In a story that concerns the interesting question of how we should take into account the beliefs (especially the religious beliefs) of others that we take to be false in deciding how to treat those people, a University of Central Florida student walked out of a Catholic Mass on June 29 with a consecrated communion wafer. Given their beliefs, this is a rather big deal to Catholics, some of whom seem to have reacted very strongly against the student. Bill Donohue and the Catholic League became involved, calling on the University to take strong action against the student. The biologist, P.Z. Myers, of the University of Minnesota, Morris came to the defense of the student in this post of Myers's blog, Pharyngula, and called on readers to steal consecrated wafers from Catholic churches so that he could publicly desecrate them, posting pictures on the web. Donohue and the Catholic have taken note of Myers's blog post, and seem to have begun something of a campaign against him. From what I understand, despite some very negative encounters with some of those who protested his actions, the student himself was nonetheless able to hear the appeals of others who explained to him why the matter was so important to them, and he responded humanely, returning the wafer.
Readers here may have heard of this case already, because it entered the world of philosophy blogs when Brian Leiter wrote about it in this blog post. However, Leiter's position seems to me very one-sided, so I thought I would post a different perspective. (Thanks to Matthew Mullins and Prosblogion for allowing me to use this forum. For those who don't know, I should make clear that I am a Christian, but not a Catholic, so readers can know where this commentary is coming from.)
In particular, Leiter seems to me to go way too easy on Prof. Myers. To put my opposition in context, please note that I do not support any efforts to get Prof. Myers fired or disciplined at his job over this incident, that I agree with Prof. Myers that the reaction against the Florida student by many was too strong, and that I find it admirable that Prof. Myers would come to the student's defense. However, Myers's proposed retaliation, which would hurt many Catholics who are completely innocent in this whole matter, strikes me as extremely nasty. To my thinking, it is morally more problematic than anything Donohue has yet done in this case. I can understand those who might disagree with that comparative judgment of mine, but have a hard time understanding the judgment of those who see the matter as so one-sidedly favoring Myers as Leiter seems to see things.
Myers's retaliation hurts Catholics because of beliefs they hold that he disagrees with, and, admittedly, it's not easy to say, in general terms, just how we should take the beliefs of others into account in deciding how to treat them. However, Myers's retaliation seems so aimed at hurting innocent parties and so incapable of producing any good, and, well, just so nasty, that this seems an easy call. So readers can judge for themselves, here's the relevant paragraph of Myers's post (follow the link above to read the whole thing):
So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them -- my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure -- but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address.
Is he perhaps just joking? To some extent, this is clearly all a joke to Myers. But it doesn't seem to be just a joke in the sense that it's clear nobody should really steal the items and send them to him. The Washington Times reports:
In an interview Friday, Mr. Myers said he already had received "a double-digit number" of positive responses, from people saying that they would try to get consecrated Catholic hosts for him and that the writer already had one."Enough that I could sculpt a statue of them," he said, declining to say what he'd do to desecrate them. "I've got a few ideas, but I want to keep the surprise."
I hope that this is a joke at least to the extent that Myers won't follow through on his sick plan, but it will be very revealing to see people's reactions if he does. In any case, if a joke, this would seem a rather nasty joke -- perhaps to be compared with those who would publicly ask for others to raid burial grounds sacred to Native Americans and send them remains so that they might publicly desecrate them. ("They're just frackin' bones!") "Wickedly funny"?
For the record, I'll paste below the fold the e-mail I sent to Prof. Myers on July 11. It now appears to me too smug and sanctimonious in tone, but I stand behind the position there expressed:
Dear Prof. Myers,
I'm writing about your blog post from July 8 ("IT'S A FRACKIN' CRACKER!"). This is not a piece of hate mail, and I'm sorry that you're receiving hate mail. I don't have a very complete understanding of the incident, but, based on what seems to have happened, while I don't approve of what Mr. Cook did, I disapprove of the efforts to go after him, and I even admire your willingness to stick up for the young man -- while not admiring some of the rhetoric you use while doing so - which I find in places to be needlessly abusive (and yes, I do recognize some on the other side are needlessly abusive, too). But what really concerns me are your proposals in your penultimate ("So, what to do") paragraph. It's as if your goal in writing that paragraph was to see if you could meet (and *perhaps* even surpass!) the stupidity and meanness of the worst of the examples you took to task earlier in your post. I had planned to argue to you that you should rescind that plan, complete with careful analyses of when and how we should take into account the beliefs of others that we consider to be false in deciding how to treat the people in question. But I've read some of your blog posts, and based on my sense of your character, I have faith that you need no argument from me here: If you just take a deep breath and objectively consider what you wrote, keeping in mind the many Catholics (and other Christian too, for that matter) who are innocent in this matter but whom you would be needlessly hurting by what you propose (even if their being hurt depends upon beliefs they hold that you take to be obviously false), I am confident you will be able to see the light. On the other hand, if I have read your character wrong (as I'm often inclined to do, being disposed to being overly charitable [perhaps even gullible] in my judgments of people, as many Christian friends have told me, based on my admiration for important aspects of Prof. Dawkins's character), and you still think yours is a great idea after a little consideration, you are probably beyond the reach of the help of any argument I could produce, anyway.
Sincerely,
Keith DeRose
Thanks for posting this, Keith. It looks like a case of overreaction on all sides: the student was needlessly insensitive, the Catholic League wants legal sanctions imposed for such behavior, and Myers seals the deal by trying for greater insensitivity. Reminds me of the playground...
Keith: I want to thank you for your excellent example of how to communicate truthfully, yet with charity and kindness.
Hi Keith,
Although I agree that the central issue in this incident is the harm suffered by innocent third parties, I think you are mistaken when you claim the following: "Myers's retaliation seems so aimed at hurting innocent parties and so incapable of producing any good". The intended target is obviously Bill Donahue and others threatening the student who originally took the communion wafer.
I doubt that Myers's intended good is for Donahue et al to change their ways, so the point is probably to offend them in retaliation for offending him in how they responded to this student's actions. That it also offends third parties seems to be icing on the cake, since they hold beliefs which he considers to be false and wrong.
I'm not so sure that no good can come from being deliberately offensive, although no easy counterexamples come to mind. I would just point out that the application of this principle can often depend on whose ox is being gored, as many who have taken a stand on one side on this issue took the other side in the debate on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.
Thanks for the post, Prof. DeRose! A reasonable voice amongst the many excited bandwagoners on the web, who think that there is something "heroic" about Myers's clearly sick "action plan".
I'm not so sure that no good can come from being deliberately offensive
I think Phayngula's proposal is outrageous, frankly, and very obviously intended to be so. This is hardly a case of 'deliberate offense' in the view of Catholics, it's desecration. Can you imagine someone urging people to steal items from the Holocaust museum, and promising to abuse them and place them on the internet? Is that just offensive behavior? It's outrageous, of course. But, obviously, whatever is stolen from the museum really is only a physical object. But how is that anywhere near the point?
Hi Mike,
Myers has suggested doing is offensive to Catholics because it is outrageous to them. It's deliberately offensive in that it's intended to cause offense through its outrageousness.
I presume Myers's point with the "it's a frackin' cracker" line is not just that the Eucharist is really only a physical object, but that those who are offended ought to believe that it is only that.
Keith,
You are going *way* too easy on Myers. You should admire him for nothing, particularly not for sticking up for this student. It is highly doubtful, given how hateful and outrageous Myers's recent behavior is, that he's interested in defending some kid as a martyr.
This kid STOLE A SACRED OBJECT. He STOLE a SACRED object to a particular religion. And if it had happened to any religion other than Christianity and Catholicism particularly, there would be a national firestorm over it. P.Z. Myers is advocating publicly the theft of a sacred object from a Church. Advocating theft is a crime and advocating theft of a sacred object is an even worse crime. It is hard to see how this is a case of 'balancing both sides'. Donahue overreacts, but he's not overreacting that much about this if he is at all. Advocating the theft of a sacred object is plausibly a great enough offense to warrant a firing.
Additionally, Brian Leiter's post was extremely offensive and outrageous. For better or worse, he runs Philosophical Gourmet and represents the public face of analytic philosophy to many. As word of the post spreads, he is liable to offend a great many members of the Society of Christian Philosophers and basically everyone in the Catholic Philosophers Association as well.
This is not a time for being 'even-handed' and balancing both sides. In this case, there's a clear offender and a clear victim.
Here's a thought experiment:
Suppose that instead of stealing a communion wafer this student had stolen a pair of used panties from a women's dorm room as undergraduate males years ago were apparently wont to do. And suppose the local feminist organization had caught wind of this prank and, like the Catholic League, called on the university to take action against the student for "objectifying" women or whatever.
And then suppose a faculty member who was unsympathetic to feminism had posted a response:
So, what to do...Can anyone out there score me some smelly female underwear?...I'll show you objectification, gladly, and with much fanfare...I will have myself photographed sniffing it joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed dykes and feminazis hovering over your local girls dorm, just write to me and I'll send you my home address.
(1) The student stole something and that's prima facie wrong. (2) Like the theft of used underwear it was an action which, rightly or wrongly, offended lots of people deeply. (3) Even if Myers thought they were wrong to be offended because he believed in principle that the religious doctrines that caused them to be offended were false, silly or downright pernicious, this response is puerile as the thought experiment suggests.
I'm all for giving offense when it's likely that the consequences on net would be good ones. And if Myers had reason to believe that his remarks would have what he would regard as good results--e.g. disabusing Catholics of their silly superstitions, undermining religious belief or defending atheists against an oppressive religious establishment--then I could see some point in Myers' response. But Myers must surely have known that his remarks wouldn't have any such effect--he was just venting, being gratuitously offensive, and certainly not winning hearts and minds.
Personally, I wouldn't care if someone stole my dirty knickers ("There's the laundry hamper, lads: help yourself!") The entertainment value would easily make up for the loss of underwear. And I'd think that anyone who got steamed up about such a matter was flat-out silly. But, again, considering the thought experiment, it seems to me that a faculty member who rushed to the defense of knicker knickers in order to Make A Statement about feminism gone bad was behaving like a silly ass.
The point is that this doesn't have anything to do with religion much less with whether the religious doctrines that cause Catholics to take offense are true or false, or downright silly. This is just theist-bating--and I'd say the same about the Muhammed cartoons. Myers had every right to post his offensive blather and Jyllands-Posten had every right to run the cartoons but in both cases doing so was silly and childish.
You should admire him for nothing, particularly not for sticking up for this student.
Ridiculous. Bill Donohue called for Webster Cook's expulsion. In the wake of this incident, Cook (predictably) receives death threats. Someone needed to stand up for the kid and someone needs to stand up to Donohue.
Please, no comments -- especially strong opinions -- without identifying yourself. These discussions tend to go very badly when people take strident shots anonymously.
Myers didn't stand up for the kid, or stand up to Donahue. He tried to parley the incident into something greater for his own obsessive cause, and it's since backfired and created a brand new situation to talk about.
As for death threats - those abound nowadays. Write a letter to the editor demanding that taxes be raised, and I wouldn't be surprised if you get a few. Hell, tell everyone you're a fan of the wrong football team and you'll get a few. Whackjobs abound on all sides - I'm pretty sure I recall Michael Behe getting some death threats for his ID support. If Myers thought that the student receiving death threats was indicative of most or even many Catholics' attitudes towards the matter, all it indicates is an inability to think clearly (No surprise there.)
Donahue may have been going too far in people's opinions (Frankly, I don't think he was) but he wasn't calling for the student's death or violence against the student. Not even insinuating as much. And he wasn't waging any kind of war against atheists as a group when addressing the issue.
I've seen plenty of Catholics condemning those death threats, and I certainly condemn them. No violence is justified over acts like these, though irritation and shock is understandable.
Myers didn't stand up for the kid, or stand up to Donahue.
First, that's obviously false. Of course he did. You may have some suspicion about his motives for doing so, but even if you're right about those, that's still what he did. But, second, it doesn't help the discussion to be attaching bad motives here -- it's way too easy to just assign a bad motive for everything those you oppose do. Look, we all know that there are many who will suspect Myers of bad motivations no matter what, and many who will suspect Donohue of bad motivations no matter what. That's not helping.
As for death threats - those abound nowadays. Write a letter to the editor demanding that taxes be raised, and I wouldn't be surprised if you get a few. Hell, tell everyone you're a fan of the wrong football team and you'll get a few.
I must have missed that memo! I've publicly expressed many very controversial opinions on many topics -- including in religion and politics -- and I've certainly never been shy about what football team I follow. And I have actually received my share of hate [e-]mail -- mostly people who get all worked up over my on-line defense of universalism [ http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm ]. But I think that's the source of about all the hate mail I've received, though I've been outspoken about many matters. But death threats? I can't recall any -- & I think I'd remember (& report to the authorities) something like that. [And if there are any idiots out there who read that & what to make it false, don't bother.] I know many people who are quite outspoken in public venues, and I don't recall any of them telling me that they've received death threats, though I have often spoken with these friends about the various interesting reactions they have received to their ideas - and I'm guessing death threats would have come up. Having said all that, it isn't wise to choose a position on a debate because one side reports that they are receiving hate mail or even death threats from people supporting the other side, I certainly agree. But insofar as the existence of the threats is being cited as a reason for coming to the defense of the young man involved (which I think was Clayton's reason for citing them), and perhaps for putting pressure on Donohue to call for calm, they are well worth considering. Incidentally, has Donohue called on his audience not to react in such ways (hate mail, death threats?), perhaps on the Catholic League web site? I don't ask that in a wise guy way: I don't know, and would be curious to find out.
The point is that this doesn't have anything to do with religion much less with whether the religious doctrines that cause Catholics to take offense are true or false, or downright silly. This is just theist-bating--. ..
It is definitely theist-bating...it's attention-seeking, puerile and all that. But I don't think it is something that should be dismissed so easily. As I suggested above, how large do you think the reaction would be were Myers seriously to ask folks to steal items from the Holocaust museum for public abuse or, to use DeRose's example, to steal bones from an Native American burial ground for descretion? The outcry would be a hell of a lot larger than anything we've seen so far, that's for certain. Can you even imagine the response being that he's just being childish or that, this more or less like requesting stolen panties? It's simply unimaginable. But we have available an analogously lame justification for making the request. It would go something like this: 'the emotional attachment to physical remains--which, after all, are just frickin' objects--is absurd or silly. Why should we respect anyone that expends emotional resources on non-living objects?'. It seems obvious to me that, in every case described above, the proper response should not that he is being merely childish.
Keith,
Great letter, but I have to take exception to one thing you say in the comments. It's not at all clear, at least to me, that Myers was "standing up for the kid"--at least not on his blog. Here's my understanding of what it is to stand up for someone: To stand up for S is (a) to deliberately confront those opposing S (b) for the sake of S. (Maybe there are other ways of standing up for someone but they aren't obvious to me). If, as I suspect from the comments on his blog, his blog is almost entirely read by the choir (and he knows this), he is not standing up for the kid in posting that blog. It's certainly not OBVIOUS that he is, and seems more reasonable to me that it was also not for the sake of the kid.
Keith's comment begins with a criticism of Brian's post at the Leiter Reports as being 'one-sided.' Brian's post is one-sided, true, but only because he is interested only in this point: that Myers is legally protected against reprisals from the state of Minnesota for his speech, and that what Donohue is doing is attempting to use the state in an objectionable religiously authoritarian way. And on this point, I don't think that there is much of a case to be made for the other side; so being multiply-sided wouldn't be particularly a virtue. I just don't think that Brian is interested in entering into other questions raised by Myers's proposal.
I'm not quite getting how Myers's post is a broadside against theists, or Christians generally. I know why I'm bothered by it, and it has nothing to do with an assault on my sensibilities — my sensibilities are assaulted pretty much every day in greater and lesser ways — and everything to do with the fact that what Myers proposes is the desecration of, literally, the Body of Christ. But that's nothing that theists or Christians generally accept.
That does not mean, of course, that this is not a nasty proposal, even viewed from a perspective neutral on the question of whether what we've got here is a cracker. Myers's proposal is an assault on the good of community — it seems to relish the alienation from him that the proposal was sure to generate. It is true that sometimes speaking the truth will alienate us from our fellows, but alienation is to be generally regretted, but here it seems to be the whole point of the exercise.
While I agree that Myers is being childish in his response, perhaps he has also made a mistake out of ignorance. As I have come to understand it through this controversy, the Eucharist given in Catholic communion does not actually belong to the receiver, but is only consumed by him. The physical object continues to belong to the Church until its disintegration at some point during the process of digestion.
This isn't the kind of thing a non-Catholic could be expected to casually be aware of, so although Myers obviously intended to offend, perhaps he is ignorant of exactly why the actions he's suggested are offensive. Has anyone pointed this out to him, and how has he responded? (I'll certainly have a look, myself.)
Thanks for the kind words, TB. But I don't think any kind of fruitful discussion can happen here if even descriptions like that Myers "stood up for the kid" are denied. His motives aren't right -- he didn't do it for the sake of the kid? I don't think it's wise to go there. If clause (b) of your analysis is supposed to mean that one must do something exclusively for the sake of S, with no other motivations present, then I have my doubts that fallen humans ever stand up for others. If you mean something more reasonable, then why not just credit Myers with standing up for the kid? You can still say (though I wonder why), "Ok, he stood up for the kid, but I think he had selfish motives for doing so." But to go beyond that & insist that he didn't even stand up for the kid at all? If people in a discussion like this make such moves -- deny that those on the other side get any credit for things they do because you decide to question their motivations -- then we won't have a very helpful discussion -- just a chance for people to vent. He didn't do it in the right venue? I wouldn't think that means he didn't really stand up for the kid. Why not say, "Well, he stood up for the kid, but it would have been more helpful (more courageous, more impressive, better) if he had done it somewhere else"? But then why even say that? Myers used his usual platform, which is probably the easiest one for him to use. Word of his defense of the young man did reach some of those who were going after him -- as Myers probably could have predicted & at any rate might have been hoping for. Maybe he could have sent an e-mail to the Catholic League in the faint hope that they might post it. And, for all I know, he did that, too.
Mark (Murphy, from 3 comments above):
I disagree with this claim of yours:
Brian's post is one-sided, true, but only because he is interested only in this point: that Myers is legally protected against reprisals from the state of Minnesota for his speech
While Brian certainly is interested (& likely even most interested) in making that narrow legal point, he also seems to be interested in a more general evaluation of Myers's behavior here. People can of course go to Leiter's post & decide for themselves, but when Leiter writes, for instance, that "Professor Myers, correctly, came to the student's defense," I don't think he was saying that Myers was just legally correct to do so -- that it wasn't against the law for him to come to the student's defense --, nor do I see how this observation about the not-just-legal rightness of Myers's coming to the student's defense would be needed to make the narrow legal point you think is his sole goal, but I do see how it might function to promote a more general positive evaluation of Myers's behavior in connection with this incident. Similarly for Leiter's claim that "Professor Myers is obviously correct to draw the comparison between the Catholic League's response and Islamic fundamentalists."
When you write, "I'm not quite getting how Myers's post is a broadside against theists, or Christians generally," I'm not certain what you have in mind, but my guess is that you're reacting to the parenthetical comment in my e-mail to Myers: "(and other Christian too, for that matter)." At any rate, let me explain what I was thinking there. I hold what I take to be a fairly typical "low" Protestant view of the nature of the elements used in various versions of what I was brought up to call "the Lord's Supper," according to which they are symbols of the body and blood of Christ. That doesn't seem to bar me from being personally offended by their threatened desecration -- though my main concern here is the offense given to Catholics, for whom this is a much bigger deal. I mean, lots of Christians were offended by Piss Christ [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ ], and I don't think all of these offended folk thought that Jesus himself was really being submerged in urine.
Keith,
Yes, Brian does say that Myers correctly came to the student's defense; but that seems to be a comment not on what Myers did to defend him, but to the appropriateness of defending him at all. And as for the appropriateness of the comparison between the Catholic League response and Islamic fundamentalists; well, insofar as Donohue advocated using the power of the state to deal with Myers's atrocious conduct, the comparison is not entirely a failure. (I am referring only to Donohue's response to this particular incident.)
My 'against theists' remark was primarily a response to Baber and Almeida above, who seem to agree that Myers's act was 'theist-bating.'
I am not sure what to think about the way that nonCatholic Christians should think about this, and how similar the Myers schtick and Piss Christ are. But what I am even less sure about is why you need to worry about the offense given to Catholics in particular. As I said, when a desecration of the Body of Christ is at issue, what should matter to us Catholics is not the offense is causes.
I just wanted to say that Mark Murphy reads me correctly. I appreciate Keith's position, though disagree with him about the relative importance of chastizing Myers for being gratuitously provocative (which is what "poking a bull in the eye" is after all, which is why I used that phrase), and pointing out that state university professors can not be fired for being offensive.
With regard to the rather incensed anonymous posting above, I would like to point out that, contrary to what the poster says, "advocating theft" is *not* a crime except in extraordinarily unusual circumstances that plainly do not apply here. (It's also debatable whether this would involve theft, but I'm putting that to one side.)
When and whether it is justified or appropriate to offend those who holds beliefs one does not share is no doubt a complex issue, as I think some posters above are trying to point out (and as Keith also, I think, agrees). This posting also tackles the issue, from a perspective basically sympathetic to Myers:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/07/sullivan_on_pzs_sacrilege_thre.php
The problem with what Myers has proposed is not, in my view, that it is offensive to those with particular sectarian beliefs, but that it is quite obviously pointlessly so, and will only cause offense and indignation. One should not necessarily be distracted from a course of conduct offensive to a particular sect if it is otherwise valuable or purposeful, but this one is not. But I guess I really thought that was obvious, and that in the grand scope of things the Catholic League's penchant for wanting to punish speech is more important than a foolish 'plan' on a blog.
My 'against theists' remark was primarily a response to Baber and Almeida above, who seem to agree that Myers's act was 'theist-bating.'
I do say Myer's is theist-baiting. But, just in the interest of clarity, that's not to say that every theist would or should care (use a plural quantifier to generalize the assertion). But, since the topic is up, I would add that theists in general should care. I don't mean that they should care because Myer's behavior threatens them or their beliefs even indirectly. They should care in the fairly obvious sense that comes from recognizing the deep offense this presents to Catholic sensibilities (of course, it is much more than deep offense, but at least that). They should care in the same sense in which we should care about race-baiting, etc.
Thanks for stopping by, Brian. I'm not foolish enough to debate Marshall McLuhan about how to read Marshall McLuhan!
It is striking -- especially since I set my post up as being in opposition to yours! -- how much we turn out to agree upon here, esp. when, for instance, we compare your
The problem with what Myers has proposed is not, in my view, that it is offensive to those with particular sectarian beliefs, but that it is quite obviously pointlessly so, and will only cause offense and indignation
with my
However, Myers's retaliation seems so aimed at hurting innocent parties and so incapable of producing any good, and, well, just so nasty, that this seems an easy call.
I read your "poking a bull in the eye" comment as just expressing that the action was strategically unwise, while I, focusing on how harmful the action was, wanted to make the point that the action was mean and wrong. (I suppose if one approaches the metaphor with great concern for the welfare of the bull....)
Yes, we disagree about a comparative conclusion. In connection with that, my focus is on just how hurtful Myers's actions are & will be to so many people. I really hope he can be prevailed upon to cut it out. But I also hope Donohue can be prevailed upon to call off the dogs. (I'm not very optimistic on either score.) As I said in some comments over at Francis Beckwith's blog, I don't think it will help the Cause of Catholics or Christians for Donohue to win this battle -- to get serious action taken against Myers by his employer. (I'm just going by memory here, but I think "serious action," or something like that, is all that he's explicitly called for.) I'm not sure that anything will help in getting a decent outcome to this situation, but what I would propose as the best bet (whether or not the best bet is a particularly good bet) is for Catholics to write Myers directly (as opposed to writing the President of his university or his state legislature), and just explain to him why this is important to you. And it might help if you don't come off as smug & as sanctimonious as I do in my letter! No chance of working? I say it's worth a shot. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that if you manage to help Donohue hurt Myers in some way, this will only exacerbate the situation.
I agree with Mike, theists should care about this issue because of the deep offence this presents to Catholics. Perhaps we can appreciate the deepness of the offence in some way since there are sacred objects in a lot of religious circles but there are also a lot of objects that we hold very valuable because of sentiments that it stirs in us; this seems to go beyond just a mere insult and hence I hope that a lot of us have the intuition that it‘s more than just offensive. I do agree a lot with what Brian and Keith have to say except I’m inclined to think that some of Myers’ own motivations for his “what should we do” paragraph are relevant here. Yes, he was coming to the defence of the student, but it seems more than that. It was almost a pat on the back, or a confirmation that what the student did was something to be mimicked. I’m not entirely sure I can come up for any reason why one would think so, and it seems most of us are scratching our heads at why someone would actually want to mimic something like this but Myers seems to be inclined to think that what the student did before he humanely returned the wafer was a valuable action. If Myers, himself as a public figure carries out the action in mimetic fashion then this would seem to encourage others to do so as well. Perhaps this would create a wider spread phenomenon and leading to things getting even more out of hand than they already are. Because this action is a deep offence and because of Myers’ reaction to the students action is a confirmation that it was valuable and perhaps something to be mimicked I think this is enough to cause a bit of a worry. I do think you’re right though, Keith, in your proposal to write Myers directly.
Hi Keith,
I'll end with this, since we needn't get into a tit-for-tat over this minor point. I do think the venue matters when it comes to whether an act should count as an act of standing up for someone. Perhaps I just have an odd view of what it is to stand up for someone, but standing up for someone does seem to me to involve a certain intent and awareness of the situation one is in, and I don't think it's the case that if word trickles down to S (or S's opposition) that H has said things in S's favor that this necessarily counts as standing up for someone. Maybe he was trying in part to stand up for the kid--it's just not obvious to me that he was (but it's not obvious to me that he wasn't either). It seems to me charitable (in the way medievals were charitable in their interpretations :) that you think he obviously was.
Philip Swenson presents some interesting arguments that the taking of the wafer was not only wrong, but a serious moral wrong. What is interesting is not just the conclusion of the argument, but the considerations as to why the action was wrong. See here: http://philosophy.missouri.edu/show-me/?p=538
It seems that sadly Myers has not taken heed of Keith DeRose's excellent email (if he even read it, that is).
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php#more
Yes, a sad outcome all-around, I'd say, given Myers's report of the some of the communications he received, one of which is also reported here:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html