In my post on Simple Courtesy I wrote my thoughts on the Webster Cook Affair and my thoughts on P. Z. Myers’s initial desecration threat. I haven’t really followed the aftermath that closely, but I did read some good posts on the topic at The Third Eve. I refer you especially to Eve’s post, Beloved Fools, and then you can read the series of posts that follow it, if you like.
Here are some of my thoughts on the matter after reading the comments here and the posts at The Third Eve:
1. I still don’t believe that the Host is the Body of Christ. I believe that it represents the body of Christ. I know that Christ said, “This is my body,” but he also said that the Jewish leaders were vipers and white-washed sepulchers. I don’t take any of those expressions literally. May God forgive me and other Protestants if we are mistaken.
2. The fact that I disagree with the Roman Catholic Chruch does not give me the freedom to treat their beliefs with contempt, especially not to intentionally violate them by committing what they believe to be sacrilege. For that reason I still fault P. Z. Myers for his intentional, extreme discourtesy. As far as I am concerned he has taken himself out of the circle of tolerant, decent society that most Americans are part of.
3. Mr. Cook is a Roman Catholic, so he should have known better. It seems to me that he is an impetuous young man who got caught up in something that he didn’t think through very carefully. I think that when the lady tried to take the wafer out of his hand, it offended him, and he overreacted. I hope that he can put it all behind him and move on.
4. Myers, as an atheist, probably won’t win many points for his cause among polite, respectful people. If atheism is about rudeness, then what good is it? Oh, some juvenile people who think it is clever to “trash” religion will eat it up. The comments on his blog show that they are, in fact, doing so. Mature people will see right through his antics, I’m pretty sure.
4. Myers’s verbal attacks on the Roman Catholic Church and on theists in general are very mild versions of the systemic atheism that wiped out millions in the Soviet Union and in Cambodia. I’m tired of hearing about the murders committed in the name of Christ or the Church without an admission that atheistic regimes have committed many more murders. Let’s admit that murders by both theists and atheists are wrong.
5. And why is it that the same people who bend over backwards not to offend Muslims have no problem defending Cook’s actions and belittling the Roman Catholic Church? You know the ones. They say that cartoons that offend Muslims are “hate speech” but Cook’s action and Myers’s reaction are courageous and bold. From my reading I can’t help but conclude that devout Christians are the last group that it is okay to insult or defame. (I’m not talking about those who treat Christianity and other religions the same–either equally rudely or equally politely. At least those people are consistent.)
5. The death threats against Cook and Myers don’t really bother me as much as they do others. They certainly don’t say anything about Catholics or about Christians in general. All that they really show is that there are hotheads and kooks of every persuasion. In fact, Cook and Myers join the ranks of some really great people who have received death threats for all kinds of reasons. In fact many Roman Catholic people have not just received threats but have been killed for standing up for their beliefs.
6. I’m not justifying the death threats. They should be investigated, and those who made them should be dealt with under the law.
3 responses so far ↓
Eve // July 26, 2008 at 11:58 am |
RG, you’re so cerebral sometimes. I am, too, so I’m one to talk. But this numbered list of your concluding thoughts leaves me feeling very sad. I feel sad because I feel I must have failed to communicate what I intended by several days of posting about this incident.
RG: Me cerebral? You’re kidding!
Your beautiful posts communicated well. I appreciate your thoughts and feelings about the Eucharist and about the Webster Cook affair. I’m sorry that it didn’t really move me in the way that you would have liked.
Remember that I’m looking at this whole business as an outsider. I’m not a Roman Catholic like Webster Cook or an atheist like P. Z. Myers. I’ve never served communion or received it as a Roman Catholic. (I have observed it, however.)
Do you really think this is about doctrine? No, it’s about love. It’s about love and respect, the very things you first wrote about. And yet it almost seems that by reducing all this devotion and the love and practice of centuries to numbered lists, the very thing you write against is what is accomplished: it boils down to what we believe with our dogged determination.
RG: Well, it’s partly about doctrine. No conflict would have ensued there if Webster Cook simply took “a cracker” from a church service. I understand that you are saying that it is about the love that Roman Catholics have for Christ and His body, and I completely respect that. I even understand it to a degree. And it is about respect for other people’s deeply held beliefs, which I reiterated here.
I am not as good a person as you, because, frankly, I’m not sure. I’m not certain whether it is or is not the Body of Christ. But I do see some inconsistency from people who claim that they believe in marriage (one flesh) or in being saved (being born again) but do not take some words of Christ literally. It is that same old argument that divides us as people, when we know good and well we will not be divided (later) in heaven, and in the eyes of Christ we are not now.
RG: Whoa! You strike me as a much better person than I, on the whole. I have to point out that I did express a tiny bit of doubt. I asked for forgiveness if I and others are wrong about our belief. I don’t believe that my wife and I are literally-physically one flesh, although I think we are literally-spiritually one flesh, whatever that means. And Jesus explained carefully that born again is also a spritiual reality, not a physical one.
As for our being undivided, that holds true for all who are actually followers of Christ to start with. Many Catholics and many Protestants are not even in that category. I have met people in both camps who were true Christians and who were not.
I feel impossibly sad.
RG: I’m sorry. I wonder if more is involved in your sadness than these blog posts. I am sad that what I wrote disappointed you. I really am.
Jon Rowe // July 27, 2008 at 12:31 am |
“The fact that I disagree with the Roman Catholic Chruch does not give me the freedom to treat their beliefs with contempt, especially not to intentionally violate them by committing what they believe to be sacrilege. ”
I think you do have the ABSOLUTE freedom to treat their beliefs with contempt. But that such would be uncivil and arguably an example of immoral anti-Catholic bigotry. As irrational as I think the Catholic view on the Eucharist is, given what it means to devout Catholics, I would never do what Myers did.
I agree with most of your post except I think bringing up the mass murders of Stalin et al. was a low blow.
RG: Okay. I agree completely with your first paragraph. I was wrong in what I wrote.
Yes, the bit about mass murders was a low blow. I admit it. I don’t feel bad about writing it, though. It really is annoying when some atheists claim that religion is about violence, as Myers has done, while they ignore the atrocities of other atheists.
Eve // July 28, 2008 at 12:51 am |
RG, yes, of course something else is making me sad. I had to go blog about it. It’s the whole issue of uncertainty, and also the fact that I’m not a very good communicator (yet). You are so direct and to the point, and I ramble and try hard to get to my point but I find I often don’t make it there. Your intelligent, orderly way of writing and thinking are just one of several reasons I come here. But sometimes they also throw my ineptitude (is that a word?) in sharp relief.
RG: You flatter me way too much and abuse yourself way too much. We should all be as “inept” as you. (Yes, it is a word.)
thanks for your kind responses; I know you have the utmost respect for other people, period; and not just for those of other faiths. You seem able to deal with the worst of them with respect even when you disrespect their positions or attitudes. That’s definitely a skill I lack consistency in.
RG: Again, your praise for me is unwarranted. Frankly, I admire your boldness in confronting people. Sometimes its good for people to get “what-for” when they deserve it.