Apparently something very similar happened in Florida on a college campus after a student "kidnapped" the "body of Christ":
- Student Who Took Religious Icon Getting Death Threats
- 'Body Of Christ' Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student
This is no different from the relative lack of moderate or liberal Islamic voices speaking out against religious extremism happening within Islam.
Apparently, the safety of a human is less important to some Christians than the safety of a cracker.
21 comments:
Well I have been at the receiving end of what a 911 dispatcher (not me) characterized as "death threats" from a belligerent Unitarian*Universalist Steve. I had him charged with uttering threats and he eventually copped a plea and was subjected to non-judicial treatment for his criminal act. I could have had a restraining order imposed on him but graciously declined doing so since I felt any threat had been effectively neutralized by his admission of guilt and the other terms of his non-judicial treatment. Another person attending a Sunday service at the Unitarian Church of Montreal once said, "Should I stop and talk with you or should I just go home and get my gun and shoot you." I advised them that it would be better to stop and talk with me but they did neither and continued on into "church". I have been physically assaulted by U*Us on several occasions as a result of my public protest against the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us and other U*U injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy.
I have seen no press coverage of moderate or liberal U*U voices speaking out against anti-religious extremism happening within U*Uism.
This is no different from the relative lack of moderate or liberal Islamic voices speaking out against religious extremism happening within Islam.
Apparently, the safety of a human is less important to some U*Us than the safety of a picket sign.
This is a portion of an email that I sent to UUA President Bill Sinkford over two years ago on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 9:35 PM -
As stated in my previous communications to you I also expect you to responsibly address various other internal UU injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that have come to my attention over the years, including the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" UUs and the culture of censorship and suppression of criticism and dissent within the UU religious community that makes a total mockery of UU claims to be unfailing defenders of civil liberties.
end quote
Have you seen any evidence of President Sinkford, or any other top level UUA official, speak out against he anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" UUs Steve? I sure haven't. . .
Nor have I seen President Sinkford or any other UUA official responsibly address the culture of censorship and suppression of criticism and dissent within the UU religious community. Au contraire that culture of censorship and suppression of criticism and dissent continues to this day, perhaps most especially when it comes to the UUA itself, U*U "churches" and U*U clergy. Am I wrong Steve? And just where are all the other U*Us speaking out against these U*U injustices, and abuses Steve?
So far, I have seen no press coverage of moderate or liberal Christian voices speaking out against this religious extremism happening within Christianity.
The Catholic League seems to be responding to this incident with its usual boorish paranoia, I'll grant that.
But are there any objective, verified journalistic reports of actual death threats that are more credible than the accused perp's sensational, unconfirmed claim? Or is this just another case of Fox News being Fox News?
This is no different from the relative lack of moderate or liberal Islamic voices speaking out against religious extremism happening within Islam.
I was in Baghdad for nine weeks. We had a Mosque in the office for the Muslim Iraqis and Kurds to use for prayers.
My Muslim workmates were moderate Muslims and sounded quite the Universalist when I chatted with them on faith and politics; yet few UUs would be inclined to call them our allies at the moment... at least those are the vibes I get. No, these are folks engulfed in a hopless civil war I think the frame of most UUs.
So if the moderate Muslims aren't sounding the way you think they should; maybe it's because they're not getting much in return from us in support....
Fausto -- it wasn't just the Orlando FL Fox News affiliate. The ABC affiliate also reported that the student had received death threats:
'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats
http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html
Bill -- my complaint wasn't with Muslim extremists and the perceived lack of moderate and liberal Muslim voices speaking out against religious extremism.
My observation is that Christian extremism in North America apparently gets the same pass from moderate and liberal Christian leaders.
This sort of overreaction over a cracker and a thoughtless college student is staggering.
And my reaction is quite mild to PZ Myers' "Pharyngula" blog on the scienceblogs.com web site:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php
Fausto -- it wasn't just the Orlando FL Fox News affiliate. The ABC affiliate also reported that the student had received death threats:
That ABC report doesn't mention death threats, only threats to break into his room to recover the stolen Eucharist. Which may be retributive rather than praiseworthy, but it's not on the same level as murder threats either.
On further reflection, two more thoughts occur to me:
1. Catholic doctrine maintains that the Eucharistic bread is transsubstantiated -- literally, physically transformed -- into the body of Christ during communion. This is one of the peculiar doctrinal points of Catholicism to which all Protestants (including the entire spectrum of Unitarians and Universalists, from the most to the least Christian) have always dissented. However, isn't it showing contempt, rather than due respect, for diversity of belief to give credence to unsubstantiated reports about Catholics making death threats, and to belittle their sacred Eucharistic wafer as just "a cracker"? Doesn't it show contempt for Catholicism as well as a certain selfish weakness of character to attend a Catholic service as a guest with the intention of stealing a sacramental, consecrated Eucharist wafer, with or without knowing its significance to the Catholic faithful?
2. Death threats or not, sacrament or not, dishonest motives or not, the alarmed Catholic response nevertheless does seem to these liberal, residually Protestant eyes to be an overreaction. Without intending any insult to the Catholic liturgy, I think the level of responsive ire and indignation was misplaced, and un-Christian even by Christian standards. Assuming (if only for the sake of argument) that the wafer was indeed the "body of Christ", it was (in the orthodox Christian understanding) the body of the same Christ who preached the benevolent, forgiving spirit of God over rigid religious formalities, who urged turning the other cheek when struck, and who had already long ago given up his body, forgiving his tormentors as he died in agony and triumphing as he did so over the worst this world could dole out. Catholics and all other Christians, it would seem to me, are called to emulate him, not the Pharisees who valued religious formality over forgiving Spirit, not the angry crowd on Golgotha who couldn't recognize the significance of what was happening right in front of them.
Fausto -- I'm waiting for this incident to show up on "South Park" -- perhaps with the flashing caption at the bottom of the screen when the doctrine of transubstantiation is being explained that says "This is what Roman Catholics actually believe."
:^)
FYI -- on iBeth's blog, she links to blog death threats against the college student:
http://www.bethyoung.org/ibeth/2008/07/im-feeling-sorr.html
Again, I've heard no voices of reason from within the Christian community -- Protestant or otherwise -- condemning the overreaction to this stunt.
Frankly, the Roman Catholic Church comes off sounding as crazy as the Scientologists. And the church's defenders (Bill Donohue, Catholic League, Vive Christus Rex blog, etc) are just as fierce as Scientology's defenders.
I guess the patina of over 1900 years of history makes it sound less crazy because we're used to hearing it.
Robin -- by invoking the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" in two separate replies, I'm going to invoke "Blake's Law":
"In any discussion of atheism (skepticism, etc.), the probability that someone will compare a vocal atheist to religious fundamentalists increases to one."
This is analogous to Godwin's Law and the effect is the same.
It's a tacit acknowledgment that you don't have anything significant to say other than hyperbole.
Nobody has seen the e-mail or heard the phone messages containing these death threats. As far as I can tell, only Fox News, PZ Myers, and a few blogs (like this one) have taken seriously the death threat claim. Even if there are a few irresponsible threats posted somewhere in cyberspace, I think they need to be read in the context of the reliability of the source before being taken at face value as a blot on the reputation of all Catholics or all Christians, as you seem eager to do. Most of the discussions about this incident spreading across the internet focus on the inappropriate behavior of the student and the inappropriate reaction of the
Catholic community, but without any mention of death threats. I think the supposed death threats are a canard.
As I see it, this kid did a reckless, disrespectful thing and is learning from the intensity of the response the lesson of karma. Unless and until verified evidence surfaces, I'm going to presume that the supposed death threats are merely unfounded claims by a self-centered, inconsiderate adolescent who was embarrassed because he got caught pulling an immature stunt and who has some growing up yet to do. Perhaps this incident will serve as an instructive moment for him in that regard.
It's worthwhile to question the Catholic response as a whole, but even if there were death threats, it's not valid to attribute to an entire denomination or religion the unsanctioned individual acts of a few undisciplined, irresponsible hotheads.
Fausto wrote:
-snip-
"It's worthwhile to question the Catholic response as a whole, but even if there were death threats, it's not valid to attribute to an entire denomination or religion the unsanctioned individual acts of a few undisciplined, irresponsible hotheads."
Fausto,
My biggest concern here is that no one from the Christian community is telling those with a hot-headed reaction to just chill out because you're embarrassing the rest of us.
Where is the voice of reason from within Christianity on this?
Freedom of religious belief doesn't mean that belief or practice is immune from critical examination simply because it's religious in nature.
My biggest concern here is that no one from the Christian community is telling those with a hot-headed reaction to just chill out because you're embarrassing the rest of us.
I think that's probably because the supposed "death threat" claims, to the extent they even exist, are as yet still unsubstantiated and not particularly credible.
I'd like to see your suggestion become more widespread among ourselves as appled to members of our own little denomination, though.
Where is the voice of reason from within Christianity on this?
Responding to the actual offense and reaction, rather than to sensational speculation. The bishop of the diocese seems to be trying hard to calm the indignation, for example.
It is the voices of irrationality on both sides of the debate that are allowing exaggerated, irresponsible, polarized positions to "go viral". On the Catholic side, those would be voices like those of the paranoid Catholic League and anonymous bloggers posting idle threats. On the anti-Catholic side, those would be voices like PZ Myers who exaggerate both the source and the reality of the threats and spread scornful remarks about another religion's holiest sacraments.
((As I see it, this kid did a reckless, disrespectful thing and is learning from the intensity of the response the lesson of karma. Unless and until verified evidence surfaces, I'm going to presume that the supposed death threats are merely unfounded claims by a self-centered, inconsiderate adolescent who was embarrassed because he got caught pulling an immature stunt and who has some growing up yet to do. Perhaps this incident will serve as an instructive moment for him in that regard.)))
Yeah, I'm with Fausto on this one.
I don't see the death threat claims being taken seriously by really anyone, and I'm not sure why it is liberal Christianity's job to answer for the Catholics.
Should the UUA be putting out a statement on behalf of all religious people? (Hint: No.)
Boy, this kid was such a little jerk. I really don't understand why people wanting to do their own religious thing in their own space just can't be left alone.
CC
Steve, I did "invoke" the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" I used it perfectly legitimately to describe a subset of atheists that are every bit as fundamentalist in their atheist belief as some Christians, Jews and Muslims (to say nothing of Hindus and others) are in their theistic belief. My use of the term distinguishes these intolerant Atheist Supremacists (if you don't mind my invoking that term) from your average run of the mill atheist who has no quarrel with believers. It is quite ridiculous for you to pretend that my use of the term "fundamentalist atheist" is "a tacit acknowledgment that you don't have anything significant to say other than hyperbole." There is no hyperbole in my use of that term but, even if there was, it would by no means mean that there was nothing significant in the rest of what I have to say here. In fact much of what I have said here is backed by plenty of evidence. If you want to you should be able to access the court documents arising from the "death threats", theft and assault that a couple of belligerent Montreal Unitarian*Universalists copped pleas to.
Apparently you are quite unconcerned that no one from the Unitarian*Universalist community is telling those U*Us with hot-headed reactions to my claimed revelatory religious experience or my subsequent protest against U*U anti-religious intolerance and bigotry etc. should just chill out because their embarrassing the rest of U*Us. I dare say that you are clearly embarrassing other U*Us with your post here that is quite symptomatic of fundamentalist atheist anti-religious intolerance.
Where is the voice of reason from within Unitarian*Universalism on the injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I have been bringing to the attention of U*Us for over a decade now Steve? I don't see much evidence of any good old Unitarian reason in U*U responses to my grievances and protests. Au contraire. . .
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RobinEdgar&p=v
Steve, I did NOT "invoke" the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" I used it perfectly legitimately to describe a subset of atheists. . .
What's the difference between "invoking" a phrase and "using" the phrase?
CC
who is mostly on Robin's side in this argument, but was curious.
But not curious enough to look up the meaning of the word 'invoke' in a dictionary CC? Steve was clearly trying to discredit what I had to say simply because I used the term "fundamentalist atheist". The word "invoke" plays into that attempt to discredit me because it implies that I did not use the term "fundamentalist atheist" legitimately -
1. summon into action or bring into existence, often as if by magic; "raise the specter of unemployment"; "he conjured wild birds in the air"; "call down the spirits from the mountain"
Robin, there's no need to respond so rudely. I didn't attack you, I simply asked a question.
I did know the denotative meaning, it's just that as you well know the word has several meanings and I was interested in what meaning you were reading in, particularly since Steve used the word "invoke" to refer to something that he himself was doing as well, which suggested to me he didn't intend for the word to have quite the pejorative tone you're reading into it.
I suspect that his meaning was more like:
5. To resort to; use or apply.
I'm not sure why unemployment would be a specter. Strikes me that it is pretty much always around.
CC
The only part of my response to CC' s question that can possibly be considered to be even moderately "rude" is the first sentence -
But not curious enough to look up the meaning of the word 'invoke' in a dictionary CC?
That moderate, if not mild, "snark" is nothing compared to the "snark" that CC dishes out to me and other people on an ongoing basis. If CC can't stand the "heat" I can only suggest that she get out of the bitchin'. . . ;-) I might add that this alleged rudeness on my part equates to about a 1 or 2 on a scale of 10 when compared to the deeply insulting and outright defamatory "rude" language that I or other people have been subjected to by U*Us including U*U clergy.
Robin and CC,
If you're going to engage in a heated exchange of ideas, I'm OK with that.
If you're going to engage in a heated exchange of personal attacks, I will ask both of you to take that back to your personal blog sites.
I've got a new blog post related to the "what exactly is a 'fundamentalist atheist'?" question bouncing around my brain.
But that new post will have to wait for a few days -- I've been working from 1 AM to 3 PM on Tuesday and Wednesday this week and it will wait until later.
"A heated exchange of personal attacks"?
Sheesh! You ain't seen nothing yet Steve. CC and I are just having a bit of our usual fun here. I think. . . ;-)
Seriously Steve, our moderately (if not minimally) uncivil exchange here becomes the paragon of civility when compared to the "heated exchanges" (to put it mildly) that you can find over on "fundamentalist atheist" P.Z. Myers ' 'Pharyngula' blog. BTW I have been having a bit of fun over there and must thank you for introducing me to Professor Myers' "science" blog. I have given a pretty good description of what I refer to as a "fundamentalist atheist" on one or two appropriate threads there. So I may just cut and paste what I said over there when you do get around to your post. It might interest you to know that even before I do that at least one avowed "unbeliever" called P.Z. Myers a "fundamentalist atheist" in expressing his strong disapproval of Professor Myers' anti-religious intolerance and bigotry. Who needs God on their side when moderate atheists have no qualms about referring to P.Z. Myers et al as fundamentalist atheists in order to distance themselves from their intolerance and bigotry?
Allah prochaine,
Robin Edgar
aka The Dagger of Sweet Reason
PB2U*Us
BTW There is very little difference between the "death threats" that P.Z. Myers received via email and the "death threats" that was subjected to in person by a rather belligerent Montreal Unitarian U*U. In P.Z.'s case the threatener said, "You can quit your job for the good of the children. Or you can get your brains beat in." In my case the threatener said, "Come back here next week and I'll punch your fucking lights out." Do you see a huge qualitative difference? As I said before, it was the 911 operator who took my call to report the threat who characterized it as "death threats". I did not see it that way and told her so. She responded by pointing out the threatener was threatening to punch me until I was unconscious (which is true) and that I might not regain consciousness if he carried through with his threat, hence the "death threats" label. In case you are wondering, I did not consider the moron who asked me if he should go home and get his gun and shoot me to be uttering a real threat and didn't bother to report it to the police. God knows that I have been much more lenient on U*Us when it comes to police intervention than they have been with me but I think the gloves may be coming off as a result of Rev. Diane Rollert's successful bid to seek a restraining order against me on the basis of what can best be considered to be a combination of paranoid fantasies, highly misleading half-truths, and outright lies. I am seriously considering charging her with perjury for lying while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Post a Comment