Comments

  1. Toddahhhh says

    You would have to dig deeper in that cesspool of a site to find it. Luckily, I’m brave, and did it for you: The Moore Award – named after film-maker, Michael Moore – is for divisive, bitter and intemperate left-wing rhetoric.

  2. Robert Bruce Thompson says

    You actually played a role in two of the awards. Ben Stein got the Malkin award for this gem:

    “”When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you,” – Ben Stein.”

  3. Levi in NY says

    Now the question is: are you going to return the favor and start issuing Sullivan Awards?

  4. says

    Congratulations, PZ, but Sullivan did say the category was a bit weak this time. Is he suggesting you didn’t desecrate the cracker sufficiently? Let this be a lesson!

    And if anyone else needs a bunch of wafers (for whatever reason), you can always order a bag from the Cavanagh Company, which has 80% of the U.S. communion wafer market (so you know they must be good).

  5. Coyote says

    “It is one thing to engage in free, if disrespectful, debate. It is another to repeatedly assault and ridicule and abuse something that is deeply sacred to a great many people. Calling the Holy Eucharist a “goddamned cracker” isn’t about free speech; it’s really about some baseline civility. Myers’ rant is the rant of an anti-Catholic bigot. And atheists and agnostics can be bigots too.”

    And you’re proud of that?

    You ought to hang your head in shame.

  6. Knock Goats says

    Levi in NY,
    Good idea. I suggest, since he’s a gay Catholic, the Sullivan Award for Cognitive Dissonance.

  7. Ezikiel says

    I dunno, Zeno’s idea is starting to sound pretty delicious.
    There are the plenty of desserts that call for wafer thin pieces of cookie in their construction.

  8. says

    Man, that guy’s a shitty writer.

    Poe’s law on the awards page, and angry bitching in place of an explanation of what the award is and why PZ deserves it.

    I hereby give Andrew Sullivan the “I’m not Ernest Hemmingway” Award for shitty writing and horrible logic.

  9. AllanW says

    coyote @ #8;

    ‘it’s really about some baseline civility.’

    Really? bwahahahahahahahaha

    The day I get civil and tolerant treatment from religiots is the day I back-down, keep quiet and return to privacy. Until then …. keep your delusion to yourself or I will ridicule, work actively in politics and generally make a nuisance of myself. Understood?

  10. random guy says

    in the words of Inigo Montoya:

    “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

    Calling someone an anti-catholic bigot for disrespecting a cracker is insane. This is one of the reasons I stopped reading sullivan regularly. He has no problem ridiculing every other religion, but has a complete disconnect regarding his own. For someone who spends so much time criticizing the religious right, he really can’t afford to have sacred cows of his own.

  11. speedwell says

    Great, PZ gets one of the “I Hate You” awards, and Ben Stein gets another… at least in part for slagging PZ! Heh.

  12. says

    This is coming from the guy who spent the last several months disgracing internet journalism by accusing Sarah Palin of faking her last pregnancy, long after most other conspiracy theorists had left this claim for dead. Does Sullivan give out a 9/11 Truthers Award?

  13. raven says

    Myers’ rant is the rant of an anti-Catholic bigot. And atheists and agnostics can be bigots too.”

    The real anti-Catholic bigots are protestant fundie extremists. Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s church, Wisconsin Lutherans has this on their website, paraphrasing “The Catholic church is the Church of Satan and the pope is the antichrist.

    Both are typical fundie beliefs. No one gets too worked up about it though. After 400 years of bloody sectarian warfare which killed tens of millions, everyone has gotten tired of the dispute. Besides, the secular authorities took away their armies and heavy weapons.

    And of course, atheists and agnostics are heavily discriminated against when the christofascists can get away with it. In several states atheists can’t run for public office or serve on juries. These laws are no longer enforced because they are unconstitutional but it is the thought that counts.

    The BSA prohibits atheist and agnostic kids from joining. Presumably this is an attempt to force kids to convert to religions. It is also stupid, who in the hell is going to convert just to go on a camping trip sponsored by raving religious kooks?

  14. speedwell says

    BTW I may be diametrically opposed to most of you as far as political ideology is concerned, but I stopped reading Sullivan years ago as well. He’s got his mind made up, he does, and nobody’s going to get near him with a mere fact. He used to have some interesting, independent insights (when he wasn’t disgustingly sucking up to his abuser, Catholicism) and I even liked the photographs from readers that he used to post, but now he’s become a substanceless, mainstream right-wing parrot. I suppose I should have seen it coming.

  15. Patricia, OM says

    Good for you PZ! That’s starting the new year out right. Award winning smart ass. Niiiice.

    Oh, Coyote, fuck off.

  16. Steve LaBonne says

    A well-deserved honor- and no matter what (or whether?) Sully thinks, being compared to Michael Moore is indeed an honor to any sensible person.

    I would give Sully the Moron Award, but he’s won it so often that he’s now hors concours.

  17. JC says

    I don’t think the “Moore” award is appropriate for PZ.
    All political left/right/whatever rhetoric aside, the award should go to someone who lies or stretches the truth to make their point (or money).

    But, an award is an award…. Display it proudly upon you mantle.

    (oh yeah, that’s a squid pun)

  18. gazza says

    Well done but ….

    One could argue that you are fuel but we (the posters on the blog) are the flames!

    So when you get the cheque that should come with this honour I hope we will all get a share. I’ll post my (Nigerian) bank details to you….

  19. Tom Woolf says

    I read Sullivan daily. I found that he delivers relatively well-thought-out arguments. I may not agree with his conclusions, but for a blogger on the right, he is much less wacko than most the rest.

    I thought PZ took the “it’s just a freaking cracker” thing a bit far, but I also interpreted it in part as a purposeful example of how the religious right/wackos (over)react to anything (ANYTHING) they perceive as being remotely derogatory or even critical.

    I like the idea of not desecrating others’ religious symbols. However, the religious wackos will not get my respect until statement from such shit-for-brains as Robin Hayes stop stating “Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God,” or Elizabeth Dole airing an ad with voiceover of “there is no god” intended as a slur.

  20. says

    @25: Well, maybe.

    Some of the things Moore said sounded really stupid to me in the past. (I can’t remember what specifically– it was on a talk show.) Since I’ve gained a wider understanding of politics, etc. I haven’t heard anything dumb from his sector, but I’m not exactly a Conservatard.

  21. says

    Yes, agnostics and atheists can be bigots. Most of us, though, just have a very rational, logical dislike of those who mutilate philosophy into an excuse to be hateful.

    PZ Myers is a good man. Atheists are good people. If your upbringing leads you to believe that any sort of person is inferior, that’s bigotry.

    You should hang your head in shame – and hipocrisy.

  22. raven says

    WELS wikipedia:

    Anti-Catholicism — WELS admits that “Scripture does not teach that the Pope is the Antichrist. It teaches that there will be an Antichrist (prophecy). We identify the Antichrist as the Papacy. This is an historical judgment based on Scripture.[1]” They further state that the doctrine identifying the Pope as the Antichrist is “not a fundamental article of faith,” but it is what lets the WELS member “stand in one faith with his fathers.”

    This is what anti-Catholic bigotry looks like.

    PZ is anti-cracker idolatry worshipping. If the cracker was a US tax paying citizen it might be bigotry. But it is just….a cracker.

  23. mayhempix says

    And of course Sullivan seems completely blind to the fact that you won because of support for your statements and actions, not in rejection of them. I laughed when he got emotional and angry with Bill Maher. All Christians take it personal when we publically reject their silly superstitions but see absolutely nothing wrong in condemning us in the strongest possible terms.

  24. Dixie says

    Sullivan ends his award announcement post with “God fuck you all.”

    First he claims the Moore category was weak, then he tries to yank victory attention away?

  25. Ken says

    It is interesting to note that the winner of the most “Divisive, bitter and intemperate right-wing rhetoric” said that _scientists_ ordered the Jews into the gas chambers during the Nazi Holocaust.

    The runner-up claimed that Senator Obama might smother his own grandmother to win the Presidential election.

    The most “Divisive, bitter and intemperate left-wing rhetoric” was someone proposing to do something bad to a cookie.

  26. Longtime Lurker says

    The real reason Sully gave PZ the Moore Award is that PZ, like Moore, is totally teh sexy “bear”.

  27. S.G.E.W. says

    Thought I’d jump in here and defend Sullivan a bit.

    While it’s true that he deserves some sort of “cognitive dissonance” award (for being a gay, married Catholic), and his bizarre obsession with Gov. Palin’s pregnancy was . . . well . . . bizarre, I have to point out that he’s been one of the leading voices out there decrying U.S. torture policies, along with Prof. Horton and Greenwald. That’s gotta count for something, right?

    Oh, and his “mental health break” videos are almost always worth it.

  28. Jacob says

    PZ Myers *is* a bigot. And before I’m painted to be some religious reactionary, let me tell you, I’m a Pastafarian, but otherwise not religious, I read Edge regularly, and am a big fan of Daniel Dennet, and even Dawkins, although I have some disagreements with him. But PZ Myers *is* a bigot. He is. So I guess I’m not a fan.

    He’d also make a lousy anthropologist.

  29. Epikt says

    Coyote:

    And you’re proud of that?

    It’s like being proud of appearing in Nixon’s Enemies List. Context is everything.

  30. Michael Fonda says

    So, according to Sullivan, this isn’t about free speech, it’s about civility, eh? Isn’t he the fine boy who called opponents of the Iraq war fifth columnists? And, ooh, wasn’t he so right about everything?

  31. Chris P says

    Coyote must be a raving ignorant idiot if he doesn’t realise that me and several others fixed the poll and wasn’t really a winner.

    PZ was losing until we intervened. Even Sullivan made no mention of the fact that the poll was entirely bent.

    I thought bigotry was about denying people’s rights like the Christians did in California. Making fun of other religions has been perfected by the Christians too.

    Chris P

  32. bootsy says

    @40: Explain how PZ destroying a cracker makes him a bigot. I threw out a whole box of rotten saltines the other day.

  33. Brownian, OM says

    PZ Myers *is* a bigot. And before I’m painted to be some religious reactionary, let me tell you, I’m a Pastafarian, but otherwise not religious, I read Edge regularly, and am a big fan of Daniel Dennet, and even Dawkins, although I have some disagreements with him. But PZ Myers *is* a bigot. He is. So I guess I’m not a fan.

    So would you, Jacob. Is there an argument in there somewhere as to why PZ is a bigot, or are we to take your word for it because you’ve got all the right atheist affiliations?

    This ain’t a country club, it’s a blog for pointing out it is, was, and shall always be just a fucking cracker.

  34. Logicel says

    Jacob: PZ Myers *is* a bigot. And before I’m painted to be some religious reactionary, let me tell you, I’m a Pastafarian,…
    _______

    When has FSM come to mean: Full of shit, Man?

  35. bootsy says

    @48: Behold Jacob, the talking cracker! Jacob, I am sorry for the holocaust I committed on your kind.

  36. PopeCoyote says

    Congrats, PZ! A dubious award but it shows they are paying attention. ;)

    I just wanted to assure you that #8, aka “Coyote”, is not part of my pack and is probably a lamb in wolf’s clothing. From the real Coyote, a blessing on your pack for the coming year – Canidae Canidae Canidae.

  37. Jacob says

    Well, #46, you’re right, it is *just* a cracker. Except that is not exactly right, is it? Can you figure out why?

    Perhaps a good place to start would be George Lakoff’s Fire Women and Dangerous Things. Or perhaps Roy A. Rappaport’s Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Or perhaps Hilary Putnam’s Representation and Reality.

    We can talk about vulgar religion (the kind that most of us object to most). But we can also talk about vulgar atheism, the kind that PZ Myers pontificates upon. It is uninformed, ignorant, brutish, and nasty. Oh, he suffers for his atheism, but that’s because he’s a bigot. I’ve never suffered for my outspoken atheism.

  38. S.G.E.W. says

    I just realized something (re: Mr. Sullivan’s cognitive dissonance):

    How can P.Z. win the “Michael Moore” award for disparaging the Catholic rituals when Michael Moore is himself Catholic?!?

    Yeesh.

  39. Benjamin Franklin says

    Coming this season, but OT, Survivor – Yellowstone!

    Some things to do in the event of volcanic ash that may help you survive

    If you’re within 100 kilometers of the supervolcano, you’re in big trouble. However, there are some precautions one can take in the event of dealing with volcanic ash, and these really start with having the appropriate supplies on hand.

    Beforehand you should have

    Extra dust masks
    Non-perishable food for three days
    Drinking water for three days
    Plastic wrap (for electronics)
    First aid kit and medications
    Radio with batteries
    Flashlights with batteries
    Wood for a fireplace or stove
    Blankets and warm clothing
    Cleaning supplies
    Cash (forget credit cards and ATM’s in this situation)
    Pet food and supplies
    Cell phone

    Further, it’s not a bad idea to know your child’s school emergency plan and to have some of the above in your car (though the reality is that if you don’t have to drive, then don’t when it comes to ash). Beyond that, you should stay indoors and listen for directions from emergency personnel as long as possible. If you do need to leave the house for any reason, wear a mask to protect your eyes.

    And hope that the world doesn’t turn into a frozen tundra as many think parts of it will.

    There is no definitive evidence that the Yellowstone supervolcano will erupt today, this week, or anytime soon. However, most scientists do believe that it eventually will happen.

    So why not be as ready as possible?

  40. bootsy says

    @53: You are aware that symbolism is just that, symbolism, right? And if we respected all of every religions’ stupid symbolism and rules, your non-counter-clockwise-Kaaba-perambulating ass would’ve been stoned long ago.

  41. kerovon says

    bigoted – blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others

    Is PZ biased towards one viewpoint? Yes. Is it a blind an irrationally bias? No. Its grounded in plenty of evidence and logic.

  42. says

    @Jacob…

    So before I attempted this from my obviously biased position of agreeing with PZ Myers… I went and looked for the actual etymology and definition of the word bigot:

    ‘The earliest Eng. sense is of “religious hypocrite”…’
    and ‘A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset.’
    and ‘ a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.’

    It appears I have to change my opinion here, in part – I (and PZ?) am a bigot, at least to some portion of that word’s meaning. I have always construed bigotry as being intolerant of actual individuals or groups, as opposed to just the opinions that they hold. By the book, my intolerance for ignorance is just bigotry.

    I still maintain that there is a vast difference between being intolerant of ideas (particularly those held in complete opposition to observable reality) and being intolerant and hateful towards the individuals who favor those ideas. That last definition marks that distinction as well.

  43. Jadehawk says

    Jacob, stop being obtuse. The RCC is not some remote indigenous culture that needs to be protected from a “we know better what’s good for you” colonialism. we’re not committing cultural genocide here.

    This is about American Secularism vs. American Catholicism. The West has had 400 years to extricate it’s cultural identity from adherence to strict religion. this is especially true for modern America, where only one major holiday is based on religion, most of the cultural events and figures are non-religious, and American life and tradition is only VERY tenuously connected to religion.

    And when the RCC deems it necessary to throw a massive hissyfit over a guy who wanted to show his non-Catholic friend a wafer, they deserve to be equally massively ridiculed for it.

  44. The Real Friggin' Coyote says

    @8
    Oy oy oy, who the fuck is this asshole using my name to do his concern trolling?! Rat bastard.

    Anyway, congrats on winning the award for not pandering to the stupid. At least, that’s how I see it!

  45. Brownian, OM says

    Well, #46, you’re right, it is *just* a cracker. Except that is not exactly right, is it? Can you figure out why?

    Of course it’s not exactly right, idiot. Neither is the presidency *just* a job, nor Coke *just* a brand. But the mere fact that we imbue such symbols with significance doesn’t mean that that significance can’t be challenged, nor eventually lost.

    So again, have you any actual argument to make, or are you merely content to sit here and spout off anthropological references in lieu of?

    And, as an aside, since you seem to think affiliation = argumentation, anthropology was my first discipline and Catholicism my first faith; unless you can also claim the latter you might want to do a little more reading yourself before you attempt to lecture me again on what the fucking cracker is or isn’t.

    And I’m glad to hear you don’t suffer for your atheism, but that’s likely because all the suffering you do is because you’re a smug prick, regardless of faith.

  46. CRS says

    Jacob #53,ignoring the philosophical woo…

    But we can also talk about vulgar atheism, the kind that PZ Myers pontificates upon. It is uninformed, ignorant, brutish, and nasty.

    Jacob, it’s a dirty job but someone has to do it. Would I take the road PZ did when speaking with my family or friends. Hell, no. I’ll bet PZ wouldn’t either. As I recall PZ did not intrude upon anyone’s turf. This is his turf; his blog is his schtick. When he turns in his cyber pistol for a handgun then we’ll talk.

  47. Jadehawk says

    Actually, its about respecting people.

    actually, no it’s not. we respect peaople as people. no respect* is warranted for their beliefs. Iconoclasm and being loud an obnoxious are well-honed American traditions :-p

    *people seem to misunderstand that all worldviews need to be tolerated as long as they don’t violate human rights, but they need not be respected per-se. Some worldviews deserve respect, some not. but they stand and fall on their own in that regard. and piling abuse on a poor guy who took a wafer instead of eating it immediately is most decidedly not respectable.

  48. bootsy says

    @59: No, it’s not about respecting people.

    Was it respectful when the White House press corps refused to ask any questions of substance about WMD in Iraq? There’s nothing more disrespectful than kowtowing to dumbshits.

    Or, maybe you should be respectful to Jehovah’s Witnesses, and insist that hospitals never give them evil blood transfusions.

  49. The Man who Took You Down says

    The saddest fact about this discussion is that it is dominated by unthinking fanboys tripping over themselves trying to show they are the most hard-core Myerling.

  50. The Real Friggin' Coyote says

    @68

    As opposed to stupid gits who come onto the personal blog of someone to accuse his readers of being fans of him? What a shock that is.

  51. Jacob says

    Has nothing to do with kowtowing #67. The Bush Admin. can go frick themselves. Respecing JWs has nothing to do about choosing to do blood transfusions. Can you elevate your discussion just a tad? We’re atheists because we have better brains, right?

  52. bootsy says

    @68, @69: Don’t you love it when religious people mock atheists for being “followers”?

  53. Rey Fox says

    “I just wanted to assure you that #8, aka “Coyote”, is not part of my pack and is probably a lamb in wolf’s clothing.”

    That’s the trouble with the Abrahamic faiths, isn’t it? There’s no trickster figure. We’re doing these guys a service. Catholicism needs all pisstake it can get.

  54. bootsykay says

    @70: Has everything to do with kowtowing. In a world where people are not afraid of religious bigots: Catholics are free to call crackers god, and PZ (and others) are free to trash them. Simple. Honest. Respectful.

  55. Jacob says

    Ok, I admit it. All you boyz are doing the good fight. I mean, how else are we going to usurp the dominance of religion in USAian society than by desecrating the symbols that our fellow USAians hold most dear? (or by posting on this silly blog). I’m sure that’s the best strategy. I know I became atheist when I saw Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ). It was a revelation! There must be no God! How could I have been fooled!?

    If people here cannot adhere to a basic principle of civil discourse (mutual respect, or at least courtesy), they can at least take consideration for how to strategically pursue your objectives.

  56. The Real Friggin' Coyote says

    @75

    Talk about missing the fucking point.

    There is no rule that says you have to show the other side respect in an argument. Sure, sometimes it helps, but when the other side is full of people screaming death threats and yelling about Satan, FUCK CIVIL DISCOURSE.

    And there are no “objectives” at work here, you stupid prick. There’s one guy trying to make a point. The way he does it is up to him.

  57. Brownian, OM says

    Oh fuck. Jacob’s a framer.

    Jacob, you pursue your objectives via the strategy you perceive is best, and I’ll pursue mine using my own.

    If you’ve got an argument more cogent than “you guys are mean“, we’ll be happy to entertain it.

  58. szqc says

    @68: The commenters are more like the “Myersarchy” (not the the Myer(s)ling) given the often heated debates here (I mean beyond concern trolls and ‘tards). You may note the OM (Order of the Molly) winners don’t win because of being syncophants – they win because of a lot of incisive and trenchant commentary, not always in agreement with PZ or other commentors.

    @ The Real Friggin’ Coyote – I rather wondered if your handle had been jacked…

  59. bootsy says

    @75: Do you really think no one would be convinced by the crackergate? I would be… Though already atheist, it helps remind me that Catholics believe some crazy shit about god being in a cracker, and will react even more crazily when someone throws a cracker in the trash.

    Also, the Piss Christ is quite beautiful, which is why I wouldn’t endorse it. It reflects too much of its beauty onto the martyr-tastic religion it symbolizes.

  60. Jadehawk says

    Jacob, fuck you and your civil discourse. no society has ever been changed for the better by being polite

  61. Screechy Monkey says

    Jacob @70: “We’re atheists because we have better brains, right?”

    And you call PZ a bigot?

  62. The Real Friggin' Coyote says

    @83

    You must be thick as a rock.

    Civil rights movement, a lot of civil war, women’s suffrage… just about every thing worth mentioning was worth fighting for. Not just going up to those in power and saying “pleaaaaase?”

  63. Jadehawk says

    look up the fight of the suffragettes, the fight against Apartheid, the War of Independence (or any fight against an occupying force, for that matter), the Civil Rights Movement, and tell me how many of them would have even made a blip on the radar of society if they hadn’t been defiantly loud and obnoxious and even violent

  64. speedwell says

    Jacob @ 83:

    Did women, or anyone, ever get anywhere by being complaisant? Know-nothing.

  65. Brownian, OM says

    #81, Has society ever been changed for the better by uncivil discourse?

    Well let’s see: Americans are no longer British, blacks in North America are no longer slaves, and the world isn’t under Nazi control, but each of those situations arose through reasoned debate between parties mutually respectful of each others’ positions, so I guess Jacob’s right.

  66. Jadehawk says

    oh, and before you come back and accuse us of a “lack of perspective” for comparing Crackergate to those events: we’re not. Crackergate is just one episode of an ongoing fight against the Favoritism and Exceptionalism granted to religions.

  67. Jacob says

    #80, interesting question.

    As a realist I realize that people are motivated by emotionally charged discourse. As a pragmatist I realize that it may be the best way to achieve some objectives. The Right gained power by feeding the unthinking frenzy of its base. As an idealist I would like to believe that people should accept a position based on its intellectual merits. I value rational discourse more than anything else. However, if we are to use emotion as a tool of bringing about social change I see two basic strategies: 1) transform the atheist base into an unthinking frenzied mob (basically PZ Myers job), who’ll do the footwork or 2) engage non-atheists directly in a way that will bring them closer to your position. I understand the appeal of 1, but I think that 1 won’t work. I can’t imagine a Catholic abandoning his or her religion as a result of seeing an atheist desecrate their sacred symbols in that way. A softer and more diplomatic approach is necessary. Instead, the violence of such desecration accomplishes two things: it causes religious individuals to radicalize their position in opposition to yours (if atheism means *that* I don’t want to have anything to do with it), and two, it gives religious opinion makers ammunition.

    strategy.

  68. Ordained Atheist says

    How supercilious Andy Sullivan gives a “Poseur Award” to anyone but himself is beyond me.

  69. Jacob says

    I guess killing people is the solution. Oh, and screaming works too.

    Who said complaisant? Come on!

  70. says

    Has society ever been changed for the better by uncivil discourse?

    A better question would be whether society has ever been changed for the better by something besides uncivil discourse. I frankly can’t think of any advances that have come about by politely reasoning with the entrenched powers-that-be. Every major movement that comes to my mind has succeeded by getting in someone’s face.

  71. The Real Friggin' Coyote says

    @89

    The point you are utterly missing is that no one is being an unthinking frenzied mob here. I haven’t heard about any atheists burning churches down. I haven’t heard about any atheists beating up pastors and priest.

    In other words, I call fucking bullshit.

  72. Jacob says

    some people here seem to be suggesting that killing religious people is the solution. ok, i know where this leads.

  73. Brownian, OM says

    Hold on here: Jacob shows up tossing epithets like ‘bigot’ around, snootily tosses off book references in lieu of argument, accuses his interlocutors of being fanbois, and then claims to be on the side of civil discourse?

    If uncivil discourse doesn’t change anything, then why the hell are you here acting like such a fucking asshole, Jacob?

    Atheist or not, Jacob’s hypocrisy is reaching Papal proportions.

    Please do continue to tell bigoted fanbois that we’re bigoted fanbois because, well, you haven’t yet made an argument. But by all means, replace ‘fuck’ with ‘frick’ so we know you’re being civil (and lecture us on the meaning of symbols while you’re at it; apparently your study of anthropology never included linguistics).

    Fucking dumbass.

  74. The Real Friggin' Coyote says

    @95

    And apparently you fail at reading comprehension as well. I don’t see anyone saying anything of the sort.

    Once again, I call shenanigans, bullshit, and dirty, dirty lies.

  75. says

    some people here seem to be suggesting that killing religious people is the solution. ok, i know where this leads.

    Can we consider this a Godwin? Or does he actually have to use the word Hitler?

  76. says

    @75 strategically pursue your objectives? hell, if we could strategically pursue our objectives, let alone have strategic objectives to pursue, then we might become the actual threat that many of these ged fearing xtian groups make us out to be. But we’re not really all that threatening, except to the extent that most religions need an outgroup to persecute in order to feel persecuted themselves which gives them a common bond. Happily we don’t need that ourselves but rather we serve the role others thrust us into without complaint and little more than the occasional desecration.

  77. Michael Fonda says

    I don’t know where people get this idea that discourse needs to be respectful. Some people out there are egregiously full of the usual and there’s just no respectful way to plainly put it. Tolerance is not depriving people you disagree with of jobs, housing, basic rights, public accommodations and the like. The idea that criticizing and questioning Catholic beliefs, liberal beliefs or any beliefs is a form of intolerance is a viewpoint held by those who passionately fail to understand basic enlightenment principles. It’s a demand that we artificially curtail our thinking to help keep the close-minded comfortable.

    Though I would say that if you can’t take it perhaps you shouldn’t dish it out.

  78. Nerd of Redhead says

    Jacob, I might have sympathy for your argument if you could show that the RCC took actions against the people who threatened, and continue to threat, PZ. If the RCC wants polite, they have to be polite in return, and make sure their practitioners keep polite too. It isn’t happening, so PZ was more than justified in what he did.

    Violence against a cracker? Compared to being eaten? I smell something wrong with this analogy

  79. Brownian, OM says

    some people here seem to be suggesting that killing religious people is the solution. ok, i know where this leads

    Unless you’re claiming you’ve had your handle hijacked, you’re the only one who brought up killing (well, besides the Crackergate Catholics who threatened Webster Cook with death for not eating his wafer.)

    Man, and you claim we’re hurting the ‘atheist cause’.

  80. Jadehawk says

    Jacob, despite what you may think, a good number of us aren’t out to convert the Catholics or anyone. what this is about is simply destroying the Sacred Cow (pun intended) that is religion. the point is to get religion off its pedestal, so we can have a conversation on equal footing, which then at least will give people the choice to come to a conclusion. as long as we’re a fair target while religions need to be treated delicately, any attempt at conversation is futile.

    and where has anyone said that killing the religious is the solution to anything? you’re an idiot, and you are reading into peoples posts what you want to. You’re one step away from Godwin-ing this thread, so stop while you haven’t made a total ass of yourself.

  81. aratina says

    When Sullivan wrote that the Moore Award was weak, it seemed to me he meant it was not competitive like many of the other awards and thus no fun. Congrats PZ for winning handily!

    As for the claim by Jacob that PZ is a bigot, that is much like White Southerners complaining of reverse racism. Here is what I think: you can’t be a bigot toward a majority if you are a minority with an intolerant attitude towards the majority unless you take an amoral perspective where anyone can be a victim for any slight. Try not to lose your moral perspective.

    And actually, it was the Catholics who were being bigots and actively marginalized one of their own for a failure to follow organizational policy. Making fun of that is certainly not bigotry; PZ’s disrespectful ridicule of the Host was much like a heavy-handed “quit your crying or I’ll give you something to cry about” and that he did. Not only that, but a great deal many anthropologists have been and are bigots so your assertion is false, but I can see why you would idealize anthropologists who might want to take objective viewpoints on their subjects. I hope you, Jacob, take the time to better understand power relations and bigotry in human societies.

  82. says

    Can we consider this a Godwin?

    I don’t know the specifics of how that goes, though I can see why you’re heading that way with his most recent comments. Regardless, Jacob’s ignorance of history and his willingness to make shit up makes him just as boring to argue with as any fundy troll, so I’m done.

  83. Owlmirror says

    (Sastra on “politeness”)

    Look, Jacob: You have a double standard here; you came to this blog and disrespectfully accused the blog owner of being a bigot because he behaved disrespectfully. Yet PZ was disrespectful toward Catholic beliefs because Catholics had behaved disgracefully disrespectfully towards Webster Cook.

    If it was wrong for PZ to behave disrespectfully in response to disrespect, is it not also wrong for you to do so?

    If those who opposed Webster had been polite, this would never have happened (and it would never have made the news in the first place).

  84. Benjamin Geiger says

    Brian @ #99:

    It’s not a Nazi comparison, so no Godwin. He doesn’t have to use the word “Hitler”; any direct comparison to the Third Reich suffices.

    And I find it rather hilarious that the religious are so offended by mockery: “The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn.” – Martin Luther

  85. says

    JC:

    I don’t think the “Moore” award is appropriate for PZ.
    All political left/right/whatever rhetoric aside, the award should go to someone who lies or stretches the truth to make their point (or money).

    Yeah, you know, that bothered me too. From what I’ve seen, Moore aims to be populist (in Roger and Me, he was all buddying up to the little guy who got shafted by the Man) and thus becomes inclusive, at least to a degree. You could enjoy shooting guns and still like Bowling for Columbine: recall the part where Moore goes up to Canada and stocks up on bullets at the local K-Mart. He interviews at least one talking head who says that Canada has a long and friendly history with guns — “a nation of hunters, a nation of trappers” (or words to that effect). For all his yanking of the heartstrings about little girls who get shot, Moore didn’t take a knee-jerk pro-gun-control stance, instead criticizing the American “culture of fear” and all that. To my mind, that’s hardly a divisive stance, unless the viewer already had his heart set on being divided.

    Now, he manages to be pretty sleazy anyway, what with misrepresenting interviews and all, but that’s not what the “Moore Award” was given for. Plenty of people who share Moore’s general political alignment get upset with his treatment of his source material; as Jon Stewart said of a similar situation, “MoveOn: making people who agree with us cringe, since 2001”.

    Funnily enough, I don’t recall many people accusing P-Zed of “doing a Michael Moore” in that respect. You don’t need to quote-mine deluded fuckwit cdesign proponentsists to make them seem ridiculous.

  86. Owlmirror says

    …and I see that Jacob decided to become even more disrespectful while I was composing my comment #107.

    Tch.

    Jacob, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

  87. craig says

    Wait, I don’t get it.

    Jacob’s a framer? Well, he’s a shitty framer then.
    Most of us here see framing for what it is in general – turning discourse into a contest through use of dishonesty, as perfected by the Machiavellian sociopaths in the GOP. Not something to admire and emulate.

    In the specific case of framing re: religion, we see it as what it is – something that’s been tried for a few thousand years and was a complete, disastrous failure.

    But Jacob, seeing as you’re faced here with a group of people who see your framing as stupidity that only someone blind to the past can believe will work, doesn’t that mean you have to change our minds through framing?

    You DON’T come onto someone’s personal blog and call him nasty names, and call all the readers of his blog nasty names in order to change their minds. Bad framer. BAD FRAMER!

    No go, do what a GOOD framer would do. Stop invading this blog and imposing your ideas through confrontation and insult. Go away to some quiet corner of the net and wait for us to come along and engage you, whereupon you then quietly use gentle and polite rhetoric to persuade us that you’re not a stupid fucking douchebag.

  88. Cruithne says

    If uncivil discourse doesn’t change anything, then why the hell are you here acting like such a fucking asshole, Jacob?

    Game.

    Set.

    And indeed, Match.

  89. Knock Goats says

    The real anti-Catholic bigots are protestant fundie extremists. Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s church, Wisconsin Lutherans has this on their website, paraphrasing “The Catholic church is the Church of Satan and the pope is the antichrist.” – raven

    I’ve probably posted it here before, but I can’t resist. This reminds me of a correction that appeared in The Belfast Telegraph, a northern Ireland Protestant/Unionist paper, in the bad old days a few decades ago:

    ‘In our article of [date] we referred to the Pope as “His Satanic Majesty”. This should have read “The Roman Antichrist”.’

  90. John Morales says

    I just had to laugh at Jacob’s efforts to establish bona fides @40:

    And before I’m painted to be some religious reactionary, let me tell you, I’m a Pastafarian, but otherwise not religious […]

    I’ll give Jacob the benefit of the doubt, and consider it failed humor, but really! :)

  91. ennui says

    I still read Sullivan once in a while, but why would PZ truly care about an award from someone who penned this piece of fractally wrong, apologetic word salad/ponyloaf?

    The reason I call myself a Christian is not because I manage to subscribe, at any given moment, to all the truths that the hierarchy of my church insists I believe in; let alone because I am a good person or a “good Catholic.” I call myself a Christian because I believe that, in a way I cannot fully understand, the force behind everything decided to prove itself benign by becoming us, and being with us. And as soon as people grasped what had happened, what was happening, the world changed for ever. The Gospels – all of them, including those that were rejected by the early Church – are mere sketches of a life actually lived, and an experience that can never be reduced to words or texts or doctrines. And the world as it was – as it still is – was unable to tolerate this immense occasion; and so Jesus was executed and the life more in touch with divinity than any other life was ended abruptly, when it was still achingly young. The existence of such a life was both so wondrous that it changed everything; and also so terrifying it had to be snuffed out.

    The point of this incarnation was surely not to construct a litany of offenses by which we are to judge our own lives at any moment, to force us to thrash and writhe in a constant ordeal of self-criticism and guilt. The point was merely to be with us; and by being with us, to show us better how to be human, how better to embrace our lives by accepting the divine around us and inside us. By letting go, we become. By giving up, we gain. And we learn how to live – now, which is the only time that matters.

  92. Knock Goats says

    am a big fan of Daniel Dennet – Jacob

    Who can’t spell his name correctly? Riiiiiight.

  93. John Huey says

    Here’s a curious thing: Everyone is focused on the protest that PZ enacted but no one seems to remember the reason that PZ was protesting in the first place: the over-the-top mistreatment of the student that took the cracker ‘hostage’. In isolation, PZ’s comments and action would indeed look crass and bigoted. In this respect, the protest back-fired: it made the issue PZ Myers and NOT the bad behavior of the Catholic Church, the Catholic League, et. al.

  94. says

    Hey, we all can issue Sullivan awards. I did a large one after my second mug of coffee this morning. (Working on a Jacob right now but killfile is easier if less satisfying.)

    Seriously, I have read Sullivan at times, when directed from another site, and almost always end up wondering why I bothered.

    Congrats PZed.

    Ciao y’all

  95. Jadehawk says

    ennui, we’re excited because PZ won due to an act of Pharyngulation. it’s just nice to see our hard work rewarded occasionally :-p

  96. says

    I can’t imagine a Catholic abandoning his or her religion as a result of seeing an atheist desecrate their sacred symbols in that way. A softer and more diplomatic approach is necessary.

    I would argue that anyone who believes that a cracker literally transforms into the body of a mangod then partakes in ritual cannibalism is beyond saving.

  97. ennui says

    OK, I get it–double ironic poll crashing is fun and doubly ironic ;-] Congrats on all your hard work.

  98. Brownian, OM says

    I would argue that anyone who believes that a cracker literally transforms into the body of a mangod then partakes in ritual cannibalism is beyond saving.

    Remember Kel, the miracle of transubstantiation is actually two miracles: the first is that the bread and wine miraculously change into the body and blood of Christ while the second is that they miraculously remain exactly like non-body-and-blood bread and wine, so much so that there is no possible way to tell the difference between a consecrated wafer and an unconsecrated one.

    In fact, the regular occurrence of both of these miracles would almost be enough to convince me that God exists, if the exact same miracles weren’t similarly performed by Calvin on an even more regular basis with his transmogrifier, his time machine, his duplicator, his classroom desk, and of course Hobbes, leading me to conclude that Bill Watterson bests Jehovah in both power and probability of existence.

  99. Jacob says

    You are right. I should not have revisited this blog. I should have kept my mouth shut. Its pretty obvious that the regulars do not welcome any sort of dissent. Much like most other forums on the web, I suppose. I should not have called for rational and civil conduct, for respect for other human beings, even when they are wrong, or anything of that sort. And most of all, I should not have called Myers a bigot even when he acts like one. Because that would not be fair. And I should not have assumed that anyone here is interested in promoting atheism as a life-affirming alternative to religion. No, this forum is basically a place for angry atheists to vent. Well keep on venting. Just don’t pick up the torches and pitchforks. I don’t expect this post will do anything, except stir up this nest again. I’ve been called a troll, or a framer, but I suppose I am. A good troll is better than a bad human. I’ve been called an asshole. Well, I am an asshole, and if I’ve hurt anyone’s feelings here (especially you dear PZ), I’m sorry, a little bit sorry. But I wasn’t being an asshole on this forum. I’ve been called a hypocrite. Perhaps, but any objective comparison of my comments and the responses they have provoked will show that the vitriol of the responses is all out of proportion to the vitriol of my own comments. I believe in rationality, in fairness, in respect for life and other’s foibles, I believe that society depends on it, and on open and even discourse. I believe that the merits of a position should be weighed not in how it feels or how it sounds but in its internal consistency and its correspondence with the facts of the world. I’ve been called stupid, and well I’ve called some of you stupid back. Perhaps I’ve deserved the name, but no one has convinced me (I’m sure they’re not interested in trying) that they’re not acting stupidly. Oh, and I’ve been accused of misspelling a name. So what?

  100. Nerd of Redhead says

    JH

    NOT the bad behavior of the Catholic Church, the Catholic League, et. al.

    Maybe in your opinion, but not mine. PZ showed that the CL was nothing but a bunch of hot air, which probably led to the charges against Webster Cook coming into question and being tossed upon adjudication and appeal. Likewise, they tried to have PZ fired, but he appears to be on track to be promoted to full professor in due time. Another big time failure. So any organization can now ignore Bill Donohue and his CL followers as rabid, but powerless.

  101. Jadehawk says

    evidence that we’ve shown no respect for human beings and their lives, or it didn’t happen.

  102. Brownian, OM says

    I don’t think you can blame PZ for the shifting of attention, John Huey–remember, these are the same people that care more about whether a Wal-Mart greeter says ‘Happy Holidays’ or ‘Merry Christmas’ to them than they do about the protection of pedophiles and the silencing of the victims in their own church.

    And anytime The Bitch Who Fucked You Up wants to come to Edmonton, I’d be happy to discuss cowardice with him/her in person.

  103. Newfie says

    the first is that the bread and wine miraculously change into the body and blood of Christ while the second is that they miraculously remain exactly like non-body-and-blood bread and wine, so much so that there is no possible way to tell the difference between a consecrated wafer and an unconsecrated one.

    it is.. and yet, it isn’t. it does.. and yet, it doesn’t.
    When people come to “understand” these things, they are beyond rational thought, and bingo… now they’ll believe any bullshit.

    I’m almost tempted to start my own bullshit industry… easy work, and the money is good. But being around unthinking idgits is unbearable.

  104. says

    aratina: you can’t be a bigot toward a majority if you are a minority

    Of course you can. You just can’t do much about it. Lack of power doesn’t excuse someone for being prejudiced. I object to loading up nouns with connotations that should be provided by adjectives.

  105. Nerd of Redhead says

    Jacob, thank you for your concern, but in case you haven’t noticed, we honed our teeth when crackergate hit the webs. You gave us nothing new to think about. Same old arguments. And we weren’t even vitriolic with you. Nice does not always win. Usually, the arrogant SOB wins.

  106. Brownian, OM says

    And now Jacob think he’s some sort of fucking martyr.

    Next time you show up somewhere looking for a rational discussion, try making an actual fucking argument before you start tossing off the ad hominems and spinning strawmen.

    Anyways, good riddance, you whiny pissant. Dissension we have no problem with, but idiot concern trolls who fail to make a single argument to support their claims even after repeated exhortations to do so few of us here have no fucking tolerance for.

  107. ndt says

    Jacob, did you seriously just refer to throwing a cracker in the trash as “violent”? If so, you don’t even want to know what I did to some eggs the other day.

  108. Owlmirror says

    This reminds me of a correction that appeared in The Belfast Telegraph, a northern Ireland Protestant/Unionist paper, in the bad old days a few decades ago:

    ‘In our article of [date] we referred to the Pope as “His Satanic Majesty”. This should have read “The Roman Antichrist”.’

    I was curious enough to Google the two phrases, and the first hit that had them attributed the quote to the Protestant Telegraph… a different publication (est. 1966 by Ian Paisley, which name I am sure you will recognize) from The Belfast Telegraph (est. 1870).

  109. Brownian, OM says

    Jacob, did you seriously just refer to throwing a cracker in the trash as “violent”? If so, you don’t even want to know what I did to some eggs the other day.

    Yes, and then he so rationally and civilly proceeded to parlay that claim into “some people here seem to be suggesting that killing religious people is the solution.”

  110. Wowbagger says

    I call for PZ to include a link to a dictionary somewhere on the site, with particular attention to the words ‘bigot’, ‘intolerance’ and – just for Jacob’s sake – ‘dissent’.

    What’d be really cool is a program during the comment submission process that could scan comments for those words and tell if they aren’t being used properly; if so, a screen would flash up with the (immortal) words:
    I don’t think that word means what you think it means!

  111. Owlmirror says

    But I wasn’t being an asshole on this forum.

    I’m sorry, but this is a lie.

    Or do non-assholes regularly falsely accuse their interlocutors?

    I ask only for information…

  112. shonny says

    Useful new term in that little video: bumblefuck.

    And I think it with considerable accuracy describes Jacob #127’s ‘contribution’. Lots of words expressing exactly nothing.

    And good on ya for the Moore, PZ, – the world needs more who are willing to take a bit of flak for godbot-stirring.

  113. Marc Abian says

    I agree. PZ is a complete bigot.

    NB Asking me to back up that statement with an argument means you’re all bigots who hate dissent, so there. I’m just sorry you can’t be a positive beacon for atheism like I am.

  114. 'Tis Himself says

    I should not have called for rational and civil conduct, for respect for other human beings, even when they are wrong, or anything of that sort. And most of all, I should not have called Myers a bigot even when he acts like one.

    Poor Jacob, he only tries to make the world a better place for the poor, persecuted, downtrodden majority. He strives to respect those who make death threats. And he calls other people “bigots” in only the most respectful manner. Truly Jacob is one to be emulated when confronted by unthinking, vitriolic fanatics.

    I know, Jacob. Why don’t you do some shuttle diplomacy between Hamas and the Israelis? I’m sure your calm, rational civility will convince the Palestinians to stop rocketing Israel and shame the Israelis into ending their bombing of Gaza. Let us know how it works out.

  115. The Real Friggin' Coyote says

    @127

    First thing first, mate. Paragraphs. Fucking paragraphs. Christ.

    Second thing: QUIT YOUR BITCHING. No one cares! If you’re so in favor of free and open discourse, be aware that people will *gasp* disagree with you, in nasty and impolitic ways much of the time. Grow up and get some thicker skin, or you’ll run into someone who’ll really ruin your day.

    On the things you believe in? Guess what! So do most of us! It’s just that we don’t think you have always be polite to engage in “open and even discourse,” or kind to defend positions based on logic and reason. We tend to be mean to people who deserve it, by say, misconstruing our statements to imply that we endorse genocide. That tends to hack us off a bit.

    Oh, and on spreading the life affirming philosophy of atheism? Go right ahead. But be aware that there not only sheep among the flock you attempt to lead, but also wolves. And someone has to be there to fight the wolves.

    That’s what PZ is for. That’s what our vitrol and our anger is for.

  116. The Real Friggin' Coyote says

    Well, maybe not always wolves. There’s at least one clockwork powered plush toy.

  117. Owlmirror says

    NB Asking me to back up that statement with an argument means you’re all bigots who hate dissent, so there. I’m just sorry you can’t be a positive beacon for atheism like I am.

    Thanks! I needed some irony in order to calibrate my irony meter.

    It did not explode, and the needle is pointing to “sarcasm”. Excellent!

  118. Knock Goats says

    Owlmirror@137,
    Thanks very much – and my apologies to The Belfast Telegraph. An interesting example of how memories get “adjusted”: I’m sure the source I heard it from (a BBC radio show many years ago, the title of which I don’t remember) got it right – but The Belfast Telegraph is much better known than The Protestant Telegraph, and smuggled its name into the memory trace or retrieval process at some point!

  119. Wowbagger says

    I missed this on the first read-through:

    the life affirming philosophy of atheism…

    Atheists have a Life-Affirming Policy™ now? Can someone post a link to where we keep this? I want to make sure I live by it to the letter – because, you know, that’s why we atheists secretly hate the fundies: envy for narrow strictures by which to live. That’s what I want in my life, a set of rules that, if I don’t follow them, I stop being a true Scotsman atheist.

    Dimwit.

  120. Guy Incognito says

    And I should not have assumed that anyone here is interested in promoting atheism as a life-affirming alternative to religion.

    What the hell does that mean?

  121. Knock Goats says

    You are right. I should not have revisited this blog. I should have kept my mouth shut. Its pretty obvious that the regulars do not welcome any sort of dissent. – Jacob

    Look, moron, take a glance at the thread “Need some excuse to celebrate”. You’ll see me and another regular, ggab, kicking the shit out of each other over another issue. If you look around a bit, you’ll also find regulars in vehement disagreement with PZ. Dissent – fine. Rude dissent – fine. Failing to argue your point – not so fine. You’ll get mocked and/or insulted. Serve you right.

  122. says

    “To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion – that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticise ideas – any ideas even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. And the law which attempts to say you can criticise or ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed. It all points to the promotion of the idea that there should be a right not to be offended. But in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended. The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness – and the other represents oppression.” – Rowan Atkinson, speaking out about the latest attempt to criminalize speech in Britain.

    Webster’s Dictionary – Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

    In other words, you can’t be a bigot against a belief.

  123. craig says

    “And I should not have assumed that anyone here is interested in promoting atheism as a life-affirming alternative to religion.”

    What the hell does that mean?

    It’s sort of like promoting playing the game of checkers as form of low-carb snack.

  124. The Swiss says

    Jacob:

    I understand the appeal of 1, but I think that 1 won’t work. I can’t imagine a Catholic abandoning his or her religion as a result of seeing an atheist desecrate their sacred symbols in that way. A softer and more diplomatic approach is necessary.

    The crazy Catholic reaction will perhaps persuade non-Catholics, more “inertial” not-really-Catholics, and even some not-so-convinced Catholics, of the craziness of their faith and the violent extremes it fosters. And even if you don’t convert old irretrievable Cathoholics, a livelier public discourse will make it more likely for lots of young people to NOT get passively indoctrinated into such craziness, or to “believe in belief” (Dannett) out of misinformation (e.g. “Christianity/Islam is a religion of peace”, or “simple people need God to behave morally”).

    Instead, the violence of such desecration accomplishes two things: it causes religious individuals to radicalize their position in opposition to yours (if atheism means *that* I don’t want to have anything to do with it), and two, it gives religious opinion makers ammunition.

    Yes, let the religious radicalize themselves and get more rabid about (e.g.) that poor cracker, and lose their automatic privileges to higher moral ground in the process. Let them ridicule themselves and their whacky beliefs in public! Encore!

    (“the violence of such desecration”… are you serious? Aren’t you by any chance a Catholic masquerading here as an atheist?)

  125. aratina says

    Wow, the moral equivalence of Jacob is killing me (yours too, Zeno). Moral equivilanticide. You actually have to dismiss the whole history of human civilization to tell me that a Black person’s prejudice toward Whites (Zeno) and an atheist’s prejudice toward Christians (Jacob) is not morally justified.

    What we have here is a case where modern society is built around keeping atheists subdued, but PZ happens to crash a Christian initiation ritual and now he is called a bigot by a fellow atheist. The argument is this: “Can’t you see how angry you would be if I stole a meatball from your plate of spaghetti just before you were about to devour it?” Everyone here knew there would be anger and hurt feelings but the action was morally justifiable. What if that meatball were held in higher esteem by your fellow Pastafarians than your job or even your life? Hopefully someone would be courageous enough to take a stand for you as PZ did for Webster Cook.

  126. says

    Atheism is not a life-affirming philosophy. Humanism is a life-affirming philosophy. Stoicism is a life-affirming philosophy. Neither of those philosophies involve a belief in the supernatural, and many atheists subscribe to them, which is why I suppose they and other life-affirming non-religious philosophies could be confused with atheism.

    I suppose an argument could be made for exposing such life-affirming, non-religious philosophies to the religious to let them know they exist, even though some of them have been around for thousands of years.

  127. Newfie says

    I’m just sorry you can’t be a positive beacon for atheism like I am.

    by all means, you and Jacob go start your Church of Nothing and Understanding. I’m sure you’ll win lots of converts by saying, “I don’t believe.” I’d rather say, “If you want to believe in Unicorns and Leprechauns, fine. Just don’t come around and expect me to not make fun of you, when you try to tell me that they are real.” You’re fucking crazy, and you need to be told so.”
    We’re not trying to start a new frackin’ church here.

  128. craig says

    “but PZ happens to crash a Christian initiation ritual and now he is called a bigot by a fellow atheist. The argument is this: “Can’t you see how angry you would be if I stole a meatball from your plate of spaghetti just before you were about to devour it?””

    PZ didn’t crash anything.
    He threw a cracker that he owned (was given) in the trash in his own home.

  129. says

    That’s what I want in my life, a set of rules that, if I don’t follow them, I stop being a true atheist.

    I seem to vaguely recall that rule #1 was: “No Poofters!” Or maybe that was only in Australia.

  130. JC says

    W.R.T. post #127:

    This has got to be a joke. It reads just like the Casey Luskin letter PZ posted a couple threads down.
    Wierd.

    and what? No comments about the “mantle” pun? (#26) Award, mantle … squid, mantle… That pure gold. err. I’m cuttin’, but nobody’s bleading.

  131. Wowbagger says

    “And I should not have assumed that anyone here is interested in promoting atheism as a life-affirming alternative to religion.”

    It’s sort of like promoting playing the game of checkers as form of low-carb snack.

    No, it’s more like trying to convince bald people that it’s vitally important they should all arrange their non-hair in the same way.

  132. Aquaria says

    Jacob is a Nisbett, the atheist version of an Uncle Tom or House Negro. Exact same boot-licking appeasement. Exact same fear of being perceived as “uncivil” and “mean.” Exact same “concern” about upsetting people and getting them riled up.

    He would have told Rosa Parks to stand up and let that white man take the seat; after all, that was what constituted “civil” according to that society’s standards.

    He would have told black people not to try to eat at a whites only lunch counter. Why, the “colored” have their own restaurants, why upset the white folk by doing something you just know is gonna upset them? And then he’d blame them when the firehoses and dogs got turned loose on those who dared to stand up for themselves, saying, well, what did they expect, upsetting white folks like that?

    I’m so sick of these Nisbetts.

  133. craig says

    “No, it’s more like trying to convince bald people that it’s vitally important they should all arrange their non-hair in the same way.

    Baldness is a life-affirming alternative to religion.

  134. The Real Friggin' Coyote says

    Hmm, care to explain the origin of that term? I don’t think I’ve heard of Nisbett before. Uncle Tom, certainly, Quisling, yes, but Nisbett?

  135. Aquaria says

    Nisbett, after Matt Nisbett, a concern troll framing cultist. Just look him up, and you’ll see why he’s the equivalent of an Uncle Tom to the more outspoken atheists.

  136. Newfie says

    Sorry, Marc. Looked real to me, but I don’t know all the regulars here yet.. give me time.

  137. daveH says

    Jacob @127 sez:

    I believe that the merits of a position should be weighed not in how it feels or how it sounds but in its internal consistency and its correspondence with the facts of the world

    How does “It’s just a fucking cracker!” not correspond to the facts of the world, exactly?

  138. says

    Aquaria, I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately too many atheists are Uncle Toms, having internalized the bigotry that theists have for us. Do we really want to be passive? Is that how we will end the institutionalized bigotry?

  139. Insightful Ape says

    Jake the troll(if you don’t like the label don’t act like one), you claim on one hand to have “never suffered for your atheism” and on the other hand “to be a pastafarian”. Well, please don’t blame me for doubting all this. Have you looked at the hate mail part of Church of FSM website, or read stories it has about harassment? Is it not obvious that not everyone is tolerant of dissent-and not just in a forum, but physically?
    What PZ has done is defensible as free expression, even if some people find it offensive. And not all human behavior deserves respect-that is earned. I find it amusing that on one hand your blame PZ for not showing respect(like you know, the complaint Muslims had about publication of cartoons of prophet)but you, yourself, don’t show much respect for people here. You better take your pick; you can’t have it both way.

  140. says

    I seem to vaguely recall that rule #1 was: “No Poofters!” Or maybe that was only in Australia.

    The first rule of atheism is do not talk about atheism. The second rule of atheism is DO NOT talk about atheism. Rule 3: when a theist says stop, goes limp, or taps out, the discussion is over. Rule 4: only two guys to a discussion. Rule 5: only one discussion at a time. Rule 6: no science, no evidence. Rule 7: discussions will go on as long as they have to. Rule 8: if this is your first time as an atheist, you have to discuss.

    Lame, but I’m bored at work.

  141. Wowbagger says

    Insightful Ape,

    Thanks for mentioning the FSM hatemail page – I decided to go have a look for myself.

    Seriously, everyone go have a read if you haven’t been there before. It makes me realise that, here in PZtown, we do get a higher class of idiot troll than we might expect.

    Here’s a quote:

    Look, Bobby, you just aren’t funny. Looking at your website is like looking at a ginger person eat a chicken salad sandwich.

    That’s possibly the (unintentionally) funniest sentence I’ve ever read.

    Check it out here.

  142. Nibien says

    The Bush Admin. can go frick themselves.

    Wow, good way to respect their decision making policies.

    Disgusting bigot.

  143. druidbros says

    You are right. I should not have revisited this blog. I should have kept my mouth shut. Its pretty obvious that the regulars do not welcome any sort of dissent.

    And you are wrong Jacob. What is not tolerated around here is stupidity. Stupidity and bad logic. Dissent is tolerated as long as you have a logical, evidence based argument.

  144. Alyson says

    I read Sully regularly and usually enjoy his posts, but I think his nominating you for the Moore award said more about him than about you. What you did to get his dander up was show Sullivan what his religion looks like to an outsider. And it isn’t like Sullivan thinks his church is perfect, just that he only wants to see it criticized on his terms. It’s one thing to criticize the current Pope–Sullivan does that regularly, and with many good reasons–but saying what you think of their belief in transubstantiation? We’ll be having none of that!

    You know, maybe it was the “goddamn” in “a goddamn cracker” that really did it. That’s kind of an uncomfortable way to defame a Communion wafer, but that just goes to show how thoroughly religion has put its hooks in the English language. Maybe we should take the g0d-references out of our bitter, divisive, intemperate left-wing rhetoric, just to keep the irony-meters under control. How’s this: “You’re not eating the body of Christ, people. It’s. A frigging. Cracker.”

  145. John Morales says

    Wowbagger @173, wow. Just, wow!

    A classic:

    I would love little more than to beat the ever living tar out of each and every one of you. However, Jesus says i shouldn’t, because it is wrong. […] That, i believe, is the fundamental difference between atheist and Christians.

  146. says

    (sigh) My two cents:

    PZ, to my knowledge, is not a bigot. He doesn’t assume, for example, that I am unworthy of engagement or even (at times) assistance because I’m a theist. I consider him an ally in science education and a fundamentally-decent person who enjoys expresses his personal and political views assertively.

    However, I must point out that Andrew Sullivan is not a kook, which is what the category of this post might suggest. The word ‘kook’ clearly carries the implication of holding eccentric and unusual views, and while some here may object to them, the presumption held by many theists that their beliefs should be privileged in the public square is neither eccentric or unusual. It is a viewpoint held by a substantial number of people.

    Since this presumption is given, for folk like Sullivan there is simply a point in which mockery is equated to bigotry, and in their minds this justifies their one-sided reaction. Thus, he reads PZ the riot act for mocking the veneration of the Host, while failing to thoughtfully examine the real contretemps that inspired this whole business (the college kid in Florida who was caught swiping a communion wafer).

    Is mockery of a cracker protected speech? Yes, surely. Is Sullivan’s outrage at the cracker’s mockery protected? Again, surely. Is disruptive behavior at a private gathering of the faithful protected speech? In the case under discussion, probably not, but it doesn’t rise to the level of warranting violence and intimidation, and that’s the most important aspect of this case. Our religious freedom does not give us the freedom to persecute others, even within the setting of a private religious observance.

    It is not bigotry to point this out, nor is it ‘kookery’ to feel offended—for if so, fully one-sixth of the planet is kooky, including Michael Moore, and that seems contrary to the sense of what is intended. But, to all the outraged, you can’t very well claim that mockery of your prized beliefs amounts to bigotry.

  147. says

    aratina: You actually have to dismiss the whole history of human civilization to tell me that a Black person’s prejudice toward Whites (Zeno) and an atheist’s prejudice toward Christians (Jacob) is not morally justified.

    I did not tell you that, aratina. I merely disagreed when you said a member of a minority could not be a bigot toward a majority. I said nothing about the situation where a minority distrusts members of a historically oppressive majority (which would indeed have a rational basis). I didn’t speak to that at all. You construe me much too far, which (when you get right down to it) was the point of my original demurrer.

  148. Feynmaniac says

    It was pretty hypocritical of Sullivan to scorn PZ for desecrating a cracker, yet go against the outrage over the Danish cartoons of Mohammad.

    It reminds me of an interviewee in Religulous. When he was talking about his controversial Muslim rap music he said “you are allowed to dissent”. However, once Salman Rushie’s name was brought up he changed his tone. The freedom of speech that protected him didn’t apply to Rushdie. It’s always different when it’s your sacred cow.

  149. Screechy Monkey says

    Jacob, did you seriously just refer to throwing a cracker in the trash as “violent”? If so, you don’t even want to know what I did to some eggs the other day.

    Just so long as they weren’t Easter eggs!

  150. ndt says

    Well I was planning to share my recipe for pumpkin cheesecake, but it involves beating cream cheese pretty vigorously, and I don’t want to shock anyone with a description of such violence.

  151. craig says

    “for if so, fully one-sixth of the planet is kooky…

    That’s funny… this is exactly the way some religious people have tried to persuade me that I should believe in a god – their god particularly… the old “more people believe than don’t” argument.

    There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that one-sixth of the planet’s population of humans can’t be kooky. In fact, there’s no reason that SIX-sixths can’t be kooky.

    I would assert that it takes very little power of observation to determine that it’s a fact that ALL humans are to one degree or another delusional.

    All humans are kooky at times. If a particular individual chooses to embrace and defend and cherish and nurture the kookiness that is lodged in a particular part of their psyche rather than to reduce the influence of kookiness over that part through work – thinking, reasoning… then it is entirely reasonable to refer to that person as a kook, at least insofar as that particular set of delusional beliefs they posses goes.

    Sullivan has a kooky idea. A stupid, insane, kooky idea.
    When Sullivan learned that there was a person put there who correctly saw his kooky idea as a kooky, Sullivan reacted to defend his kooky idea with another kooky idea – that it’s wrong and hateful and bigoted to correctly call his kooky idea kooky.

    Sullivan then launched his double-barreled volley of dumbfuckery at PZ – targeted him by name… and the target isn’t supposed to respond by yelling “incoming?”

    Sullivan has stupid beliefs and believes his stupid beliefs are beyond criticism.

    He’s a fucking kook.

  152. says

    Posted by: Kobra | January 1, 2009 12:54 PM

    Man, that guy’s a shitty writer.

    Poe’s law on the awards page, and angry bitching in place of an explanation of what the award is and why PZ deserves it.

    I hereby give Andrew Sullivan the “I’m not Ernest Hemmingway” Award for shitty writing and horrible logic.

    He doesn’t really write anything. A few bits and pieces and he comments. Throw in some pictures, and BOOM, he’s a nationally syndicated “power blogger.”

    I read his blog, but, frankly, it’s not that good. I read it to see where the good writers are writing. Because, as second rate as he is, he does link up some good writers.

    He’s sort of a link farm, like “For The Kids.”

  153. says

    Posted by: Jacob | January 1, 2009 2:13 PM

    Well, #46, you’re right, it is *just* a cracker. Except that is not exactly right, is it? Can you figure out why?

    Perhaps a good place to start would be George Lakoff’s Fire Women and Dangerous Things. Or perhaps Roy A. Rappaport’s Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Or perhaps Hilary Putnam’s Representation and Reality.

    We can talk about vulgar religion (the kind that most of us object to most). But we can also talk about vulgar atheism, the kind that PZ Myers pontificates upon. It is uninformed, ignorant, brutish, and nasty. Oh, he suffers for his atheism, but that’s because he’s a bigot. I’ve never suffered for my outspoken atheism.

    Hmmm, Irony troll does Irony. That word, bigot, it does not mean what you think it means. And it certainly doesn’t apply like you applied it. Defending oneself from the bigotry of others, by poking their sacred cows and pointing out the hysterical lies isn’t bigotry.

  154. clitease says

    I really dont get it why Sullivan thinks calling a cracker is bigotry,let alone “assault and ridicule and abuse”.

    The guy seemed pretty normal to me,with decent views.from what Ive seen from him when he’s on Maher.
    Is he some ex-catholic or something and PZ hit on some ancient taboo?

  155. says

    Whoops. Misformatted #184. My bad. (That’s what happens when you’re doing all kinds on non-intertubes stuff the past three weeks. Forget yer damn blockquote closings…)

    I’m sure most of you are clever enough to figure it out.

  156. Wowbagger says

    Is he some ex-catholic or something and PZ hit on some ancient taboo?

    Someone upthread described him as a ‘married, gay catholic’ if that helps – though I can’t imagine it’s a mindset you (or anyone else here) is going to be able to relate to.

  157. says

    Posted by: Jacob | January 1, 2009 2:46 PM

    Has nothing to do with kowtowing #67. The Bush Admin. can go frick themselves. Respecing JWs has nothing to do about choosing to do blood transfusions. Can you elevate your discussion just a tad? We’re atheists because we have better brains, right?

    Wow, you are a boob. We’re atheists because we don’t believe. Nothing more, nothing less. Some atheists, like you, are stupid and irrational. Some, like PZ Myers are kind, decent men who are not interested in being pushed around and don’t take it.

    Clowns like you then get hysterical from your bunkers and make a big deal over nothing. To the point that you make death threats, get on your high, hypocrite horse, and act like goddamn smug assholes while pretending to be above it all and talk stupid shit like “civility” when you’re being an in-civil, smarmy prick.

    Get it dumbass?

    No, of course you don’t. If you actually got it, your behavior would be different. You wouldn’t still be getting a case of the Internet Vapors over a fucking cracker or a moron’s prattle about it.

    Sullivan is a link-farm. He’s not a great writer. He rarely says anthing of merit by his own hand. He just posts pictures and links to stories written by people more talented. He deserves no respect for this, or his lame opinions.

  158. Cruithne says

    My favourite quote from FSM hatemail page.

    I know there’s such a thing as freedom of speech and expression, but this kinda shit should be banned.

  159. says

    Posted by: Jacob | January 1, 2009 3:10 PM

    #81, Has society ever been changed for the better by uncivil discourse?

    You’re thick as a brick. Women’s rights. Minority rights. Religious rights. The abolishment of slavery. All have come from uncivil discourse.

    And those that worked against them were far less civil.

  160. Wowbagger says

    What I find most hilarious on the FSM hatemail page is the number of posters who identify as Christian but ask them to show evidence for their beliefs. If I’d bothered to replace my irony meter after crackergate it surely would have exploded.

  161. Chet says

    I really dont get it why Sullivan thinks calling a cracker is bigotry,let alone “assault and ridicule and abuse”.

    Because Sullivan is Catholic, and therefore making fun of Catholic symbols is rude. Show Sullivan a picture of a Mormon, on the other hand, and you’ll get about 50 blog posts having a good ol’ time making fun of the magic underwear.

    Like pretty much everybody with a religion, Sullivan only blanches at the idea of making fun of his religion. When it comes to everybody else, he couldn’t care less. See some of his posts around the time that Issac Hayes left South Park because they made fun of Scientology (Hayes is a Scientologist.)

  162. Cruithne says

    I don’t understand why thinking the Pope is the antichrist is considered bigotry, or at least any more bigoted than thinking I, as a non believer, am going to burn in hell.
    Surely all theological positions are equaly valid, or invalid, as the case may be?

  163. says

    Atheists have a Life-Affirming Policy™ now? Can someone post a link to where we keep this? I want to make sure I live by it to the letter – because, you know, that’s why we atheists secretly hate the fundies: envy for narrow strictures by which to live. That’s what I want in my life, a set of rules that, if I don’t follow them, I stop being a true Scotsman atheist.

    Dimwit.

    Poor sap confused “atheism” with “humanism.” No wonder he thought there was some sort of “Strategic objective.”

    If there’s a strategic objective to atheism, I never got the memo from the EAC (of which there is none.) If I got a memo, I promptly tossed it.

  164. Tulse says

    Andrew Sullivan is not a kook […] the word ‘kook’ clearly carries the implication of holding eccentric and unusual views

    Have you seen all his posts about Sarah Palin’s pregnancy? It would be extremely charitable to describe his views on that as “eccentric and unusual” — they are more like those of 9/11 Truthers.

  165. Rudi says

    “God fuck you all.”

    Wow, Sullivan berates PZ for “uncivilised” behaviour and then calls upon the Creator Of The Entire Universe – Andrew’s his mate, see – to do PZ over. Assuming Sullivan genuinely believes this being exists, as he regularly professes, this is off-the-scale in its nastiness. (If, on the other hand, Sullivan is one of those typical “I don’t really believe it but because I’m scared of death I must convince myself I do” theists, then he is just being a petulant twat.)

  166. Thomas says

    Congratulations! You know you must be doing something right when you’re pissing off the morons this much.

    Oh, and, about the cracker…

    If the fundies really believed all that crap they’re forcing down our throats, they wouldn’t fear a little ridicule would do their faith any damage.

  167. mayhempix says

    Posted by: Jacob | January 1, 2009 2:56 PM
    ” I know I became atheist when I saw Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ). It was a revelation! There must be no God! How could I have been fooled!”

    The fact that he refers to “Piss Christ” as some sort of bigoted immature slander of religious symbols shows that Jacob is completely ignorant of art putting the rest of his “outrage” into the “I’m Reacting Emotionally to Something I Have No Idea What the Context or Meaning Is but Since I Don’t Understand It, It Must Be Very Wrong” category.

  168. Ken says

    Right now on Sullivan’s blog is a video titled “Hillary’s Downfall”. It shows Adolf Hitler portraying Hillary Clinton saying “My supporter’s are the dumbest in the country!”

    At least he didn’t hurt a cookie. That would be disrespectful.

  169. says

    “for if so, fully one-sixth of the planet is kooky…”

    It wasn’t long ago that most of the world believed in witches and burned them. I would gladly say that one-sixth of the world is kooky. In fact, I would be willing to state that 99-and-44/100% of the planet is kooky. Some are just kookier than others.

  170. says

    “It is one thing to engage in free, if disrespectful, debate. It is another to repeatedly assault and ridicule and abuse something that is deeply sacred to a great many people.”

    Yes, it is one thing to exercise free speech, but another thing entirely to exercise free speech.

    I thought this guy was too smart to try playing the Gregg Easterbrook “get-out-of-being-offended” card. Fuck these guys; most of us here (at least those in the U.S.) have spent our lives being offended by the delusional crap spouted and believed by well over half of the citizenry, and we don’t tell people they should just can it, much as we might want them to.

    I suspect Mr. Sullivan is still reeling from the unholy beating he took from Sam Harris in their e-mail “debate” on ReligiousTolerance.org last year in 2007, and in fact may still be typing from the canvas, bloodied and with one and a half eyes swollen shut.

  171. Longtime Lurker says

    The most “life affirming” thing I’ve done all day is to take a crap. Not only did it affirm that I was alive, it also affirmed the lives of numerous bacteria who had just been evicted from my large intestine.

  172. bernarda says

    I wonder what the Pope thinks of Alexander “Bareback” Sullivan. I used to have the photos of his ads for “bareback” gay sex but I lost them in transferring files to a new computer. The Nation has a description.

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010618/kim20010605

    “The story goes like this: Some time ago, Sullivan, who is HIV positive, took out an anonymous personal ad on a website called Barebackcity.com, which advertises itself as the “one stop source for bareback [i.e., unprotected anal] sex.” He listed himself under the screen name “RawMuscleGlutes,” posted two headless photographs, and solicited bareback sex, preferably (although he did not say only) with other HIV-positive men. He also indicated an interest in “bi-scenes, one-on-ones, three-ways, groups, parties, orgies and gang bangs,” but not in “fats and fems.”

    “So the story has come to revolve around Andrew Sullivan’s consummate hypocrisy.

    And not without good reason. Sullivan was the editor of The New Republic during its most reactionary days, the writer who from his perch of smug privilege announced the end of the AIDS epidemic in a 1996 New York Times Magazine article, a proclamation that has proved fatally premature for most of the world.”

  173. Bubba Sixpack says

    Cool! Fame from disrespecting a cracker. Sullivan may consider becoming Dem senate majority leader. His sense of proportion is about that of Harry Reid’s.

  174. Julian says

    Sullivan can be pretty infuriating, but then again, generally intelligent people who choose to pay blind adherence to ideology, in his case the truth of Holy Mother Church, William F. Buckley, and the demonology constructed around New Deal “Socialism” (A word rarely if ever applied correctly in modern political discourse, especially in the Union), are always infuriating. As to the Sarah Palin thing, it wasn’t that he believed she’d faked her pregnancy, but that he felt, in general, during the campaign that the media failed dismally to do there job and ramped up his muckracking in protest. I don’t necessarily find anything deplorable about this specific principled stand on his part.

    What I do object to is his lazy, self-congratulatory academic elitism (I’ve never heard or read anyone who mentioned their advanced degree, from HAAAVARD, as much he does), his insistence on a philosophical seriousness which he himself lacks both in the realm of politics and on issues of ethics (not too surprising considering the “thinkers” he admires), and his rather complete historical ignorance, which is lamentable in a trained historian, but common enough among those who choose to see the world the way they want it, instead of how it is.

  175. 'Tis Himself says

    < ...his rather complete historical ignorance, which is lamentable in a trained historian, but common enough among those who choose to see the world the way they want it, instead of how it is.

    This sums up why I stopped reading Sullivan years ago. I am not, and don’t pretend to be, a historian. However I know more history than Sullivan shows. His understanding of basic economics doesn’t rise above the “balancing your checkbook” level either.

  176. says

    Well, at the risk of starting a pissing contest, you folk who continue to use the word ‘kooky’ to refer to broad categories like theism or Catholicism must be using your own definition of the word. I invite y’all to visit an on-line dictionary. The ones I’ve checked out clearly point out the eccentric, outlier quality the word’s usage implies.

    Now, Sullivan may hold some eccentric views. I’m sure I don’t care to debate pregnancy conspiracy theories! But those views were not the subject of this post, rather it was Sullivan’s insistence that mockery of a cracker constituted bigotry. I reject that idea, and the widely-held attitude that inspires it, which is that some religious beliefs should be inherently privileged in the public square. But those beliefs, irrational as they might seem, are widely-held. They are not in any way eccentric, off-the-beaten-path, unusual, outliers, etc. Doesn’t make them right, of course: it just doesn’t make them kooky.

    As for theists like me, you can say we’re wrong, that we’re blind, that we’re self-deluded, that we’re irrational, etc. (shrugs shoulders) It’s not going to hurt me, nor do I get any traction the other way from a ‘bandwagon’ argument along the lines of ‘billions of theists can’t be wrong.’ Of course they can. But billions of people who hold the same viewpoint are not, by definition, eccentric or outliers.

  177. Badger3k says

    So, Scott, we can call you blind, deluded, irrational, and a bunch of others, but not kooky?

    Seriously? About the best we can say is that an online Thesaurus site says…maybe:

    “Main Entry: eccentric
    Part of Speech: adjective
    Definition: Deviating from the customary.
    Synonyms: bizarre, cranky, curious, erratic, freakish, idiosyncratic, odd, outlandish, peculiar, quaint, queer, quirky, singular, strange, unnatural, unusual, weird”

    The biggest problem is that it is subjective. If the usual custom of a country is people to urinate on each other as a greeting, then by this definition, we cannot call them “kooky”. Of course, if we use our customs (or ideas, concepts, beliefs, etc), then we might consider them weird and a definite deviation from what we know as customary. So, on the one hand, Sullivan holds similar views as are customary for his peculiar brand of christianity, and probably a good bunch of other sects as well, so he can be considered not unusual. But on the other hand, we rationalists consider such views to be weird, and therefore qualify for the kooky award. We all look at other cultures and see some different practices, and to us, they are strange, weird, and yes, kooky. Does that make this usage incorrect? Will the Grammar Police come to give us a ticket if we say so?

    Now, let’s look at what you say is the focus of the post (which people have gone beyond, despite what you wish, to look at Sully as a whole package – which is disgusting if he was offering unprotected sex while HIV+ to HIV- individuals) and look at the idea of whether crackergate implies bigotry. Given the level of vitriol from most of the christians who wrote here and there about it, you may be correct, and the uneducated masses see it as bigotry, which would, sort of, make it a non-kooky idea, albeit, as I said, an uneducated and incorrect one.

    (To reword the argument, if the entire population of the world believed that the world was flat, it does not make it so, and the belief can (to most of us here) be called “kooky”.)

    Still, I think most people will continue to use the common usage of the term “kooky” to imply any crazy, weird, bizarre, studpid, ignorant…well, you get the idea. Really, this just seems to border on the Concern Troll territory. But, if that’s the best argument you can make, and if that’s your thing, then cool for you…ooops, sorry, I didn’t mean to say that it was of lowered temperature, or the like, but used the slang usage that IIRC has made it into many dictionaries as a common usage, but I hope you get the idea.