Bill Donahue’s fuckwittery knows no bounds. I’m going to have to find myself a dictionary of invective, because my usual adjectives seem remarkably inadequate in the face of his hypocrisy. I don’t know how anyone can claim to be holding the moral high ground when neck-deep in the bullshit, but he’s claiming for all he’s worth despite the telltale stench.

Let’s deconstruct a few things here.

First off, the name of his pet project:

CATHOLIC LEAGUE
FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS

He demands religious and civil rights for Catholics. Fair enough. What makes him a hypocrite? Well, perhaps the fact he doesn’t seem to believe in religious and civil rights for other folks. If he did, we wouldn’t end up with screeching such as this:

“The biology professor made it clear that he would never disrespect Islam the way he does Catholicism. When asked about those who abuse the Koran, for example, he said such an act was analogous to desecrating a graveyard. ‘That’s completely different,’ he said. ‘I don’t favor [that idea].’ But when it comes to the Body of Christ, he opines, ‘The cracker is completely different.’

“This isn’t the first time Myers has shown deference to Islam. For instance, two years ago he was critical of the Danish cartoons that simply depicted an image of Muhammad. ‘They [the cartoons] lack artistic or social or even comedic merit, and are presented as an insult to inflame a poor minority.’ So now the Planet-of-the-Apes biologist has divined himself an expert on the artistic value of cartoons. So thoughtful of him. He even went so far as to say that Muslims ‘have cause to be furious.’ (His italic.) Worthy of burning down churches, pledging to behead Christians and shooting a nun in the back, Professor Myers?”

My goodness me. Here’s what I’m hearing from him: it’s a no-good, despicable, terrible, awful thing to desecrate a cracker, cuz it’s important to Catholics. There’s a decided lack of condemnation of those who sent PZ death threats, which is as much as saying, “The bastard deserves ’em!” He all but states outright that the Eucharist is far more sacred to Catholics than the Koran is to Muslims. And as for those cartoons perpetrating what, to Islam, is an outrageous sacrilege, well, their outrage was totally unworthy!

I have news for Mr. Donahue: Muslims feel pretty damned strongly about depictions of the Prophet, from what I understand. It’s pretty much on par with mistreating a consecrated cracker. So what, pray tell, is the fucking difference? Why was an atheist less dismissive of Muslim outrage than Crusader Bill?

Might have something to do with the fact he wasn’t being a raging hypocrite, unlike Bill “He Likes Moooslims More Than Us!!11!1!” Donahue.

PZ never did say that the Muslims who went overboard had every right to burn churches, pledge to murder Christians, shoot nuns, etc. In fact, let’s see what he did say:

So on the one hand I see a social problem being mocked, but on the other—and here comes the smug godless finger-wagging—I see a foolish superstition used as a prod to mock people, and a people so muddled by the phony blandishments of religion that they scream “Blasphemy!” and falsely pin the problem on a ridiculous insult to a non-existent god, rather than on the affront to their dignity as human beings and citizens. Religion in this case has accomplished two things, neither one productive: it’s distracted people away from the real problems, which have nothing at all to do with the camera-shy nature of their imaginary deity, and it’s also amplified the hatred.

It also doesn’t help that their riots are confirming the caricatures rather than opposing them. Once again, religiosity turns people into mindless frenzied zombies, and once again it interferes with progress.

Oh, there’s more, if that wasn’t enough. It wasn’t Islam PZ was deferring to at all. Read the whole post, and you’ll see that PZ’s principles stand inviolate, despite his sympathy.

Let us now turn to Bill’s creative quotemining of PZ’s interview with the Minnesota Independent. So nice of Bill not to provide a link, but never fear! I have the power of the Google. And here’s the section in question, sans elipses:

MnIndy: What about the stories of US military personnel urinating on and otherwise abusing copies of the Koran in Iraq? Were you outraged by that, or is that a different version of this for you?

Myers: There’s a subtle difference there — maybe an important difference. I don’t favor the idea of going to somebody’s home or to something they own and possess and consider very important, like a graveyard — going to a grave and desecrating that. That’s something completely different. Because what you’re doing is doing harm to something unique and something that is rightfully part of somebody else — it’s somebody else’s ownership. The cracker is completely different. This is something that’s freely handed out.

Oh, deary me. Bill had to do quite a lot of manipulating to twist that comment into something he could use to prove his point. He wasn’t making it clear he wouldn’t desecrate Islam: he was saying he wouldn’t desecrate something unique or something someone else possesses. That’s showing respect for the person, not the religious object itself. And I believe that would be why, now that some enterprising Catholics have sent PZ a few copies of the Koran, he can desecrate away without compromising that statement. Like the cracker, they were freely given. They’re not unique – Korans aren’t quite as cheap as Communion wafers, but they’re available for a decent price at any Barnes and Noble. There’s even a copy sitting on the shelf behind me.

So PZ’s going to do what so many concerned Catholics have asked him to: he’s going to give the Host and the Koran equal treatment. Bill should be happy. He practically begged PZ to show Catholic and Muslim sacred objects equal respect, and considering that PZ’s whole point is that religion doesn’t deserve this knee-jerk deference, what the fuck did he expect?

“The latest threat by Myers only makes matters worse. Instead of treating Catholicism with the respect he has previously shown for Islam, he now pledges to disrespect Islam the way he pledges to disrespect Catholicism (once again!). This is his idea of equal treatment. “

Why, yes. Yes, it is. He’s not a hypocrite, you see. Unlike Bill, who will go into a rabid froth over PZ threatening a cracker, bitch about how he respects Islam more (completely ignoring the context of PZ’s statements on Islam, which is that he doesn’t respect it at all), and, after allowing his followers to demand the desecration of the Koran, now decries PZ for offering to do it because what he really wanted was for PZ to run off with his tail between his legs.

You wa
nt to know what might have given you a quantum of credibility, there, Bill? Maybe you should have issued one of your famous press releases decrying the death threats, asking your mob of religious fuckwits to cease and desist (as PZ did when some of his – shall we say, enthusiastic but clueless – fans started sending hate mail right back to the haters), stating strongly that requesting the desecration of the Koran is just as wrong as threatening a cracker, and asking PZ for a dialogue to see if some understanding could be reached.

But Bill Donahue has no interest in doing any of those things. He doesn’t want to foster understanding between believers and non-believers. He doesn’t give two tugs on a dead dog’s dick what PZ does to a Koran, until it allows him to pretend a superior morality. And now he’s trying to set the Muslims on PZ, and it definitely seems like he’s hoping they’ll go all suicide bomber so that the Catholic League can say “See! We only threatened his life!”

I wonder how the Muslims’ deafening silence is sitting with him? They don’t seem unduly concerned. They’re not flooding PZ’s inbox with hate, death threats, and long rants about how important it is for PZ not to desecrate the Koran. I think it’s because the majority of them realize that PZ Myers messing about with a mass-produced copy of the Koran is going to do zero damage to Islam. I know it’s not because they haven’t heard about PZ’s promise: Bill’s made sure the news is spread as far and wide as possible. Way to show what a bigoted asshole you are, Bill.

I’m not sure what Ibrahim Hooper at CAIR is going to say to all of this. I hope he sees Bill “Fuck the Mooslims Unless I Can Use Them to Bolster My Martyrdom” Donahue for the batshit insane fucking hypocrite he is, and responds accordingly. After all, it’s Donahue’s followers who brought this on the Koran. PZ was going to stop at a Catholic cracker until they got involved.

Way to spread the Christian love, eh?

I’ve stumbled across an interview in Salon that should keep us all thoroughly entertained for weeks. Super-duper religious scholar James Carse is, according to the article, “out to rescue religion from both religious fundamentalists and atheists.” Since he redefines atheism to be something completely nonsensical, I don’t know who he thinks he’s saving religion from.

You see, according to his rarified definition of atheism, Richard Dawkins doesn’t qualify. None of us do. Observe:

Given what’s happening in the world right now, do you think there’s a lot at stake in how we talk about religion and belief?

Absolutely. In the current, very popular attack on religion, the one thing that’s left out is the sense of religion that I’ve been talking about. Instead, it’s an attack on what’s essentially a belief system.

Are you talking about atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris?

Yes. There are several problems with their approach. It has an inadequate understanding of the nature of religion. These chaps are very distinguished thinkers and scientists, very smart people, but they are not historians or scholars of religion. Therefore, it’s too easy for them to pass off a quick notion of what religion is. That kind of critique also tends to set up a counter-belief system of its own. Daniel Dennett proposes his own, fairly comprehensive belief system based on evolution and psychology. From his point of view, it seems that everything can be explained. Harris and Dawkins are not quite that extreme. But that’s a danger with all of them. To be an atheist, you have to be very clear about what god you’re not believing in. Therefore, if you don’t have a deep and well-developed understanding of God and divine reality, you can misfire on atheism very easily. [emphasis added]

“Misfire on atheism?” What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Maybe my rough-and-ready street philosophy is inadequate to the task of understanding Mr. Carse’s elevated definitions, but what he seems to be saying here is that you can’t be an atheist if you have a counter-belief system (i.e., if you can explain most of the mysteries of life by turning to science and reality). You also seem to have to be some sort of religious scholar to qualify. You have to understand “god” to not believe in “god.” And you have to define which god it is, exactly, you don’t believe in. Otherwise, you’re apparently not an atheist.

And here I thought it was so simple. I thought that, to be an atheist, you just don’t believe in gods. None of ’em. I thought that blanket unbelief was good enough. Nobody told me going in to this that I’d have to debunk every fucking god individually, and that I can only do that if I have a deep understanding of all of the fuckers.

Are you fucking kidding me?

All right. Let’s play ball. Let’s have Mr. Carse define religion. Oh, wait, he can’t:

What, then, do you mean by religion?

Religion is notoriously difficult to define. Modern scholars have almost unanimously decided that there is no generalization that applies to all the great living religions. Jews don’t have a priesthood. Catholics do. The prayer in one tradition is different from another. The literature and the texts are radically different from each other. So it leaves us with the question: Is there any generalization one could make about religion?

What he eventually comes up with, after much spewing of the philosophical bunkum, is that religion is simply a belief system that’s survived a few thousand years. Got that? If it ain’t ancient, it ain’t religion.

Now that we’ve discovered the bugger can’t define religion, let us return to his discussion of what an atheist is:

And yet, you’ve just told me that you yourself don’t believe in a divine reality. In some ways, your critique of belief systems seems to go along with what the new atheists are saying.

The difference, though, is that I wouldn’t call myself an atheist. To be an atheist is not to be stunned by the mystery of things or to walk around in wonder about the universe. That’s a mode of being that has nothing to do with belief. So I have very little in common with them. [emphasis added]

So, in order to be an atheist, it’s not enough to not believe in gods. It’s not enough to explain the universe not by resorting to the supernatural, but by reaching for the natural. It’s not enough to not believe in one single, solitary fucking supernatural thing. We can’t even have a sense of wonder about the universe.

You know what? I’m done. This guy had a little kernel of a good idea at the very beginning, when he was discussing belief systems vs. religion. But once you get through those first couple of paragraphs, where it looks like he’s going to present sound ideas that have real philosophical merit, he just skews off into this mumbling bullshit. Wait ’till you hit his celebration of “higher ignorance” bit. For all of us who thirst for knowledge, this clown is like a nice, cold mirage: pretty to look at in some respects, utterly fucking useless when it comes right down to it, and definitely not what you need.

He just wants humanity to celebrate a different kind of stupid. I think we’ve had quite enough ignorance of all stripes.

At least we have an explanation as to why this twit can’t recognize an atheist. There is that small consolation.

The controversy continues to unfold. Instead of getting actual work done today, I spent most of it chasing blog posts about the Great Cracker Controversy through the blogosphere, reading comments and laughing my arse off at some of the most beautiful smack-downs I’ve seen in a long time. The best raging argument I’ve seen so far that’s short enough to follow is in Ed Brayton’s delightful post on the subject.

I now have ammunition for all of those “respect my religion!” bleaters. I hope I never have to hear another damned word about Communion wafers and the profaning thereof, but if I have to debate someone over the mess, I don’t think they’re necessarily going to like the result now.

Three things have completely stolen the outraged Catholic’s thunder for me, completely aside from the fact that, as an atheist, I don’t think any religion deserves extraordinary respect and universal reverence for its sillyness.

Firstly, there was the fact that my own dear NP took the calm view of the situation. As a Catholic, she could’ve assumed the outrage position, but she didn’t.

Secondly, there’s the little gem of information I stumbled across today that people in the Middle Ages used to take the damned things home for good luck. (And yes, if you’re wondering: Rev. AJB is an actual reverend. I think he probably knows church history.)

Thirdly, there’s my best friend. Since he’s a Christian whose church, while not Catholic, celebrates Communion – I believe they call it the Lord’s Supper, but I could be wrong here – I figured he’d be on the “PZ Myers is a bad, bad man!” side. Instead, when the subject came up (as it inevitably did), he started chuckling, then laughing from the belly, and then said, enunciating every syllable, “It’s. A. Krac-kur.”

And yes, that is the spelling we’ve settled upon: krac-kur. This is going to be our catch phrase for years to come.

His church is definitely not on the transubstantiation side – if it’s not expressly spelled out in the Bible, they don’t buy it – and so they don’t have the “You’re kidnapping Christ!” syndrome. In fact, I came away from that conversation with the impression that, if asked, they might just ship PZ a whole box of sanctified wafers to have his way with. After all, they’re just krac-kurs.

Garrett and I agree on very few things religious these days, but on this issue, we’re in perfect accord. Refreshing, that.

I’ve spent entirely too much time thinking about this whole issue today. It’s forced me to search my own (metaphorical) soul to discover why, exactly, PZ’s provocation didn’t bother me. After all, I don’t believe in going out of one’s way to be offensive. Love, respect, and toleration would be welcome additions to the world.

And those are exactly the things the Catholics involved in this debacle didn’t show.

They blew a minor situation completely out of proportion. The original transgression, by their own teachings, should have been handled with grace, compassion, and understanding. Yes, the young man who absconded with the Host should have known better. But he hadn’t even left the damned church. Would it seriously have been so much trouble to just simply ask, “What are you doing? Showing your friend? You plan to complete the ritual afterward? Fine, then. Next time you want to satisfy someone’s curiosity, just talk to the priest first instead of taking matters into your own – ah ha ha – hands.”

Instead, they overreacted to the point where Webster Cook decided it necessary to teach them a lesson. And from there, they escalated to threats, more threats, death threats (which I have yet to see condemned by the Church, by the way), and the whole mess spilled over into the secular sphere, where it manifestly does not belong.

PZ blew a hole in their hyperbole by offering to show them precisely what real desecration looks like. He showed them up for what they are by incurring their wrath: bullies. Far from being a reasonable bunch we can share a dialogue and eventually come to an understanding with, they’ve demonstrated that there’s no middle ground: if we don’t pander to their every religious whim, we become targets of threats to our jobs and our lives.

They haven’t earned the slightest bit of love, respect or toleration.

PZ stood up to a bunch of bullies, and I respect him immensely for it.

I want you to understand that I’m not applying this to all Catholics. I think NP shows that there are plenty of Catholics out there who aren’t utterly unhinged. I think there’s plenty of room for love, respect and toleration, but it has to be mutual. With people like her, Garrett and other amiable Christians, it absolutely is.

Not so much with bullies. And I think we all know what happens if you don’t stand up to bullies.

One of the greatest pleasures I take in being an atheist is not having to really dig for evidence that God’s pissed off and not slacking off in the smiting department.

Fundamentalist Christians have this desperate – actually, pathological – need to believe that humanity’s nothing but worthless pieces of shit deserving of God’s wrath. Disasters don’t just happen in their world. It’s got to be God, using natural processes to bitch-slap people for straying from the straight-and-narrow. Floods in the Midwest? Smiting the sinners! Fires in California? It’s all about teh gays! Something awful happened to you? What did you do to get up God’s nose? It’s your own damned fault!

That’s more destructive than the floods, fires and other assorted castastrophes. Folks like to claim religion’s a wonderful and positive thing in one breath and then claim God’s an indiscriminate, hateful bastard in the next. And it warps people badly.

I’ve known deeply religious people who use every little setback to flay themselves with. You couldn’t fill a pea with the self-esteem they’ve got left. They spend all of their time obsessing over every tiny detail, every infintesimal misstep, bewailing their badness. “I have a hangnail – it must be God punishing me for looking at nudie pictures!” “I slipped on a wet sidewalk in a rainstorm and twisted my ankle – it’s my fault for not going to church last Sunday!” The slightest mistake followed by the teeniest misfortune is proof positive God’s mad at them and they’ve got atoning to do.

Some of my friends were almost destroyed by that mentality. They’re paralyzed, terrified of getting the slightest detail wrong and bringing down the wrath. God’s not so much loving father as evil control freak – and yet they claim He loves them.

If it was really God punishing them all out of proportion to their supposed sins, we’d have a word for it: abuse.

The truly God-fearing are a sad bunch. But the self-righteous fuckwits who love to point to every disaster and crow about God’s vengeance against [insert fundie bugaboo here] are just downright evil.

How shrivelled a conscience do you have to have to respond to other people’s suffering not with sympathy and a desire to help, but smugness? “You brought it on yourselves,” fundie fucktards like Ray Comfort announce. “God’s getting you back for not toeing his impossible line.”

Never mind that Christians are suffering right along with the sinners. That doesn’t matter to despicable religious frothers like Comfort (a misnomer if there ever was one). No, to prove that their God’s the biggest, baddest, toughest, and smitiest god evah, they’ve got to explain every misfortune as his punishment for transgressions, and if the innocent suffer alongside the guilty, well, it just shows how powerful and angry God is, right? The energy these people expend in finding the reason God’s so pissed at places like Iowa is remarkable. Comfort actually had to go and search for some natural disasters in California to explain that no, really, God’s not letting that gay marriage thing go without pointed comment. How fucking pathological do you have to be to believe that this is a) a useful thing to do and b) that it proves God exists and is worthy of worship?

A religion based on fear and guilt isn’t moral, or just, or worth having: it’s a mental illness.

It leads to fear, and hate, and self-righteous fuckwits like Ray Comfort.

So I just have one question for these masochists: if your God is so all-knowing and all-powerful, exactly why is it that the assclown needs to resort to indiscriminate arson and flooding to get his point across? Doesn’t he have the knowledge to sort out the real sinners from the decent folk, and the power to smite selectively? Wouldn’t it make more sense, wouldn’t it be a more potent example, to single out those who’ve given him the one-finger salute and strike them down in a fashion that can be explained by nothing else than a seriously outraged deity?

The religious frothers will try to answer that. They’ll torture logic beyond recognition to try to prove just how mysterious and awesome God is, and all they can prove to an atheist like me is that they’re nuts. Every time they try to point to some natural catastrophe and twist definitions to prove Goddidit, they’re showing how weak their argument really is. They dump more proof that God doesn’t exist right in my lap, which is already overflowing with proof aplenty.

And they’re showing how fucked-up and sad their little worlds are.

That’s why I have to say, “Thank you.” Thank you, Ray Comfort, and Jerry Falwell, and Jason Lerner, and all your ilk, for reinforcing my happy atheism. People like you prove to godless sorts like me every day that we’re not missing a damned thing by dismissing the God delusion.