Wednesday, July 30, 2008

The most ridiculous statement I have ever read:

"The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe all"

This was taken from the response of The Cofraternity of Catholic Clergy to PZ Meyer's desecration of a cracker.

Ummm...Padre? Come close I have a secret for you. Listen closely now.... The founders of this country wrestled power away from the likes of you BECAUSE of little bits of sophistry like the one you just uttered! I am neither inclined nor required to respect your insane little beliefs regarding transubstantiation. You want to engage in your silly little pagan rituals fine.....but i will treat them with the same silliness as I do Candle Magick, Tarot Cards and any other non-evidence based pile o'crap.

Perhaps the pious members of said organization yearn for easier and more godly times when they could deal with such blasphemers in their own enlightened ways!

R.

6 comments:

nate said...

While I respect the right of a Catholic to believe in Transubstantiation and any other belief for that matter, I believe they forgot that the freedom of religion is not isolated from the freedom of speech.

I try to be as pleasant as possible in all matters, refraining from insults when it comes to others' beliefs that seem odd to me. Of course I am not perfect, and for that reason I, like you, an grateful that I have the right to raise my voice.

I must say, this post interests me because the cofraternity's response jives with popular attitude (interpretation) on tolerance surfacing in our society. Some, many, would not consider your use of "pile 'o crap" as hate speech. While laws haven't yet been passed in the US (as far as I know) they have in many other developed countries. Speech codes have been enacted in the US, particularly in our educational institutions.

I hate the feeling that my rights are being taken away, especially when that right borders on my opinion. The cofraternity should echo my concern, but obviously they do not, and could be digging their own grave.

Christian Beyer said...

The first amendment was not put into place to protect religion from public ridicule and this man's statement is ridiculous. At the time that amendment passed, Catholics had very little power or say in America and they were often persecuted by the ruling authorities for saying heretical things in regards to the official or semi-official Anglican doctrine.

I still think this Professor, although making his point, is a nut job and rude to boot. There are better and more productive ways to make your case. That being said, thank God nut jobs can say what they will in this country.

SirRobert said...

Christian said:

I still think this Professor, although making his point, is a nut job and rude to boot.

Well.... the whole saga started because of some nut jobs suggesting that 'not eating a cracker' was a hate crime.

I PZ was just fighting fire with fire. Admittedly, I wouldn't have take then actions he did....

That said his final narrative which i would title 'NOTHING is sacred' is very well written and thoughtful and points to the real problems with taking any ideology too seriously.

R.

Christian Beyer said...

Nothing is sacred? Does the good professor not have a daughter? Or a mother? Although it may not be sufficient cause to start a bar fight, many of us think that the name and the memory of our loved ones are sacred.

Rob, you have a beautiful daughter. What if someone, to prove a point, decided to 'desecrate' her picture, before a widespread audience. It may not be precisely the same thing but you probably would be more than a bit perturbed.

SirRobert said...

Honestly....

I'd ignore it...

i am more concerned with the daughter not images of her.

R.

SirRobert said...

also....

"Nothing is sacred"

I which i read and what I think PZ meant...

No THING is sacred.

I don't see people as THINGS.

R.