Harass me Bill Donohue! Harass me or I'm gonna desecrate a cracker!

Harass me Bill Donohue! Harass me!

I'm gonna desecrate a cracker!!!

I will do vile things to this consecrated cracker unless you harass me now!

I want a thousand Christian email addresses to sell to spammers and if I don't get them the cracker crumbles -- violated, desecrated and flushed!

Are you listening Bill?

Bill!!! Where are you, ya chicken shit!

I couldn't find your email address, but I found this:
http://www.catholicleague.org/feedback.php


Don't give me this silent treatment, Bill. Harass me, just like you did to PZ Myers or I will desecrate this cracker!

Need I remind you, Bill, if anything happens to this consecrated cracker it's on your head -- it was because you refused to harass me and write your little press releases about me. I'll do worse to this cracker than PZ ever imagined if I don't see a press release at least as dishonest as this: "MYERS TO DESECRATE EUCHARIST AND KORAN," and this "MYERS STILL WANTS TO ABUSE EUCHARIST; SHOWS DEFERENCE TO ISLAM," but about me. And you better include a link to my email, just like you did on all the PZ Myers press releases, else how will your brainwashed drones know how to send me their email addresses.

Like this:
Contact cracker desecrater at: cl@catholicleague.org

Remember that Bill, if this cracker gets it, it was your fault and Jesus will blame you.

Did Bill Donohue answer Christopher Hitchens' Atheist Challenge?

I've been thinking about the PZ cracker abuse scandal and it occured to me that something said by Bill Donohue contained an answer to Christopher Hitchen's Atheist Challenge, and that challenge goes like this:

Here is my challenge. Let anyone name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.

No nonbeliever would ever say what Bill Donohue said:

It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ.

And by "Body of Christ" Bill Donohue refers to a dry and tasteless cracker.

Is it a moral statement? When you call something vile or a hate crime you are making a moral statement. Would an atheist ever claim that abusing a cracker is the most vile thing he could think of? I don't think so.

Why don't Christians offer that as an example to prove Hitchens wrong?

When I take a look at those who actually try to answer Christopher Hitchens' Challenge they all fall into Hitchens' trap and try to make a moral argument that Hitchens would not consider insane and thus automatically make statements an atheist could make.

For example, College politico's "Christopher Hitchen's Atheist Challenge Answered" falls into the trap by saying:

How about: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

The "endowed by their Creator" line is completely unnecessary, and would actually have been counter productive if it wasn't slipped in there to placate the Christians of that time who were in fact somewhat inclined, if they supported the British King, to see God justifying the divine right of kings to take away, arbitrarily, people's Life and Liberty and to constrain their pursuit of Happiness.

If we remove those religious words we get: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are are born with certain equal and unalienable Rights and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." A statement which actually makes more sense than the original. However, it is not really a statement that captures the whole truth. The truth is more complicated. It is, as College politico notes, self evident that men are not born equal. We all have different levels of intellect and physical ability. I am not the mathematical equal of Stephen Hawking nor am I the physical equal of Mariusz Pudzianowski. However, those differences do not say anything about what rights I'm entitled to (if I'm a white male with land and money during the revolution).

College politico then makes a non-sequitur argument about looking at the difference between men and God to see that our differences are utterly superficial and claims that is the major logical linchpin of this argument. "With believe in a higher power comes the perspective necessary for each of us to see ourselves as neither intrinsically superior or inferior to one another." No, that is not a good argument because if there were a really smart God who could design this universe then also the differences between us and the animals we eat and keep on farms would be utterly superficial too. We're not going to give cows the same rights as men because of College politico's argument, are we? And if that were such an obvious, self-evident, argument, then why did the concept of the divine right of kings ever emerge in Christendom?

From there, College politico moves to utter bullshit arguments like the argument from blindness and incredulity:

... without a belief in a higher power it seems to me that it is impossible to justify any type of egalitarian society.

Just because College politico can't see the possibility only means he himself is blind to it. He is, at least aware, that he might only have blindness and incredulity going for him:

I just don't see any way for atheistic philosophy to logically refute the claims of the Nazis, Japanese empire, Eugenicists, or even Hunter's Civic Biology Book (from the scopes case).

Maybe I'm missing something... Perhaps someone can provide me with a sound logical justification for egalitarianism without the relying on belief in a higher power?

Yes, College politico, you are missing quite a lot. And all you have to do to find the secular motive is read the rest of the Declaration of Independence. Whether the secular argument can even be comprehended by him is another question because it was right there in front of his face when he took the quote from it because right after the quote comes this, a purely secular argument for independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

The argument after the fuzzy absolutes of "Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness" have much more weight and meaning when considering the philosophy of government actually adopted by the United States. For one thing, it's obviously true that we do not govern the United States according to any absolute reading of those few lines in the Declaration of Independence. If you look at how we depart from the absolute you can see what it really has come to mean, what it meant to the men who used it to start a revolution and how incredibly secular it is.

If we take away a person's life or liberty because they commit a crime we are saying that your rights to that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are conditional. You only get them if you play by the rules we can enforce. Thus lines like: "laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." To protect our safety and happiness we will remove the life and liberty of some criminals.

In the context of the revolution it meant only those liberties the revolutionaries felt that the English King wasn't giving them. It is against that "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" where we find the liberty they sought.

It's a philosophy about what government is for and its a very secular philosophy that an atheist can easily ascribe to. Government isn't here for church and king it's there for its citizens, it's "we the people."

Also interesting is this statement from College politico:

... these inequalities have been used throughout history to justify things from slavery to genocide to segregation.

College politico doesn't seem to realize that the man who wrote those words, Thomas Jefferson, was himself a slave owner, or that genocide (of some of the native American Indians) and segregation (of Blacks and of the sexes) are part of American history long after those words were accepted as our declaration of independence. And we still today do not live by them in any absolute sense. If you commit murder, we claim the right to execute you still. If you commit a felony, your liberty can be taken from you and you'll go to prison. If your pursuit of happiness includes use of certain drugs, you can have your liberty taken from you.

And what does it mean that the president who is trashing our constitution also happens to be an out spoken Christian? Why will you Christians not own up to what appears to be completely insane about your morality?

Death to the cracker infidels!

PZ is becoming the clown prince of atheism, remember when he got thrown out of Expelled? Well, now he has come to the attention of Catholic League president Bill Donohue.

The Catholic League is preparing a stake for me. They're going to go straight for the jugular and threaten my job — notice how they repeat that you can access my post from my faculty page, nicely avoiding the fact that the post they find so offensive is not hosted on any university server, and that they are urging everyone to harass the president of my university and the regents and the Minnesota legislature. Extortionists and witch hunters, that's all these scumbags are.

The Catholic League is getting all hot and bothered about PZ's threats of cracker abuse. Congratulations PZ! You're now as officially famous as D-list actress Kathy Griffin.

By the way, what the hell is the Catholic League? It seems to be made up of only one guy, Bill Donohue.



PZ, in his July 8 post, "It's a Frackin' Cracker," wrote that he wanted to desecrate the Eucharist when reporting on what happened at the University of Central Florida when a student walked out of Mass with the Host, holding it hostage for several days:

I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web.

It seems PZ's threat to use a Holy Jesus Body Wafer to wipe his ass has caused Billy boy to call down a fatwā (pronounced "Fat Whaaa?") on our esteemed atheist cult leader.

Apparently, if you take a cracker out of church and blindfold it and water-board it, it is sacrilege, but if you chew it up in an act of symbolic cannibalism, thus exposing it to stomach acids and mixing it into your feces and expelling it through your anus, it is not sacrilege.

How serious a threat is this? Well, it's either incredibly serious or else Bill Donohue suffers from a dangerous lack of imagination seeing as how he wrote:

It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ.

Is it really that hard to think of anything more vile than to abuse a dry and tasteless cracker? How about pissing on the Koran? How about cartoons of that Islamic dude with the bomb in his head towel? How about what the Spanish Inquisition (Ha! I bet you weren't expecting that!) did to Graham Chapman and John Cleese?



How about rape, the holocaust, necropedophilia or flag burnin'? How about Dafur or Zimbabwe or California? How about necropedophilial rape and flag burnin' in California with the Spanish Inquisition?



That's how serious cracker abuse is. I know, you're thinking, "but it's a cracker. A processed wheat product." No it's not just a cracker, it just looks like a cracker, it's really the body of Christ that was completely reduced to its component molecular and atomic structures and made into a cracker during a magic priestly ritual. Christians then eat the Body of Christ and drink his blood, and that's why wine is called Jesus juice. Christians have this weird ritual cannibalism.

So, you can see why these Christian cannibals are very touchy about their crackers.

PZ found it easy to think of things far more vile than cracker abuse:

Hey, Bill! I can think of something more vile! How about intentionally desecrating the bodies of young altar boys who respect the position of trust held by Catholic priests? I think that is a lot more vile than mistreating a cracker. In fact, I can think of innumerable vile acts going on all around the world right now, and not all of them even involve Catholicism. It takes the moral vacuum of a purblind ideological bigot like Bill Donohue to think that goring his sacred cow is the worst thing in the world.

I'm not sure if they would be upset if I went to communion and took a wafer, pulled out a bowl of French Onion Freedom dip and dipped the cracker in it for flavor, but I expect rioting in the streets and the burning of embassies.

You'd think that if these crackers were so important to them, they'd keep them under tight security. No, pieces of their deity can be bought easily on the intertubes. You can buy his body and blood at Kingdom.com, here, and elsewhere.

That means I hope to be seeing youTube videos of your blindfolded crackers soon.

UPDATE:
I suspected that future toddler chopper Vox Day would have something to say about PZ's run-in with Bill the shrill Donohue, Vox just hates PZ for ignoring him all this time, and I was right. Vox has his post up at: "Social autism strikes again." Here's a taste of the irony:

The question of desecrating the Host aside, there's little question that there is very little, if anything, respectful, fair, or civil about PZ's nasty Internet morass.

And...

... unlike PZ, I am not socially autistic, ...

Try hanging around in my social circles, Vox. You're worse than socially autistic, you're considered dangerously and violently psychotic.