Sullivan, the blogger who castigated the European press for not publishing cartoons with the prophet Mohammad because it offended Muslims, says this about Myers' plan:
Calling the Holy Eucharist a "goddamned cracker" isn't about free speech; it's really about some baseline civility.
Really? Free speech has to be about more than just protecting ridicule of the other guy's religion. I'll agree Myers is being crude and intentionally offensive...but would still argue it's his right.
It's not like he's burning people at the stake or anything.
10 comments:
Actually, it's exactly like he's burning people at the stake. PZ Myers has every right to mock what Catholics believe. And I agree with him that Bill Donohue is a douchebag of the first order. But when Myers called for people to steal consecrated hosts for him to desecrate, he became a douchebag of only slightly lesser status than DonoWho. Common sense and common courtesy both require that Myers keep his opinions to himself. Unfortunately, as he has proven quite spectacularly, neither common sense nor common courtesy is all that common anymore.
Michael -- back from vacation? I hope you had a good time -- clearly from your blog you did.
No question about the douchbaggery. I just think he has a free speech right to say what he wants about Catholics and Catholic practices (or any denomination for that matter) as protected free speech.
We don't disagree on that point, Scott. But where Myers crossed the line was when he tried to take speech and turn it into action. He can say what he likes about the Eucharist, but he can't call for people to participate in its desecration. Most of the people supporting Myers act like it's all about his defense of the student, and conveniently ignore the end of the piece where he calls for sacrilege. I think we could reasonably compare that call to a false shout of "Fire" in a crowded theater.
Michael --
A couple of points. Re-read Sullivan's point that I quoted. He was saying that "calling" the Eucharist a profane name had nothing to do with free speech but baseline civility, implying, at least in my view, that the guy shouldn't be able to say that. I disagree with him. You said, in your first response:
Common sense and common courtesy both require that Myers keep his opinions to himself.
I disagree with that too. You don't keep your opinions to yourself, nor do I, and while neither of us sink to the level of douchebaggery that Myers is, I cringe when "courtesy" is the yardstick that should be used to measure free speech.
And you say he can't call for people to participate in the desecration of a "sacred" object. How is that breaking the law?
And, not to put too fine a point on it, if a priest gives the host to someone and that person in turns defiles it, even publicly, I don't see how that is breaking the law. It may break God's law, but if that is so, I'm sure God will deal with it in the manner She sees fit.
What is sacrilege to you may just be wasting food to me. And I don't want the US Government interfering in that distinction.
I don't think Sullivan was claiming that Myers didn't have the right to say it. Certainly that wasn't what I was trying to say. What both of us meant, I think, is that ordinary politeness should have induced Myers to keep his mouth shut, on the "simple asshole" rule of etiquette that you don't mock in public something that someone else holds dear.
And again, when he calls for people to commit sacrilege he may not be breaking any civil laws--but he's doing something that an ordinary person of average decency wouldn't. Just as I don't have any right to barge into his house and try to convert him to Catholicism, he doesn't have any right to barge into my parish (or to induce others to do so on his behalf) with the intent to profane what goes on there.
I suppose an argument could be made in either case that the interloper was trespassing or disturbing the peace, and could be arrested and charged on those grounds. But I really wasn't talking about law so much as exactly what I said: common sense and common courtesy.
And I don't see either one of those as infringing on free speech, any more than the time, place, and manner restrictions that the Supreme Court has often allowed to stand in its rulings on the First Amendment. PZ Myers can think what he likes about my faith--but ordinary decency should induce him to keep his mouth shut about those things when he's in my presence: just as it would mine if the positions were to be reversed.
And there's a pragmatic argument to be made for that as well. I'm in complete agreement with PZ that Bill DonoWho is a douchebag of the highest order, a blowhard whose sole discernible interest is in getting himself on television and attracting attention to himself and his pimple-on-the-arse-of-the-Church group. And PZ just handed him, on a silver platter, a golden opportunity to do just that--whereas if he'd kept his mouth shut for a while, DonoWho would fade back into the obscurity he so richly deserves, and this whole thing would have been no more than the tempest in a teapot it started out being.
Myers has a right to call for action, asking his readers to snag him a communion wafer. Actually, he can go buy some himself at a Catholic Supply store or even bake some if he chooses.
Bill Donahue also called for action when he asked his readers to contact Myers' boss in an attempt to get him fired.
The problem with free speech is that it is risky. We all run into the risk of other folks saying stuff we do not care for. And why is it that Myers should have kept his opinions to himself? That is part of blogging-- being able to express ourselves.
The real outrage is that the Host Heisting and Hostage-taking is being called a "hate crime" because Roman Catholic doctrine states that Jesus' body is the host. How about the kids who are held hostage by (a minority of) Roman Catholic priests who RAPE them. The offending priests are routinely transferred to other parishes where they get to do it again. What did we get when those stories broke? An appeal by some dioceses for more monetary donations in order to pay off the lawsuits and a bunch of Catholic apologetics. Where was the outrage then?
As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse myself, I am deeply offended that the desecration of a Host is the subject of public outcry. Yet the whole priest/rape thing was just another page in the news.
spike
Sorry, saphhoq, but you're wrong. Myers wasn't looking for people to buy or bake him hosts. He can do that himself, as you note--but that is not the same thing as what he actually asked people to do, which was to go to Mass and line up for Communion, and bring back the consecrated hosts for him to defile. Anything he does to a host before it is consecrated is meaningless. Anything he does to a host after it is consecrated is, at least according to Catholic doctrine, blasphemy and sacrilege. People have literally sacrificed their lives, over two thousand years of history, to prevent the desecration of the Eucharist. And you're damn right I'm offended that PZ Myers is yet another in a long and very undistinguished line of people calling for that to happen.
And while I'm sorry for the abuse you suffered, that doesn't give you, or PZ, or anybody else the right to compound one bad act with another. The "She did it first!" argument never worked with my parents when I was in trouble for doing something to my sister, and that's effectively what you're arguing for here, with much the same result.
Michael, I am not asking for you to be sorry for my past abuse. Your sorrow and pity is not expected nor is it wanted. Water over the dam as I said before. I got out of my childhood alive.
If you read my response carefully, you will find that I did not commit myself as to the rightness or the wrongness of P.Z. Myers' reaction. We have free speech in this country. That includes the right to be obnoxious and vengeful and petty and showy. This country is not a theocracy. Myers can call for people to take action. It is up to each adult to procure consecrated hosts for him or to decline.
Quite frankly, I am sick of religious people in this country crying "persecution" at every turn while knocking down the walls between separation of church and state. Meanwhile, scientific advancement is thwarted by the present presidential policies. That is part of my anger. It might even explain my mixed reaction of amusement and apathy to P.Z. Myers' risque suggestion. At any rate, I will stop now from constructing my own straw man argument to battle your straw man argument.
Again, where was the Catholic outrage when the stories about priests sexually abusing kids started coming out? And why couldn't Jesus just teleport his way out of the plastic baggy?
spike
Immunity = bad; extending 4th amendment protections to americans abroad the govt wants to surveil = good.
I agree its a mixed bag, hence the word compromise.
But I think your outrage has more to do with the Bush administration getting away with this than the substance of the measure on civil rights grounds. I think the Bushies will get their comeuppance in other ways.
It's time to turn the page.
Michael -- Are you suggesting the US government should enforce Catholic doctrine when someone "blasphemes" against the church?
Last time I checked, destroying communion wafers, "consecrated" or not, does not violate any US law.
I agree that what he suggests is rude, offensive and in bad taste. But you keep using words like "he has no right" and well, unless you can point out where in US law its illegal to "defile the Host," he's breaking no laws.
Post a Comment