Thanks for your comment. Forgive me for yet another long reply, but again, I don’t want to give the impression being too flippant or overly dismissive of good ideas and reasoned arguments

PZ asked for a cracker and for someone to mail it to him to illustrate a point in his ‘own backyard’ not in the churches of believers or at their funerals.

Yes, but again, where did that “someone” get the cracker? From someone else’s church. While I agree with you in that the desecration itself isn’t as publically offensive as Phelps’ stunts, the fact remains that to do what he wanted, he essentially asked people to, *at least,* acquire a gift from someone else under false pretenses in order to use it for a purpose completely opposite to what the giver intended it.

I would happily defend PZ’s right to do whatever he wants in the privacy of his own home and his own blog, but not when it involves asking other people to lie.

PZ having followers? PZ has readers not followers

I suppose. Not everyone who reads what Dr. Myers has to say would be a “follower,” of course–many, such as Dr. Matheson, disagree with him fervently on some matters–but I would say that any of PZ’s readers who would actually be willing to go out of their way and through the trouble to “score” him a cracker would not be that far off from a ‘follower.’ And it was to those kinds of people I was referring. Pardon me if you thought I was referring to you, specifically, much less to other PZ readers such as Dr. Matheson, I really do apologize if I tarred you with a brush that didn’t apply to you–indeed, I should have been more specific.

If I were a undercover journalist doing an expose on a deluded damaging cult with immense influence over children and I obtained my information through deception would this make me on a par with Phelps or would it inspire accolades of bravery?

I’m not certain this comparison is wholly apt, though. Dr. Myers hasn’t performed an “expose” on anything–all he’s done is stick a nail through a wafer (and deface a Koran and a copy of the God Delusion, which I assume he or at least someone else actually paid for). An undercover journalist, in your example, would be informing both the government and the public at large of previously unknown malfeasance. Myers, on the other hand, has simply proven that you can stick a nail through a cracker without anything bad happening to you. People have been saying this for years–Jews, many Protestants, Muslims, and non-Christians don’t believe in the Eucharist any more than Dr. Myers does, and it’s not as they’ve been quiet about their beliefs on that matter. So I don’t believe Dr. Myers is performing the same sort of service that would justify the deception of a muckraking journalist.

Or perhaps I’m a practicing Catholic who’s long had doubts yet still persisting over many years in the taking of communion out of habit rather than belief. Is this deception?

This analogy isn’t really apt either–the deception of an unbelieving but habitual Catholic isn’t quite as great as the deception of an unbeliever who intends to desecrate the Eucharist. In the habitual Catholic’s case, even if he’s implicitly lying to the priest about the depth of his belief, he’s still being honest about what he intends to do–he’s going to eat the wafer along with everyone else. In the case of one of Myers’ ‘readers,’ as you would prefer me to refer to them, the atheist is being dishonest about *both* his belief *and* his intent–he’s not going to eat the cracker, he’s going to send it off to be desecrated.

Genuine psychological harm can be done to people in mourning by causing them greater stress. No doubt harm can be done to deluded people who actually believe that a cracker is actually Christ’s flesh, but is this type of harm negative or positive? I don’t know for sure but my sense is that creating the conversation seems to be great way to start. Disabusing a person or group of false beliefs or at least challenging them whilst certainly psychologically difficult for some is only superficially similar at best to directed abuse at specific people when they are vulnerable and in pain.

I sympathize with you here, my friend. Unfortunately, I wonder if Phelps–and people like him–would use a similar sort of reasoning to defend their own actions. If one were to ask a member of the Westboro Baptist church why they do what they do, Forgive me for linking to their faq, but Phelps and his underlings don’t see themselves are specifically out to cause pain to vulnerable people. As he claims when asked about why he pickets funerals,

To warn the people who are still living that unless they repent, they will likewise perish. When people go to funerals, they have thoughts of mortality, heaven, hell, eternity, etc., on their minds. It’s the perfect time to warn them of things to come. Is it mean, hateful, uncompassionate, etc.? I’m sure it is, according to your standards. However, according to my standards, it would be infinitely more mean, hateful, uncompassionate, etc., to keep my mouth shut and not warn you that you, too, will soon have to face God.

In a twisted sort of way, you can see a similarity between Mr. Phelps and Dr. Myers–both are doing something they consider to be altruistic, regardless of the perceived pain others say they are causing. I could very imagine PZ Myers replying, when asked why he decided to violate a little cracker that had never harmed anybody,

To warn Catholics who still believe that their false, stupid superstitions are not only untrue but harmful. When Catholics think of the Eucharist, they think of something “sacred” and representative of all their ludicrous fairy-nonsense. Thus, desecrating their tasteless little wafer would be the perfect way to disabuse them of their silly superstitions by proving it’s absoluetly powerless. Would that be mean, hateful, uncompassionate, etc.? Maybe by your standards. However, according to my standards, it would be infinitely more mean, hateful, uncompassionate, etc., to keep my mouth shut and not inform you that your beliefs are false, stupid, and harmful.

Now, you could say that Myers isn’t hurting Catholics as much as Phelps is hurting grieving families (although I’m not entirely sure about that, given how seriously I’ve seen many of my Catholic friends take their ritual). The point is, however, that while you say the harm done to “deluded people” by abusing their cracker is justified because it might possibly divest them of their false beliefs, Phelps would say that the harm done to mourners is justified because he might possibly convince them to repent.

Now, in this regard,
And it loses all similarity when children are also recruited and trained to do the same task.

I agree with you. As far as I know, Pharyngula’s readership is composed of adults and is not directed towards children. So at the very least, even if Dr. Myers is implicitly encouraging his readers to lie on his behalf, they are old enough to make that decision for themselves, which puts the professor on a higher moral level than the preacher, to at least some extent.

I would also have to take issue with Phelps being honest. Whilst he may be consistent this surely can’t be taken as honesty? Documentaries of Phelps have shown a man and group that is capable of spectacular self and group deception and the perpetuation of this deception and behavior through their children – surely honesty must start there?

Hmm. You may be right there–I’m not a member of the WBC, and I don’t live in Topeka, so I’m personally largely unfamiliar with their organization; most of what I’ve heard of them comes from the news. Which documentaries are you referring to, and in what ways is he dishonest? I looked him up on Wikipedia and noticed he was disbarred for perjury and that two of his children and a local Baptist priest claim he’s abusive and domineering, but obviously, Wikipedia isn’t the most reliable of sources So if I may ask, which documentaries or reports would you recommend for a layman wishing to get acquainted with Mr. Phelps’ deceptions? After looking them over, I might very well agree with your assessment.

However, I would also add that when I claimed Mr. Phelps was being “honest,” I didn’t mean he never told a lie in his life, or even that he was generally honest. Rather, in regards to the actions he is most notorious for–protesting and picketing funerals–he seems to be honest. As far as I know, he has never shown up anywhere unannounced (he always plans his pickets publically on his website) and has never ordered members of his flock to “infiltrate” other people’s organizations. Again, though, perhaps I’m wrong and he actually has lied about some of that stuff, I’ll look for some of the documentaries on his church that might mention things like that. By the same token, when I posited that Myers was being deceptive, I was not claiming he was a habitual lyer or even a particularly bad person (As far as I know, he has been nothing but an honest scientist and a good husband and father), but rather, *in this case,* by asking his readers to conceal their beliefs in order to fool someone into giving them communion, Myers has momentarily lowered himself down to Phelp’s level. If, as a scientist, he has nobly pursued the truth with sincerity and conviction up to this point, making him a far better man than Phelps could ever be, I see it as shameful that for this one moment, he has turned his back on those ideals and encouraged his readers to lie. Thus, in the end, I agree with Dr. Matheson when he says,

Fred Phelps…in my opinion…is the guy to look at when trying to put PZ’s stunt into a moral context.

Can Dr. Myers and Mr. Phelps, as whole people, be compared? No. But can Dr. Myers’ single stunt–the desecration of a little cracker acquired by one of his supporters under false pretenses–be fairly compared to some of the stunts Mr. Phelps has pulled off? I believe so.

PZ’s ‘people’ obtaining them through deception … hmmm. If I were a undercover journalist doing an expose on a deluded damaging cult with immense influence over children and I obtained my information through deception would this make me on a par with Phelps or would it inspire accolades of bravery? Or perhaps I’m a practicing Catholic who’s long had doubts yet still persisting over many years in the taking of communion out of habit rather than belief. Is this deception? The question here seems to be one of actual harm versus righteous outrage. Genuine psychological harm can be done to people in mourning by causing them greater stress. No doubt harm can be done to deluded people who actually believe that a cracker is actually Christ’s flesh, but is this type of harm negative or positive? I don’t know for sure but my sense is that creating the conversation seems to be great way to start. Disabusing a person or group of false beliefs or at least challenging them whilst certainly psychologically difficult for some is only superficially similar at best to directed abuse at specific people when they are vulnerable and in pain. And it loses all similarity when children are also recruited and trained to do the same task.

As for being repelled by some of PZ’s statements, I can only find this baffling. Repelled? Has PZ said anything repulsive? Whilst I don’t always agree, I generally always find him informative and interesting (yes even when I don’t agree with him).

I would also have to take issue with Phelps being honest. Whilst he may be consistent this surely can’t be taken as honesty? Documentaries of Phelps have shown a man and group that is capable of spectacular self and group deception and the perpetuation of this deception and behavior through their children – surely honesty must start there?

At best there’s an argument here over tactics in the battle for reason’s hold in minds and hearts of the community. It seems to me that the comparisons with Phelps or simplistic claims of deception don’t hold up to scrutiny or contribute much to arriving at better methods.

Thanks, I just replaced the parentheses with dashes. –Thomas

Thanks for the insightful comment, and thanks for being respectful. I see your point, in that the public nature of Phelps’ offenses isn’t quite on the same level as the more private nature of what Myers has done. However, I’m not entirely certain the comparison is entirely unfair–I would say that Myers’ transgression has an undertone of deceitfulness that makes it as distasteful as Phelps’ stunts, albeit in a different way.

In the case of Fred Phelps, even though he gets up in people’s faces and goes where he’s not wanted, he’s at least honest and up-front about his intentions and actions. It’s not as if he’s asked his followers to surreptitiously infiltrate any pro-gay organizations in order to undermine them or steal from them–in fact, as far as I know, he’s never asked any of his cronies to do anything besides picket.

Now, Myers hasn’t done anything as confrontational. All he’s done is “desecrate” a cracker and put pictures of it up on his blog, right? However, think of what he had to do in to obtain that cracker. As he asked,

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..

This doesn’t sound so bad at first glance. After all, as many of Myers’ supporters have pointed out, the Eucharist is “freely given,” so ostensibly, his followers would just be mailing him their own personal property after a priest gave it to them, right? But consider the circumstances under which the ‘consecrated’ crackers are handed out. The priest gives them out assuming that the recipient intends to eat it and the recipient is a believing Catholic.

So really, Dr. Myers essentially asked his thousands of supporters (far more than the <100 followers Mr. Phelps can claim) to lie. Pretending to be Catholics when they’re really not, his fans were to “score” some of these crackers by masquerading as communicants in good faith, intending to send the Hosts they received to Dr. Myers for desecration rather than personal consumption, which the priest giving the things out thought they would be used for. I highly doubt any of Myers’ buddies succeeded in their mission by wandering into a church and declaring “I am a proud, open atheist – though I’d much rather be called a “Bright” – and I think the concept of the Eucharist is bullshit. Thus, I want one of these consecrated hosts so I can send it to a professor of biology in Minnesota to desecrate.” Say what you will about Phelps, but at least he and his followers have never made any secret of their beliefs and intentions. Myers, on the other hand, essentially asked his followers to conceal their true (lack of) beliefs and pretend to be Catholics for just a short while so that they could obtain these little crackers under false premises.

Again, Phelps has hurt people publicly, which Myers has not done. But at the very least, all Phelps has asked his cronies to do is stand around holding signs and annoy people. He’s never asked them to lie. The fact that Myers has, even if not openly, does not elevate him too far above Phelps, at least in my view.

Whew! Sorry for the long-winded comment. But your point was interesting enough that I thought it deserved a lengthy response. Hope I didn’t bore you to death!

To use the examples that you provide, Phelps shows up at funerals, to which he was not invited, and holds up offensive signs where mourners can see him. PZ, on the other hand, hosts a blog in cyberspace which religious people can either decide to read, or not to read. Also, the desecration of the Eucharist (and, by the way, a copy of Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion) was done in the privacy of his home, and the photos were posted on his personal blog.

I think a more fitting illustration of disrespect for people on PZ’s blog can perhaps be found in the comments section, when occasionally a well-meaning religious person will appear and attempt to have a conversation (most often the religious people who post messages are trolls, but once in awhile I see someone there who appears very genuine and polite). In this case, you sometimes see the most enthusiastic of PZs followers treat this person very rudely. But that’s not PZ, that’s just some rude people on the internets and hey, that’s life on the internets.

Your fourth point is, I think, completely wrong in its claim that I’ve conflated belief and action. The last paragraph of my previous comment made that pretty clear, didn’t it?

I was riffing on the last sentence of the OP, and must have read right past your comment when I zoomed down here. You do make what I’d see as an appropriate distinction there. Sorry I missed it.

Thanks for the clarification. I changed your original comment to use dashes rather than parentheses. -Thomas

But I think it’s a mistake to continue portraying behavior like PZ’s as merely disrespectful toward religion. At least give some thought to the ways in which decent people continually show respect for others who hold divergent – even wildly, irrationally divergent – beliefs.

Several issues/questions twine through this.

First, what’s the ‘ignorance’ default — respect people, disrespect people, or neutrality if we know nothing about them? I’d guess the norm is mild respect, or at least toleration, with the pointer moving one way or the other as one gains experience with particular people.

Second, what are the variables that move the pointer away from the default, either in the more respect direction or disrespect direction? That’s clearly not a single-variable situation — a number of variables can lead one to move away from the default.

Third, to what degree does collateral damage play into the analysis? For example, PZ did his thing (a) to illustrate the complete inappropriateness of the Catholic and University responses to Cook’s behavior, and (b) to redress the extreme power imbalance in Florida. Now, clearly not all Catholics were implicated in the Florida situation, and not all pusillanimous academic administrators were implicated there, but there was institutional Catholic reactions — Bill Donohue, for better or worse, represents a Catholic institution. With PZ acting to expose the lunacy of Donohue’s behavior with respect to the Florida situation, ‘moderate’ Catholics were caught in the cross fire.

Fourth, you (Stephen) conflate holding beliefs and acting on beliefs. I frankly don’t give a damn what beliefs people hold, no matter how irrational or loony they may be. But I do care about how they behave based on those beliefs. If their behavior earns – and that’s exactly the word: “earns” – disrespect, then that’s what they get. IF their beliefs entail genitally mutilating young girls and they act on the belief, they get no respect and a whole lot of criticism. If their beliefs entail flying airplanes into office buildings, then they get no respect. If their beliefs are loony but lead to helping less fortunate folks, then they get respect (or at least toleration) even though their beliefs do not if, say, they entail denying reality.

If their beliefs entail behavior that would coerce me or other people, then they get no respect and elicit active opposition. And in the current instance, if their beliefs require me to respect a symbol that has meaning only to them, then that’s no more than tolerable unless and until they require that I behave toward that symbol as they require. Then they get push-back. The Catholics at the church acted to coerce Cook to behave toward the cracker as they do, physically laying hands on him to enforce that requirement, and that stepped past the line. Doing so forfeited their claim to respect.