some specifics where someone has threatened violence against Catholics?

When you "receive" communion do you really and truly believe that you are eating the actual living hair, skin, bones, innards, toenails and nether regions of Jesus?

Neal asks: "One wonders how many 7 year olds can even spell "transubstantiation" let alone understand it."

I could spell it AND understand it - it was a miracle, plain and simple. I also excelled at making mud pies.

You also ask: "When you "receive" communion do you really and truly believe that you are eating the actual living hair, skin, bones, innards, toenails and nether regions of Jesus?"

Ewww. Never thought of it that way. The nuns stuck to "Body and Blood" and didn't get into the details.

Thanks for the etymology lesson on Hocus Pocus

speed123: You're missing the point. The point is not that there is atheist sentiment on a theist blog or theist sentiment on an atheist blog. PZ Myers is unapologetically, unabashedly an atheist. Of course you are going to find anti-catholic sentiment there. And you are going to find all manner of responses to catholics who show up to defend their beliefs.

Violent? Show us, please. The presented evidence thus far leans heavily towards the theists falling way short here.

WAPO18,

To see "violently anti-Catholic" and bigoted statements one needs to look no further than the original post of the assistant professor, Mr. Myers.

The "rational" atheists have shown themselves to be anything but.

speed123:

"To see "violently anti-Catholic" and bigoted statements..."

Still missing it, but I think I see your viewpoint. Your viewpoint is that anyone who disagrees with your particular brand of delusion is to be branded "violent".

Note that I never said there were not irrational voices within the atheist ideology, and if you wish to engage in some quote-mining I am quite certain you could make any argument you wish to support your preposition. Quote mining is, however, a presentation of only one small detail of a larger picture and is at it's heart willfully deceptive.

That's bearing false witness, something that any rational individual would denounce. Are you willing to denounce the deceptive public statements of your mouth pieces like Bill Dononue? Are you willing to even take a stand that what has been published in the religious press about this particular issue is only one small detail of a larger picture?

Or are you going to continue to behave as an irrational individual, within the context of the term as applied above, because it suits your purpose?

You've been asked multiple times to provide examples of the "violent" nature of self-proclaimed (or personally assessed, since I cannot rationally expect you to read minds but I'll allow you the capacity for judgement) atheists on PZ's blog. Where are they?

Dear Professor Reynolds

Thank you for your beautiful essay in support of religious freedom.

Personally, as a Catholic, I think it is pretty childish and pathetic on the part of Professor Myers to need desecration of a religious symbol to prove any point he may have to make. Surely there are other ways of expressing one's views against a religious practice, the most practical being not to partake of the ritual? If Professor Myers would ridicule Communion, he could do that without actually going to the extent of desecrating the physical Communion Host?

For the sake of anti-theists reading this comment, I would like to quote Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

The pattern that seems to be consistently emerging from anti-theistic rants is that they don't believe in religious freedom for others.

Soja says: "I think it is pretty childish and pathetic on the part of Professor Myers to need desecration of a religious symbol to prove any point he may have to make."

Hold it! are you saying that communion is merely a "religious symbol" and not the actual body and blood of Christ? As a Catholic, you know that is against church teachings. Is this what you believe?

PZ has expressed no interest in desecrating a religious symbol, like a statue. He's bringing attention to the Catholic belief that a cracker actually becomes Christ, while continuing to look like a cracker.

E Favourite

Don't you think it would be only reasonable of Professor Myers to leave it to the Catholics to decide for themselves what their religious symbols or otherwise means? Does a Catholic need to convince a non-Catholic why they believe what they do in order to practice their religion?

How does an anti-theist understand Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights? Are believers expected to fulfill the requirements of anti-theists in order for them to practice their religions? I'm curious.

I would not go into a Hindu Temple and be determined to define for them whether the statues ought to be symbols of their gods or they are allowed to consider them something more than that, considering they wash the statues, decorate them and offer them food, flowers, incense etc as part of their ritual. I would consider it completely ludicrous on my part to demand that Hindus accept my interpretation of their religious symbols and rituals. It is enough for me that I do not do what Hindus do because I do not believe as they do? What exactly could I prove or achieve if I walked into a temple and desecrated their statues? Would it rob a Hindu of their belief?

Soja: If the Christ has a problem with PZ (or anyone else for that matter) mistreating the dollop of shortbread that is his body he can file an assault charge with the police. If Jesus is unavailable, then perhaps Father Migeul Gonzalez should go ahead and contact authorities to report a kidnapping as he likened the original action to.

Soja quotes: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

I don't see anything in there about theists having the right to assault people in church; can you provide the part of Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights where that is covered? No? Then please explain why theists don't believe others have the freedom to be safe and secure in their person unless that person subscribes to the theists' particular brand of delusion.

Washpost18

The freedom to practice religion in public to my understanding includes the right not to have an unbeliever indulge in acts of desecration in a place of worship. If an an atheist does not believe in a particular brand of "delusion" what the heck is he/she doing in a place of worship anyway?

Washpost18

Your justification for mocking the religious rituals of a faith tradition you do not believe in is pathetic. Freedom to practice a religion is precisely the right to worship in peace without having unbelievers come along and make a mockery of the faith. Is that so difficult to understand? It is a bit like an uninvite

Washpost18

Your justification for mocking the religious rituals of a faith tradition you do not believe in is pathetic. Freedom to practice a religion is precisely the right to worship in peace without having unbelievers come along and make a mockery of the faith. Is that so difficult to understand? I'll use a poor analogy but here it is anyway: It is like an uninvited guest to your birthday party running off with your birthday cake or smearing it on the wall because your birthday celebration means nothing to that person and that person gets a real kick out of spoiling your birthday party.

Soja: Have you read anything about how this situation developed or are you arguing from a position of ignorance? Prof. Myers couldn't really have cared one way or the other about the magic cracker until someone was attacked during a service because they didn't show sufficient respect to the cracker. The absurdity isn't that PZ arguably went overboard in his seizing yet another opportunity to ridicule religion, it's that this ever made it outside of the church in the first place. Why did PZ ever open his virtual mouth? What was the series of events leading up to this? Do you have the slightest clue what behavior you are defending?

The Catholic Church has numerous internal regulations and guidelines regarding what to do with a member who disrupts a service or disrespects your idols. Nowhere in there that I've been able to find in Vatican documents is a line that says, "Grab ahold of the blasphemer and with a firm grip attempt to force them into submission."

In my readings however it would seem that the overwhelming majority of followers of the Catholic faith who have chosen to participate in this forum have absolutely no clue about what the ritual of the Eucharist represents, how it is intended to be practiced, and little clue about what message the alleged Messiah was trying to deliver.

To say nothing of the ones arranging mobs for breaking and entering into private residences, sending death threats, and now apparently suggesting that they themselves will send poison-laced crackers to PZ. Doesn't the thought of someone using the holy cracker as a weapon to kill a man twist your shorts in a knot?

Didn't think so.

When you can find the time in between your bouts of balled-fisted self-righteous anger to denounce the actions of your peers then perhaps you can try and claim some moral high ground, but until you clean your own house stay the hell out of mine.

I'll put this by itself so it's crystal clear - Nobody is under any obligation to play by your rules and bend knee to your idols unless they themselves choose to.

Concerned the Christian: Actually, I do have a doctorate, albeit not in a field related to Biblical studies. I'm much more quantitative than that. I'm fortunate to have a pretty high IQ, and I read a lot. I listen to arguments, try to make logical connections, and come to conclusions.

Eight years ago my second child was baptized in the Lutheran church, and shortly after I decided to take a fresh run at the Bible. (I was not so happy with what was being taught in Sunday School, and the Lutheran "I am a despicable sinner, please save me" approach didn't wear well.) I was a Christian, of sorts -- a liberal one, attending church many Sundays. But I'd never read much of the Bible. Of course, once I did, most of the Bible was a big turnoff, and obviously fiction. The God of the OT is just a ridulous figure. And how Jesus could (supposedly) state that not one jot or tiddle of Moses' Law will be changed before the end time is startling, and helps in the case for a mythical Christ. (We're still waiting for the second coming, even though Jesus clearly said it would happen during the lifetimes of some of his followers.)

Here are the facts, whether you like them or not:

1. No first century historian has heard of Jesus, including those who almost certainly would have (Philo, Pliny the Elder, among others). Josephus is obviously a forgery. This is very easy to conclude. Those who argue for some version of it are engaging in special pleading.

2. Paul and the other NT epistles not only know nothing of a human figure from Nazareth (and mention nothing about other key figures, such as Mary, Joseph, Judas and Pilate -- the one exception about Pilate is in the 2nd century, and may be a later insertion), they actually exclude such a figure in their writings. Paul is getting the word about Christ, who lives in a supernatural realm (and was crucified there) directly from God. Read Earl Doherty to see how stunning Paul's letters are when you don't see them filtered through the Gospel accounts.

3. The Gospel accounts come from one main source, whoever wrote Mark, which can be dated 85 or 90 CE without logical conflicts. Since it is not quoted from until about 150 CE, this dating is not far-fetched. It is only because Christians need an early dating that it has been dated earlier.

4. Even well into the 2nd century, the Christianity being practiced is quite diverse, and clearly did not originate with a human figure. Minucius Felix essentially denies that Christianity is based on worshiping a human who died on a cross.

5. Early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr and Origen, had do adopt the stance that the devil "plagiarized by anticipation" in providing accounts of earlier pagan gods with features in common with Jesus.

There's much more. Just open your mind, and let the evidence speak. There is no figure even close to Jesus in history whose existence means so much to so many people. That Earl Doherty, Richard Price, Richard Carrier, Acharya S, and some others are in a small (but growing) minority does not make them wrong. Gallileo was in the small minority, too, as was Darwin.

Soja says: “Does a Catholic need to convince a non-Catholic why they believe what they do in order to practice their religion?”

Of course not, otherwise no one would be able to practice their religion without first allowing themselves to be talked out of it. This is not the issue. PZ did not ask Catholics to convince him of anything. He is already totally unconvinced that a cracker is Christ.

Also: “How does an anti-theist understand Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights? Are believers expected to fulfill the requirements of anti-theists in order for them to practice their religions?”

PZ isn’t requiring Catholics or people of any other religion to do anything. There’s no indication that he even set foot in a Catholic church. I guess I’m more guilty than he is, in that respect, because I’ve taken communion as a former catholic/atheist at family funerals. The priest didn’t know I was not a practicing catholic, but other people there certainly did. Perhaps they would have been justified in wresting the cracker away from me, but I really don’t think they cared.

You haven’t addressed the “religious symbol” issue I raised. For Catholics, communion isn’t a symbol – it is the body and blood of Christ. I don’t see PZ trying to kidnap communion from other Christian churches that consider communion as a religion symbol – just the church that insists a cracker is Christ.

E Favourite, I can only repeat Professor Myers would find more peace if he read Article 18 of the UN Universal Human Rights Charter. It wouldn't do you any harm to reflect on it either.

What Catholics believe is the business of Catholics. Anyone wanting to dispute beliefs should do so in scholarly ways with Catholic theologians, not by wanting to disrupt religious worship and by desecrating religious symbols. If anti-theist arguments are so convincing, the Catholic theologians can be trusted to contact the relevant body in the Vatican to bring about necessary change in Church dogma.

Soja, you say, "Anyone wanting to dispute beliefs should do so in scholarly ways with Catholic theologians, not by wanting to disrupt religious worship and by desecrating religious symbols."

And I say, he's not disputing that Catholics believe the cracker is Christ.(Neither am I - I once believed that myself.) He's saying (me too and many others) that he doesn't believe it and doesn't believe anything done to a cracker is desecrating because a cracker can't be desecrated. He didn't disrupt the service; he wasn't even in the church. It was the nun who tried to pry communion from the student's hand. He then put it in his mouth to stop the scene.

You still haven't addressed my question about using the term "religious symbol" for communion, which you as a catholic believe is not a symbol - it's the real thing. I won't press you further on that.

ARENSB

You posed the question to Dave, "Thanks, but you didn't answer my question: is there any evidence that a consecrated host is really the body of Christ?"

The Holy Spirit came into my body and revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, there is no evidence per se but one day all will know that this did happen to me.

Your follow up was, "Or, to put it another way: if the eucharist were not, in fact, the body of Christ, how would you be able to tell?"

When the Holy Spirit revealed this to me, it was not by sight or anything like that, I just knew. I, personally, cannot tell but I do know that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus even tho it was only revealed to me that one time but that was enough for me.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I am just trying to do the "job" that God gave to me.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.