Unbelievable that the University of Minnesota will not sanction nor reprimand this professor in any way. His behavior/attitude is appaling. What happened to religious tolerance in this country? Does “academic freedom” supercede this? I hope conscientious students take their courses with other professors — or better yet — transfer.

Lori, at 6:25 am EDT on July 28, 2008

FREE, BUT INCOMPETENT

Compelling image, that rusty nail. Christ will survive, of course, but will the professor?

The professor thinks that he is exercising his personal freedom — which he is — but I think he is also demonstrating his incompetence.

Pedagogically speaking, his message is muddled, his point is unclear, but his clumsiness is manifest.

George Carlin on a bad day — he had many, IMHO — is better than this clown. I have to charitably assume that the professor is at the far end of a professional trajectory and he wishes for martyrdom to make up for the shortcomings in his career.

So, reassign him. Let him teach “Rocks for Jocks", or some other course equal to his talents. His students there will greet him with the blank uncomprehending stare that he so richly deserves.

Larry Gillis, at 7:40 am EDT on July 28, 2008

JimBob has it precisely right. Presumably Myers is mortally offended by doctrinaire, narrow-minded, intolerant, obnoxious theists. He hasn’t exactly done a bang-up job of showing the superiority of atheism.

Dave Stone, Kansas State University, at 7:45 am EDT on July 28, 2008

Atheists Have Religious Freedom, Too

It may be offensive, but desecration is not a crime (and therefore is fundamentally different from child pornography).

Obviously, this is a key issue of academic freedom. If an atheist professor could be removed for offending Catholics, would you support firing any fundamentalist professor who thinks homosexuality is a sin, on the grounds that they would be unable to treat gay students fairly? Of course not.

While the university has resisted these disgusting calls to fire a professor for his viewpoint, it is disturbing that any university would decree that a department must remove a link from its website to a professor’s website. The university should immediately reverse that error, and restore the link.

John K. Wilson, collegefreedom.org, at 8:25 am EDT on July 28, 2008

Another reason to ditch tenure.

mike, at 8:30 am EDT on July 28, 2008

“As a proud atheist, Myers isn’t a member of a faith”

This is false. Atheism, like all forms of faith, claims knowledge of transcendence — namely, that it does not exist. No one can know such a thing as a matter of basic logic. Too bad this fellow is not only too blind to see such an elemental thing, but cannot control his need to put himself on display in such adolescent fashion.

JBM, at 8:40 am EDT on July 28, 2008

We need more people like P.Z. Meyers!!

Thanks and well done P.Z. Meyers!

Anyone brave enough to publically challenge the religious-political mainstream in this country deserves our highest praise! Religion: The anti-rational, devisive, culturally destructive, enabler of racisim, sexism, war, terrorism, genocide, pedophilia, etc. is a culturally accepted excuse allowing for the worst of human nature. It’s high time that more of us seriously question and challenge the power of the fairy tales believe by some to control all our lives and the world we all must share.

Skeptic, at 8:50 am EDT on July 28, 2008

I don’t quite get why Myers is going after the Catholics, if his issue is evolution. (It’s rather like invading Iraq, if you’re mad at al-Qaeda). Being an asshole in Darwin’s name doesn’t bring any credit to Darwin’s name. Indeed, if humans co-evolved with religion, then opposing religion would seem to be an anti-evolutionary position.

Julian the Apostate, at 9:00 am EDT on July 28, 2008

“atheism is a faith”

I get a bit worn-out with this fallacious “reasoning.”

If Bob says he doesn’t believe in fairies, does that mean he really believes in fairies? It seems much more fair to say that nonbelief in fairies is based on the lack of credible evidence of their existence. If one truly feels that fairies exists, despite lack of evidence, that’s faith.

JP Craig, at 9:20 am EDT on July 28, 2008

If the absurd superstitions of, say, some obscure tribe in the mountains of New Guinea are dissected and mocked—well, ho-hum! But if comparable absurdities are bedrock doctrines of a rich, powerful, and politically skillful relic of medieval benightedness, one that has brainwashed tens of millions and mastered the trick of keeping offspring of the devout tied to the irrationality of their parents, woe betide anyone who derides the idiocy. PZ Myers’s obvious and unchalengeable right of free expression isin this case contemptuously dismissed by the “critics” whose own emotional compass is clearly directed by the fears and terrors of the superstitions Myers forthrightly challenges. Too bad about them—f**k ‘em if they can’t take a joke, even a joke about wine and wafers. (See, in this regard, Tom Lehrer’s immortal “Vatican Rag".)

Fossil, at 10:00 am EDT on July 28, 2008

Wow. I am not quite sure how to respond to this article, but I feel I must — somehow. The Catholic Church and Catholics, for that matter, do not deny evolution. Certainly there has been debate on this matter over time, and likely there are individuals who will not or can not reconcile their faith and evolution. Regardless of the Church’s position one way or the other, to take the Holy Eucharist, the Body of Christ, and to use/abuse it for purposes other than Holy Communion with Christ, with all others past and present, is an unspeakable act. It is stomach-turning to read that someone would contemplate such an act and then follow through with it. I can only hope Myers just doesn’t understand what he has done here. Certainly, I do not think Myers or anyone else should receive threats — that only adds to the ugliness of this situation. I am sad for everyone that anyone resorts to desecration of the Holy Eucharist or anyone or anything else sacred to make a statement. Academics have plenty of avenues for stating views, articulating arguments, and debating issues. Beyond sacrilege, what Myers did amounts to a hissy fit — in a most unseemly, inarticulate, and unprofessional manner.

Christina, Crusader — not, at 10:10 am EDT on July 28, 2008

atheism is a faith

To JP Craig: There are three options:

1) There is no credible evidence that there are fairies, yet they exist. 2) There is no credible evidence that there are fairies, therefore they do not exist.3) There is no credible evidence that there are fairies, therefore it does not seem likely that they exist.

Options (1) and (2) (corresponding to theism and atheism) are kinds of faith, since their claims outstrip their evidence. Option (3) is perfectly reasonable, but is, strictly speaking, agnosticism rather than atheism.

RJS, at 10:10 am EDT on July 28, 2008

Dr Myers sets back science education

As an agnostic cognitive scientist who studies epistemology and science education, I’d like to apologize for Dr. Myers’ flagrant acts of intolerance.

Dr. Myers is a prime example of the small minority of arrogant and sophomoric science professors, who in his juvenile ranting makes teaching evolution much harder in this country.

I’m inclined to believe that this jackass is a shill for some creationist organization seeking to discredit science education as being openly hostile and primarily an attack on religious faith.

To Dr. Myers, please begin therapy to treat your histrionics and do the world a favor — shut the hell up before you set back science education another decade.

Roger, Dr., at 11:35 am EDT on July 28, 2008

Respectful Discourse

I recognize the right we all hold, as educators, to challenge our students to think, learn and grow, but I believe that in all ways we must model respectful discourse. I wonder how PZM’s “desecration” fits into the model of respectful discourse. Or is it best considered a “work of art” along with such pieces as the crucifix in a jar of urine.

I find that I am best able to extend my students’ awareness of the world beyond Amero-Centric perspectives by posing cultural challenges that intrigue, rather than repel them.

Ben, at 11:35 am EDT on July 28, 2008

if atheism’s a religion, where’s my tax credit?

matt, at 11:35 am EDT on July 28, 2008

He threw away a cracker. Big freaking deal. He tore some pages out of a book. Oh boohoo. Every Sunday, billions of people gather together and hear about how those that do NOT accept their mythology are bound to burn in the fires of hell. How is that any less “intolerant” or “disrespectful” than what Meyers has done here?

Religions are, by their own definitions, intolerant. They are happily intolerant of other persons’ and groups’ beliefs. Should we then punish Christian or Muslim educators? A Christian can’t possibly be fair to a Muslim student, when s/he believes that the student is a sinner who will burn in hell. Right?

Dave, Get over it, at 11:40 am EDT on July 28, 2008

I can understand Myers’ impatience with religious dogma, fundamentalism, and fanaticism. Yes, his “desecration” was a rather childish act, and most of us would prefer a calmer, more rational discussion. However, there is a long tradition of livelier debate, satire, and protest that we ought to protect in this country. People who are bothered by acts like Myers’ (or the Florida student’s) should learn to IGNORE them. Threatening someone creates a martyr, right? And that’s the problem with Myers’ desecration: it adds to certain believers’ martyr complex. But I do think he was right to protest the University of Florida’s refusal to protect the student from harassment. How about some quiet, behind-the-scenes negotiation that would have resulted in the church apologizing to the student for over-reacting, and the student would apologize for any offense taken (while also explaining that he intended no offense), and everyone could rightly agree that a cracker is a cracker, but people’s rituals do mean something to them. I guess Myers needs to spend more time talking to academics who study religion. But as a defense of science and evolutionary theory, his blog seems fine, and he is well within his rights to point out the faulty reasoning and anti-intellectualism of religious zealots. It is odd that religious folks will sometimes be very rational on some things, quite irrational on others (as the Catholic Church supports evolutionary science, opposes war and the death penalty, argues for social justice, criticizes capitalism—but then refuses to allow women to become priests, opposes birth control, and tends to censor thoughtful Catholics who dare oppose the church hierarchy). But hey, professors are often just as inconsistent and hypocritical.

Steve, Director of Writing; Director, ITW Writing Project at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, at 11:40 am EDT on July 28, 2008

Every once in a while there is an act of foolishness by a member of the academic community that makes me wonder what people think of my chosen profession. Professor Myers’ behavior is beyond belief. I’m all for academic freedom, tenure, etc., etc., since I enjoy their privileges. But there is such a thing as common sense and respect for the community.

Michael Landry, at 12:50 pm EDT on July 28, 2008

Whoop-de-doo

A sad, cheap stunt for his 15 minutes of fame.

John, at 1:25 pm EDT on July 28, 2008

Jennifer, I agree!

RBM has caught you in the “old logic change the subject” arguement. If you cannot win your argument based on evidence then fall back on logical reasoning! Logic makes for great arguments, but we are still talking about the realm of belief.

Why do believers call atheism a religion? Because if they can cast it as a movement, rather than peoples disinterest in believing what can’t be proven, then they can mount a “crusade” against it. They have now created an enemy that the christian soldiers can move onward against.

Let us not forget which church made the term “crusader” famous.

Atheists have no priests, rituals, tax breaks, charitable giving organizations, or sacrement, hence no eucarist. Only a true believer would argue that atheism is a movement in opposition to religion.

Most atheists would just ignore believers, IF they would allow it. Chrisitianity is part of western civilization so it is hard to live without having them in your face, or ringing your doorbell all the time.

Tell me the next time an atheist comes around ringing your doorbell!

Although after reading this blog, maybe atheists should organize and ask the federal government for recognition as a movement so we can get those nice tax breaks as well.

Thers is irony; The christian church leaders who pay no taxes have the gall to try to tell a public college who it should hire or fire because they feel insulted. Let the church start paying some taxes. Remember render unto Ceaser.

R.F., at 1:55 pm EDT on July 28, 2008

Faith and organized religion are very different things. Red herrings contribute nothing beyond signaling that someone is attempting, for whatever reason, to distract people (including himself) from germane discussion and analysis.

JBM, at 2:40 pm EDT on July 28, 2008

Real Courage

I’d be willing to contribute to a fund that would pay Mr Myers’ airfare to Tehran so he could draw an image of Mohammed on a public square.

I could also give a little bit so RF could afford some therapy to recover from the trauma of having his doorbell rung so many times.

chris b, at 3:30 pm EDT on July 28, 2008

SOME HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE PROFESSOR MYERS CONTROVERSY

I doubt that anyone involved in the current controversy over Prof. Myers’ “desecration” of the communion wafer is aware of the historical roots of this long standing forbidden act. In Medieval times two nortorious anti-Semitic legends were based on the collusion between a Jewish “money lender” and a Catholic widow, as widely disseminated, in rumor, legend, and in a morality play, The Mystery of the Sacred Host (in French, Mistere de la Sainte Hostie).

In brief, the Jew gets the widow to bring him a communion wafer from the Mass after it has been blessed by the Priest. This, of course, is the “Sacred Host” of the legend and morality play. The Jew then, following the legends of the “Christ killing Jew” proceeds to torture the wafer. (In some versions of this legend, the wafer then bleeds, etc.) The second act of desecration is when the widow becomes pregnant (presumably by the Jew), and then, to hide her shame, kills the baby (infanticide, but also a dramatic reference and recapitulation of the killing of Christ). The body is found, the woman “interrogated,” and she confesses not only to the infanticide, but also to the crime against the communion wafer. The morality play ends with the woman burning at the stake.

Of course, this tale was part of a much larger set of legends about how Jews supposedly kidnapped and killed Christian babies to get their blood, presumably a version of the innocent blood of Christ, how Jews poisoned the wells of Christian Europe by throwing those babies into them, and thus caused the Black Death, and so on and on.

I take my account from Jody Enders’ “Dramatic rumors and truthful appearances: The Medieval myth of ritual murder by proxy,” In, Rumor Mills: The Social Impact of Rumor and Legend, edited by G.A. Fine, V. Campion-Vincent and C. Heath, Aldine-Transaction, 2005. Does the concept of history repeating itself strike anyone else as applying here? To all those who react to Prof. Myers as being a threat to the moral order who must be suppressed, learn your history and see your predecessors. It’s not a pretty picture.

Keith Johnson, at 4:40 pm EDT on July 28, 2008

What Did Myers Actually Do?

On reading the various comments to this article, I wonder how many of the commentators taking Prof. Myers to task have actually read the article! Prof. Myers, contrary to many of those highly critical of him, did absolutely nothing, other than to write a defense in his blog of the actions of a student on another campus, who acted to symbolically attack a religious practice. So far as I can tell, Prof. Myers engaged in speech (free speech anyone?) and, furthermore, only defended a symbolic act which itself is a form of free speech. The vitriolic reaction, calls for Myers’ head, firing, etc. conflate speech with symbolic acts, and then symbolic acts with actual harm.

Keith Johnson, at 5:35 pm EDT on July 28, 2008

Empty rhetoric

If Myers is correct that “You will not find wisdom in rituals and sacraments and dogma,” why is he driving a nail through the Eucarist and mixing with pages from carefully-selected texts?

Prof. Challenger, at 5:35 pm EDT on July 28, 2008

Myers illogical position

If I may offer a critique of Myers:

I. One should only believe things that can be clearly demonstrated by science II. The above statement, “One should only...” can not be demonstrated by science.III. Ergo, the first premise is false on the grounds that it is self-contradictory. One should NOT only believe things that can be clearly demonstrated by science.

Myers position is illogical. Frankly, so are his actions. He is making a mockery of academics and academia.

Luke Bruner, at 7:40 pm EDT on July 28, 2008

Wait until the Muslims complain. I am sure the Professor has more to fear from the Muzzies than the Cats. Just ask Theo Van Gogh what happens when you practice free speech against Islam...

Oh yeah, you can’t.

Loriborealis, at 7:40 pm EDT on July 28, 2008

Myers

Myers got a very strong reaction from an organization that is the Catholic equivalent of The Moral Majority. What Myers actually did is no more “radical” than what Hollywood proclaimed, in the (fictional) plot of the movie The DaVinci Code, which greatly exaggerated the power of Opus Dei, a real organization. The Catholic Church protested that movie, predictably to no avail.

If the Catholic League is offended by Myers, imaging how offended they should be by the following fact: For Catholics, the wafer is transformed during Eucharist into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, but for Protestants, the wafer is merely symbolic. In other words, the wafer “is just a cracker” for Protestants. For the theologians, this is the Catholic doctrine of “transubstantiation,” believed by Catholics but not by Protestants.These days, this centuries-old theological dispute is muted, because almost nobody really cares, especially in higher education. In the “good old days", when religion was taken more seriously, people got killed over disputes like this.

John Farley, at 9:15 pm EDT on July 28, 2008

b hagan

Did you read the article?

“...in the garbage with a banana peel and coffee grounds, symbols of refuse. But to show that he wasn’t picking on Catholics, Myers added to his mixture some ripped out pages of the Koran.”

E. Moran, at 4:55 am EDT on July 29, 2008

As an academic and a confessional Lutheran (holding views of the sacraments that are not too far removed from those of the Catholics), I’ve been monitoring this story with a kind of sickened interest. At times I’m greatly offended by Myers’ actions and his sophomoric assertions about religion. But in the end, I’m OK with his “great desecration” for two reasons.

(1) What he is doing and saying, asinine and uncreative as it may be, does appear to be protected free speech; and

(2) Letting him do what he does makes it that much easier for prospective students and their parents to look at Myers and his university and definitively decide not to attend that school. If I were the leader of a Catholic organization which organized the 12K-email response, I’d focus my energies on sending out exact transcripts of Myers’ blog postings, with photos, to current and prospective students at Myers’ university and asking them if they really wanted their kids to be under this man’s tutelage. For that matter, would it make a difference if the parents were themselves Catholic? Here’s a man who clearly hates religion and religious people, on the payroll of a university, purporting to teach your kids. Do you trust him, after all this? Do you trust the university who hired him and maintains his employment? Or might there be other options that don’t keep you awake at night?

Perhaps if parents vote with their feet, it will accomplish more than angry emails.

Robert, Let parents decide, at 6:05 am EDT on August 2, 2008