Time Immortal

Make it disappear from every aspect of public life, he argues, and his focus seems to be primarily on Christianity, and then Anglicanism more specifically.

Regardless, his contention is just that: utterly de-legitimize Religion in the public eye. Drive it into private meetings, drive it out of sight, drive it underground, and afford it no publicity. Surely it will wither and fade then!

I believe this strategy also worked for the Roman Empire between about 33 AD and 312 AD.

What’s really amusing here, apart from the historical ignorance (which seems, increasingly, to be something of a trapping for the godless), is the rather close flirtation with totalitarian sentiments that is on display. Of course, effectively enforcing any sort of truly atheistic public policy (that is to say, enforcing a policy whereby religion is explicitly banned from the public eye) requires a more forceful, dictatorial approach to begin with, and then one that will likely escalate into full-on repression and violence.

We’ve seen as much in history. But hey, what is there to ever be learned from history, right? P. Z. Myers informs us that nothing should be held to be sacred, so why should we acknowledge that the dusty pages of the history books have any kind of valuable lessons to impart to us?

Remind me, again, why we sent our soldiers to die to liberate the French? Apparently, this sort of crass exhibitionism has become rather commonplace at the massive memorial site commemorating the sacrifices of Canadian soldiers in capturing Vimy Ridge, one of those instances where the Canucks came in to do the job that nobody else could get done.

That’s right: Canadian sacrifice is now the backdrop for erotica and smut.

Perhaps I’m thinking about this the wrong way, though? I am reliably informed by P. Z. Myers that nothing should be held sacred, so perhaps I should applaud these Frenchies for their restraint; they could, after all, have chosen to use the memorial as a latrine instead.

Bollocks to that. This is patent ingratitude. It almost makes one wish there was another war brewing, one in which France could be left to fend for herself.

Meh. After P. Z. Myers stunt, this one is pretty tame…and at any rate, cheap shots against Christians are a dime a dozen when they aren’t on sale.

Is there not one comedian in Canada who has the guys to fly a banner from a plane accusing Muhammad of being a paedophile (which wouldn’t even be dishonest!)? The answer, of course, is “no” — nobody wants to risk ending up like Theo Van Gogh. But of course, nobody wants to be seen as a coward either, so mocking Christians (who don’t retaliate against this sort of thing by any means other than the occasional angry letter to the editor) is a natural fallback position.

It’s still cowardly, of course, but at least it doesn’t look like it.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

So the anti-Catholic bigot posted a picture of his work of desecration of the Eucharist…and, while certainly offensive (one never enjoys seeing Christ mocked), it was also rather bland an unoriginal.

I mean, c’mon, Prof Myers…driving a rusty nail through the Eucharist? Lame…the Romans had the same idea 2,000 years ago. Really, if he wanted to be offensive about it, why didn’t he just do a time-lapse series of photos of his consumption of what he so derisively calls a “cracker” — that would have actually been a substantially worse desecration, theologically speaking. But he didn’t even have the smarts — or perhaps the courage — to go to those lengths.

(To tell the truth, I was honestly expecting something scatological when he claimed that he’d carried out his threat. Or a used condom.)

And then there was Myers’ suggestion, in the same blog post, that nothing should be held sacred, and that everything would be questioned. I agree with the second part — yes, question everything. But remember, too, that ours is a rational universe that often rewards inquiry with answer…and remember, then, that sometimes the answers we get in reply to our questions suggest that we should hold some things as being sacred.

Jimmy Akin feels that Myers should be fired, and I find that I more or less agree. Not because I’m particularly interested in silencing Prof Myers — his freedom of expression is important to me — but because this was not just an act of freedom of expression. It was a mixture of incitement and something far, far worse.

P. Z. Myers has demonstrated that he will go out of his way to offend the sensibilities of anybody who holds anything sacred, to treat whatever they hold sacred with public contempt. The problem thus is not limited to Catholics and Muslims. Since, in Myers own words, “Nothing must be held sacred,” and since he is willing to desecrate anything that others do hold sacred, the university must conclude that Myers is willing not only to outrage Catholic and Muslim students, parents, alumni, and citizens but members of any other group as well.

Myers is thus incapable of effectively carrying out his mission as an educator and his position must be terminated.

He also is in violation of the University of Minnesota Code of Conduct, which holds that faculty members “must be committed to the highest ethical standards of conduct” (II:2) and that “Ethical conduct is a fundamental expectation for every community member. In practicing and modeling ethical conduct, community members are expected to: act according to the highest ethical and professional standards of conduct [and] be personally accountable for individual actions” (III:1).

It also stresses that faculty members must “Be Fair and Respectful to Others. The University is committed to tolerance, diversity, and respect for differences. When dealing with others, community members are expected to: be respectful, fair, and civil . . . avoid all forms of harassment . . . [and] threats . . . [and] promote conflict resolution.”

P. Z. Myers has done none of these things. He is in fundamental breach of the University of Minnesota’s Code of Conduct and must be discharged.

To voice your opinion on this subject, contact the offices of the president and the chancellor:

President Robert H. Bruininks
202 Morrill Hall
100 Church Street S.E.
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455

Via phone: 612-626-1616
Via fax: 612-625-3875
Via e-mail: upres@umn.edu

Chancellor Jacqueline Johnson
309 Behmler Hall
600 East 4th Street
Morris, MN 56267

320-589-6020
E-mail: grussing@morris.umn.edu

Just to briefly illustrate: using Myers’ logic, I’d be perfectly justified in digging up the grave of one of his relatives and doing unspeakable things to what’s left of the body — being decayed meat, its not like it’s sacred or anything. It’s fine to hold that theory and belief in the abstract, but to act on it crosses a very definite line, and Myers has shown himself to be a liability to his employer because he has done as much.

Christ endured the whips and taunts of the Romans; he’ll have endured whatever P. Z. Myers saw fit to do to Him as well. That’s right — according to a post on his website (I will not do him the dignity of a link), Prof Myers has carried out his threat to desecrate a Eucharistic host.

Yes, the sad little cracker has met its undignified end, so stop pestering me. The cracker, the Koran, and another surprise entry have been violated and are gone. You’ll have to wait until tomorrow for the details, what little of them there are. I must quickly apologize to all you good Catholics who were hoping to attend Mass, since you can’t anymore — I have been told many hundreds of times now that cracker abuse violates your right to practice your religion. I guess you’ll have to adapt. Secular humanism is a good alternative, if you aren’t already flocking to join the Mormons.

I suppose secular humanism is a decent alternative, if one wanted to live in an amoral vacuum in which the various social tenets of what constitutes moral behaviour are negotiable based on personal taste. Personally, I prefer something a little…stiffer (which rather emulates my taste in liquid spirits, I might note).

Myers is a sad, sad man and a bigot, rather a lost soul, and rather a textbook example of just how a hatred of God (as opposed to simple non-belief) is a gateway unto madness. He is to be pitied, and one can only pray that he be forgiven; he knows not that which he does.

Related: drunk atheist jerk storms into worship service, berates parishoners. But remember — he is the champion of reason; the parishoners who were insulted by him should have thanked him for enlightening them with his wisdom and rationality.

From P. Z. Myers to Richard Dawkins, one struggles to find an iconoclast of atheism who is willing to actually stick his neck out and display a little courage.

In the case of P. Z. Myers, well…it’s been two weeks, and he still hasn’t made good on his threat to desecrate a Eucharistic host. And he sounded so defiant, so confident, earlier this month!

In the case of Richard Dawkins, well…he just doesn’t have the stones to debate an intellectual equal. Oh, he’s fine against two-bit televangelists. But he seems to be attempting to do everything in his power to avoid having to go up one-on-one against the likes of .

These are good events to see transpire; they give hope. After all, many people have wedded their own philosophical views to the tripe that the likes of Dawkins, Myers, Christopher Hitchens, and other “New Atheists” churn out; that such tripe can be shown up for what it is so easily, and that its proponents can be shown up as cowards so consistently, suggests that in the long run, this new atheism won’t last.

In that, it is rather like most other heresies the Church has had to endure.

There’s just something wrong with somebody who says “Unless you can scientifically demonstrate that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, I don’t understand why you should be upset at me for breaking into your house, stealing the thing most precious to you and defecating on it.” Normal people don’t have trouble figuring that out. Emotional defectives do. Not all (in fact, not most) atheists or unbelievers, in my experience, do this. Just the ones who make atheism their raison d’etre. And the internet tends to disproportionately represent such emotional defectives for a number of reasons. First, because you just don’t hear from unbelievers who aren’t obsessed with making everybody else know how stupid they are. Second, because the computer in the basement is the Best Friend to the emotional defective (and the coward) who would never dream of going around insulting people face to face, but who can get out all his aggressions on line. The Internet is a breeding ground for human toothaches who, for good reason, never get invited to parties and who explain this to themselves by saying “The world is unworthy of my Great Thoughts.”

This all has to do, of course, with P. Z. Myers and his half-hearted threat to desecrate a Eucharistic host. In the end, the whole outing is probably for the best, as it paints a very clear picture of just what overt hatred of God does to a person’s intellect and mental stability.

Still, it’s a disgusting act of anti-Catholic bigotry on the part of a tenured professor. In a just world, Myers’ particular brand of feverish mind would find its only audience in white, padded walls, rather than in a classroom full of unsuspecting students.

Had atheist professor and blogger P. Z. Myers suggested desecrating a Koran by wrapping it in bacon, he’d be out of a job so fast as to make his head spin.

But since he’s proposing to desecrate a Eucharistic host, he probably won’t even get a stern talking to.