PZ Myers has posted a follow-up to the amazing Cracker Desecration controversy.
An organization of the Catholic leadership has now condemned my actions. This is sad news: it’s clear that at least this tier of the Catholic hierarchy is as deranged as the wackaloons flooding my mailbox.
We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional. His flagrant display of irreverence by profaning a consecrated Host from a Catholic church goes beyond the limit of academic freedom and free speech.
Hmmm. Who is the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy to decide the limits of freedom? Flagrant irreverence towards a cracker ought to be fair game, I should think…and that’s all this action was: irreverence. You cannot demand that all members of a pluralist society be reverent towards any random humdrum article that a guy in a dress declares holy.
The same Bill of Rights which protect freedom of speech also protect freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion. In other words, our nation’s constitution protects the rights of ALL religions, not one and not just a few.
Man, that is a tired old argument — usually you see that fine-grained parsing of the words of the bill of rights from right-wing sources, trying to distort the meaning. Do they really think a bunch of high-minded Enlightenment dudes dedicated to the principle of liberty were thinking, “We need a clause here that could be used to compel people to be a member of a church—we’ll just give them the freedom to choose which church they’ll be forced to join”? That’s insane. I am free of religion. I am free to make that choice, just as everyone is free to choose to be Catholic.
And my personal choice not to believe in the silliness of religion is not an infringement on the rights of any religion.
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 allegiance.
This is the funniest statement in the whole declaration.
Freedom of speech means I do have the right to malign and make fun of any religion I want. I can’t interfere with your right to practice your religion, but that hasn’t happened — all I’ve done is laugh at you.
That last clause, though…do they seriously believe that only Catholics are allowed to criticize Catholics, and that this restriction is enshrined in the constitution? That’s a fine catch, that catch-22. So only Catholics can malign the faith, but if they do, then they can be kicked out of the faith, which means they can’t criticize it anymore. That sounds like a ripe piece of theological logic to me.
Be sure and read the comments following the above post. They illustrate that many of us see through this nonsensical attempt to impose religious attitudes on our entire society.
The CCC is reacting no differently than the Muslims who cannot abide cartoons of Muhammad or other instances of blasphemy:
Taslima Nasreen is not alone in receiving death threats for her challenge to the authority of religion and of the state. Nor are Muslims the only ones invoking ‘blasphemy’. The Prime Minister of Mauritius bowed to pressure and banned The Rape of Sita, Lindsey Collen’s book about sexual violence against women, after Hindu fundamentalists objected to the title. While Sita is a very common woman’s name in Mauritius, it is also the name of the revered wife of the god-king Rama in the Hindu epic Ramayana, who symbolises the ideal Hindu wife – pure, chaste and virtuous. The Prime Minister declared that the book was ‘blasphemous’ and an ‘outrage against public and religious morality’. He also called on the Commissioner of Police to take action against the author. Lindsey Collen continues to demand her full rights as a citizen and has made full use of police services to investigate the threats she is receiving.
Persecution and harassment of Lindsey Collen and Taslima Nasreen by Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists respectively is an obvious attempt to suppress the individual’s right to criticise religious beliefs and practices. Their cases highlight the way in which even secular authorities will use religion to silence dissenting voices by invoking the blasphemy law to censor women who oppose the Government. Secular authorities are willingly sacrificing basic human rights to pander to fundamentalist forces.
Other examples of individuals experiencing harsh censorship, threats to life and accusations of blasphemy are Paul William Robert, a Canadian, who received death threats for writing a novel containing quotations from the Koran. He has gone into hiding after being stabbed by an unknown assailant. Increasing numbers of women in Algeria have been killed because of their association with secularist causes. Fundamentalists have vowed to target women who do not cover their heads in public, and two unveiled Algerian women, aged 19 and 20, were killed by gunmen while waiting at a bus stop. This is one case of hundreds of women’s deaths. Editors, journalists and publishers are also targets of attacks by religious fundamentalist groups worldwide. (Source)
These Catholic and Muslim idiots want to put an end to dissenting voices. They demand respect for their outdated and nonsensical superstitions. It makes them crazy that they can’t outlaw “blasphemy” across the globe.
They are afraid.
They’re afraid of the light of reason. They’re afraid that exposing the ridiculous nature of their beliefs will cause the faithful to question their religion. Once that happens, people will come to the conclusion that they can think for themselves. And that could easily spell the end of religious belief.
Religions thrive in the dark. They employ mystery to keep the faithful enthralled. Their extreme reactions in the face of dissent and disbelief expose their fear of free thinking.
Feedback