"Once we all realize that none of us knows
what the hell any god might want or say,
and most especially not semi-literate, bigoted morons
who can barely speak, once we stop pretending
our books and mythologies are sacred enough to die or kill for,
or that we have the right to change anyone's mind by force or fervor,
then we might awaken to sunshine and laughter.
Until then, everything you know is bogus."
Thus Spake Guru Greenbaum, June 15, 2005
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
“It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ."
saith Catholic League president Bill Donohue over at:
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459
because oh noes, a Catholic student at the University of Central Florida was taking a communion wafer back to his pew http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html in order to show a non-Catholic friend and then got man-handled by a woman who ceased only after the student Senator Webster Cook put the thing in his mouth.
He took the wafer to his dorm room for a week where it resided in a plastic baggie.
Bloggers weighed in pro and con, including the illustrious P.Z. Myers (and the Catholic League is now after his yob for it) who called the host a frackin' cracker and promised to do bad things to any communion wafer sent to him by readers.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php#more
In turn some politician in Virginia became concerned for the safety of Catholics slated to attend the Republican convention in Myer's home state of Minnesota and wants extra security to protect them from him. (Gasp!) http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460
The upshot was that student Cook returned the wafer after receiving death threats.
http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html
To answer Bill Donahue regarding:
“It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ."
radical sapphoq says:
Yeah Bill, here's one.
Roman Catholic priests who RAPE little boys and girls.
Roman Catholic Dioceses who then move the priests to different parishes in order to COVER THE RAPES UP.
Oh, that's two.
Hey, I was raised a Roman Catholic.
I've never had to endure any man of the cloth groping me or trying to sex me up at a young age.
I did endure at least one nun in school not believing me when I tried to tell her that my mother was drinking alcoholically and violent.
Water over the dam.
I survived my childhood and teen-aged years.
Okay, so Webster Cook was in violation of Roman Catholic protocol by not eating the wafer before returning to his pew. And putting the wafer in a plastic baggie and keeping it for a week in his dorm room was probably distasteful or even lacking a certain amount of tact expected of a student Senator.
Webster Cook was insulted by being manhandled at a Mass.
Bill Donahue and some Roman Catholics somewhere are insulted that he took the wafer away.
I am insulted that priests have gotten away with kiddie rape and molestation.
Here's a memory from the archives:
I was forced by my alcoholic violent vindictive mother to attend a Roman Catholic High School. At that school, I was introduced to drinking, drugging, cheating, heresy, and a tad of groping teen sex. I also had a best friend in high school.
One day, my best friend in high school showed me a cache of communion wafers. She said she knew where they were kept in the school chapel. She invited me on a raid and I went with her. That raid was the first of many that both of us went on together. We always had something to snack on-- those little communion wafers.
Readers, be outraged if you will.
1. The statue of limitations has long since run out on this one.
2. The priests. And uh, (tm) who is thinking of the CHIL---LUMS?
Let the comments begin maybe.
2 comments:
Ok radical, I'll bite. But be warned, I don't play nice with bigots.
Seeing that your less-than-educated comments have not attracted any comments yet, I will try to help you out.
First off, I am sorry that your life has been hard at points (oh noes!), and especially that it has been hard at points in connection with the Catholic Church. However, becoming anti-Catholic due to the actions of a few Catholics (or perhaps more accurately, your perception of their actions) is, well, stupid. By your line of reasoning, we should all be anti-american, anti-human, anti-everything that we have had bad experiences with.
I would propose as a happier alternative that you try basing your beliefs off of the convergent probabilities that you discover on your search for truth. If that leads you to believe that there is no God, or that we all ought to worship science, than I would have to respectfully disagree with you. I would not, however, engage in intolerance toward anyone's views, just as your "illustrious Mr. Myers" and the unfortunate Mr. Cook have.
Quite frankly, if Mr. Myers decided to publicly desecrate, say, a symbol of the Jewish religion, he would be public ally hung out to dry for being anti-semitic, and rightfully so. If he spoke out against Mexican immigrants and burned a Mexican flag, he would most certainly be ostracized, loose his job, and be ridiculed. But for some reason, being anti-Catholic, and increasingly anti-religious, is acceptable in our post-modern society.
I am willing to bet you are a relativist, whether you know it or not. Why is it that relativist who preach tolerance are the most intolerant people of all? Please rethink your anti-Catholic, hate-mongering views so you can come sit at the grown up table.
I believe it’s probably worthless to respond to a post so redolent of vituperation and ad hominem attacks, but I have been asked to compose a reply, so here goes.
1) Sapphoq thanks you for mocking her spelling. I point out that you have used “public ally” for “publicly”, “loose” for “lose,” and “anti-semitic” for “anti-Semitic” so consider the favor returned. I pass over in silence the spot where you have a verb in disagreement with the subject.
2) As far as betting that we are relativists, you have jumped to a conclusion on insufficient evidence, which is about the level of dialogue displayed in the rest of your post.
3) Contrary to what most Christians assume when faced with opposition, we are not angry with god, because you can’t be angry with what doesn’t exist. We did not renounce Christianity because of our personal experiences, but because our observation of the world, and our study of the religion led us to reluctantly, and I do mean reluctantly, decide that there was nothing in it. To our surprise, this led to a sense of freedom we had never experienced in the stultifying atmosphere in which we were brought up, and here we are referring to the church, not our families. “Convergent probabilities” led us to a naturalistic view of the universe.
4) We do not worship science. Theists almost always jump to the conclusion that everybody has to worship something. Without addressing whether or not this is true, it makes no sense at all for anybody to worship science, which is essentially a tool for learning about the universe, any more than it would make sense to worship a hammer, a computer, or any other tool.
5) To the point of the original blog, and your response to it, this is where we part company in terms of our epistemological response to the world. You seem to be very happy to believe that the baby-raper, or, as you call him, “priest,” mutters his magic formula over the cracker, and it magically turns into the body of a man who has been dead for 2000 years. When I ask why it still tastes like a cracker and not like raw pork, you respond that it’s a “mystery,” which means it is more magic. We do not believe that the cracker is anything more than a cracker. Sorry. As far as burning the Mexican flag, or your hypothetical symbol of the Jewish religion, this is covered by my First Amendment right to free speech. A more appropriate example might be the flag burning amendment that our more moronic legislators have been trying to push through for the last twenty years. I have no desire to burn a flag, and I would probably be very upset with you if you burned one in front of me, but in the words of a famous American (almost), I will defend to the death your right to burn it.
6) We are not engaging in intolerance, although from your narrow viewpoint you would like to believe it. We are pointing up the absurdity of your beliefs. If you are looking for someone to rubberstamp your beliefs, there are plenty of blogs you can defile with your presence.
Rebellion Dog
Post a Comment