Of Catholics and crackers
PZ Myers recently called on atheists to steal communion wafers from Catholic churches so that they can be descrated/abused/whatever. This is the result of an incident in Florida where a college student stole one and got in trouble for it. Now, I consider myself an atheist and have a lot of sympathy for PZ’s general position, but this request is idiotic.
If you want to convince people that religion is irrational and they should question the beliefs they were raised with, the first thing you have to do is convince people that it’s not necessary to be religious to be a good person. If people think atheists are evil, they won’t ever give the message a chance. This is counterproductive in the extreme. Ames at Submitted to Candid World has an excellent post on this.
I think there’s a larger point here. Yes, the reactions to the original wafer-stealing were more extreme than can possibly be justified, and it’s tragic when people start getting death threats for things they have every right to do. That said, taking the wafer is wrong. It’s offensive and disrespectful on several different levels.
I first of all think it’s important to have respect for religious beliefs, even if they’re dumb and irrational. In a society that is pluralistic and accepting of various beliefs, there is room for dialogue. People talk about ideas, hear about what others think, and over time the better beliefs tend to win out. This is the rationale for free speech, freedom of religion, and democracy in general. In a society where everyone is hostile and combative towards each other, no dialogue happens. The beliefs that win out are those with the most numerous/powerful supporters. Which situation do you think is better for atheism? It’s not just about the legal rights of free speech. It’s also about the general level of dialogue in society, and actions like this seriously undermine what dialogue exists.
It’s also just offensive because any time a symbol of some faith/group/country is denigrated, it’s offensive. I really don’t think most Catholics, especially in the US, think the wafer really becomes the body of Jesus. I think they just take it as a religious ceremony. Sure, Catholic dogma says it transforms, but Catholic dogma also says the Bible is the literal word of God, which only 23% of US Catholics believe. The thing is, whatever you believe, it’s a religious object. It represents the religion that uses it, and it has meaning to followers of that religion. It has meaning the same way that a US flag has meaning to Americans. (Even those who fight to keep it legal to burn it are generally offended when it’s burnt.) You wouldn’t cover the walls of a synagogue in antisemitic graffiti just because you (correctly) believe that taking all Jewish beliefs literally is irrational.
Think of it this way. Sticking up your middle finger at someone is offensive, but sticking up your pointer finger is just fine. There’s nothing inherent in one finger that makes it more offensive than the other. Noting that believing one to be offensive and the other not is an irrational belief is not reason enough to go outside, stick up your middle finger at someone, and be upset when they’re offended. You know it’s something that they would be bothered by and you did it for no reason other than to bother them. The same goes for stealing the wafer. For whatever irrational reason, lots of people are offended by it. Simple human decency says that if something you consider doing would deeply upset tons of people, and you don’t have some important reason behind doing it, you shouldn’t.
It’s one thing to think that religion is irrational and argue against it. It’s another thing to think that religious people deserve to be harassed because of their beliefs. PZ Myers usually does the former, and I’m all for it, but this is a clear instance of the latter.
What I find at least as upsetting as the post, though, is the comments below it. If you read through the comments you will see several people, Z included, who commented expressing similar reservations. They were called dicks, trolls, and all manner of other names, but were almost never responded to intelligently. For a movement that claims to be based on the willingness to debate logical ideas and rationally defend what they have to say, this whole episode is a pretty embarrassing showing.
Comments
6 Responses to “Of Catholics and crackers”
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
sandeep on Thoughts on religious tolerance
bruce on Alternative medicine: worth a try?
Mike on Think before you speak
Zychan on What is Acts 29?
Emily on Grad students, 1…
That is exactly what I’ve been trying to articulate for during the debate over this. My congratulations, and my envy, for hitting upon the perfect analogy.
Excellent analysis.
As a person of faith I will be the first to admit that evangelicals probably started this whole ugly mess with their tactics, but I also don’t believe two wrongs make a right. I think this demonstrates there are some really misguided folks on both sides of the aisle.
“I really don’t think most Catholics, especially in the US, think the wafer really becomes the body of Jesus.”
49% of American Catholics who go to mass every week have said that it literally does transform in to the body of Christ. So you are correct, by 1%, but it is hardly a small number who do take it as literal.
And your last paragraph is just not being honest. Pharyngula is a not a place for the sensitive, to be sure, but several people responded intelligently, which you obviously missed in moral outrage at the naughty words. It’s a shame that you aren’t similarly outraged at this:
“All the hate and anger directed towards Cook is definitely unjustified and terrible — but it was to be expected.”
Really? It is to be expected that Webster Cook should not only face a campaign to have him punished by the University, but death threats, as well? You know that is a ridiculous thing to say, and that is what offended many people.
And here’s the thing: PZ produced that post as a direct response to all of the ridiculousness that followed the incident — the death threats, the claims that Webster Cook had committed “more than a hate crime”, etc.
Why are you not taking that in to account when chastising PZ, if the response from Catholics “was to be expected”? Maybe you hold him to a higher standard? I think that is where many atheists are going wrong. How arrogant and patronizing is it for us to hold ourselves to a high standard, but to then make out that the religious deserve to treated differently because, you know, they’re are religious. No, we should give them the respect that they deserve by holding them to the same standard that we expect ourselves to be held to. Anything else is essentially admitting that we look down on them.
And where is the evidence that what you are advocating is most likely to be effective? I say that you don’t have any, and that you have — like so many others — confused your own personality and values with what is likely to be effective.
I’m like you. I am about the least offensive person that you could meet, and I am even able to maintain that on the internet, as well, which many people don’t seem to achieve, but I also realize that there are some people who are prepared to do the dirty work, prepared to face death threats, and prepared to be accused of all sorts of ridiculous things by “morally superior” atheists.
I wouldn’t have supported the desecration of the Eucharist, but I didn’t take that part of the post as seriously as some have, anyway.
If you can name more than a few societal changes that haven’t required, at least in part, pissing off a large proportion of the population, then you might be correct. I don’t think that you can, though.
And as I’ve said many times, there are dozens of books that defend atheism far more rigorously than those of the supposed “new atheists”, and there are many atheists that are far more courteous than Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, etc, and yet, how far did they manage to advance the atheist cause (not that there really is “one cause”, which is why even talking about it is pretty silly)? Not very, because most people just ignored them.
It would be lovely if we could sit down, have a nice chat, and reason with people, but that requires us to ignore both the history of societal change, as well as the dynamics of the modern media, and as long as we realize that we also gain from the advances that people far more courageous than us are willing to fight for, I’m fine with that.
Many do not, though, and all too often, they are arrogant enough to think that their own personal preferences indicate the correct road to take. Show me, and I will believe you. Do not simply state that it is the case.
Let me be clear. I am in no way excusing sending death threats to PZ Myers, nor am I holding the religious to a lower standard. What PZ did is rude and should be frowned upon, but sending death threats is criminal and should be prosecuted. The reason I didn’t devote equal time to “don’t send death threats” isn’t that I’m not more outraged — it’s that most people, and definitely everyone who reads this blog, already agree with that.
I don’t understand why you find it so offensive to point out that stupid overreactions by some extremists were to be expected. (It’s not like fundamentalist reactions to this stuff is unheard of… at least this time there weren’t any massacres.) I could understand seeing in that comment an attempt to excuse the death threats, if it weren’t for the first half of the sentence, which explicitly said that those reactions, despite their predictability, were still horrible.
I also don’t understand how it’s relevant that PZ produced his post in response to extreme Catholics doing horrible things. When people do horrible things, the correct response is to point it out and be outraged. An incorrect response is to do random mean things to everyone who has the same religion as them.
I was in no way confusing my own values with what I thought was effective. I made two separate points. One was to point out the lack of efficacy, an argument already made by others that I briefly mentioned with a link. The other was that what he did was wrong. This point is inherently about my values, and I make no attempt to hide that. I am all for pointing out the irrationality of a variety of beliefs, but only within the general rules for moral action that I believe to be correct.
Obviously there’s no proof that the respectful way is more effective. There’s no proof of the opposite either. At some point you have to make a judgment call based on your experience of human nature. There are definitely some historical reasons to believe that movements that maintain the moral high ground are more successful. The civil rights movement is the obvious example. But maintaining the moral high ground isn’t something you should be doing for practical benefit. It’s something you should be doing because you’re a good person.
“Simple human decency says that if something you consider doing would deeply upset tons of people, and you don’t have some important reason behind doing it, you shouldn’t.”
PZ Myers only reason for making those remarks is that the views of the community holding the “cracker” sacred are of no consequence to him. PZ Myers threats to desecrate the “cracker” comes across as a display of atheist bravado and taunt in the face of Catholics.
Now this could have been dismissed rather easily if this type of attitude ended with PZ Myers, but that is not the case. It seems to be shared by most atheists I have come across on blogging networks including Myers own.What most people dont realize is that Myers hostile outlook concerning the sensitivities of others, seems to have become a general stance among atheists, to the point that has become almost the “default”view of the new atheists.
“If you read through the comments you will see several people, Z included, who commented expressing similar reservations. They were called dicks, trolls, and all manner of other names, but were almost never responded to intelligently. For a movement that claims to be based on the willingness to debate logical ideas and rationally defend what they have to say, this whole episode is a pretty embarrassing showing.”
Sounds very familiar.
I got called a “peckerhead” and a “troll” myself. The closest they came to responding with a post that didnt have insults was just “no, you’re wrong” without no explanation or elaboration, to show why Im wrong.
dg: I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize all atheists this way. Most of the things PZ Myers says are perfectly reasonable and fine. There are plenty of other atheist bloggers out there that spoke out against his message on this particular incident. Aside from all that, remember that people often feel free to say things online that they wouldn’t say in person. Also, blogs tend to be started by people with the most extreme points of view, and aren’t necessarily representative of the actual population.