The Problem with Protecting the "Sacred"

I don't really see how people should be obligated to show reverence for any of those things. Culture, country, language, religion, doesn't matter to me.

edited 14th Jun '12 5:44:19 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

It is about the ideas. I have forgotten that I must make that idea explicit and in fact all ideas I wish to communicate. I apologize for that lapse and must take this as a lesson.

Though I suppose you haven't yet experienced just how hard I am on myself. I am incredibly hard on myself and rarely feel at all fine with myself let alone superior.

I am the biggest failure of them all. Which must be my motivation.

^You shouldn't be in my opinion. That's for the individual to decide upon. All I ask is that you try to not be rude or cruel to those with different views.

edited 14th Jun '12 5:45:46 PM by Aondeug

Drive by post (my time zones do not sync well with the conversations here) and this is directed to to Carc and those defending calls for expulsion of the student that sparked Crackergate.

Those demands are not only not reasonable but in fact historically ignorant and hypocritical. If you had delved into some of the Pharyngula comment threads (yes, I read Pharyngula and several other members of the Freethought Blogs network) you would have learned that taking a blessed eucharist home was not only historically common in some time and places it was in fact the default practice where it was placed on a small shrine for further veneration during the week.

(One of the more interesting things about the Pharyngula horde is that their collective knowledge base in quite broad and of surprising depths and you can learn a surprising amount when the conversations start to wander)

No. The entire point that PZ was making during the Crackergate is that nothing is sacred and that nothing should be exempt. Some religious works may be worth preserving for other reasons (artistic, historic or cultural significance) but not just because someone holds it sacred.

edited 14th Jun '12 5:51:33 PM by KnightofLsama

And that's precisely why I find Buddhism as distasteful as the other religions.

edited 14th Jun '12 5:45:59 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

See when you make posts like that I want to send you off to play Katawa Shoujo◊ or something like that. Don't forget your successes by focusing on your failures.

edited 14th Jun '12 5:47:15 PM by RadicalTaoist

I find the preaching of it as the one and only way to live ignorant myself. There is little I can about that especially when it comes to Buddhism as a whole. Save perhaps if I become a nun or something and teach my own little school of Theravada.

^I try not to and I'm getting better at it at the least. Remembering that I can do things right and in fact have and continue to. I will continue to use my fucking up as motivation regardless though.

edited 14th Jun '12 5:49:03 PM by Aondeug

Similarly, Aon: I constantly have to remind myself that not everybody gets my idiomatic expression of language. Or the fact that, even when serious, I tend to play with words.

And, also: depreciate myself far more than I do anybody else. Telling myself I'm an idiot is my major art form. I know I've yet to reach my coffee unless I've sworn at myself six times getting to the kitchen.

PS — Kicks self for automatically clicking on underlined red when spell-check says "eek!".

Similarly, Knight: taking home the Eucharist to give to the sick is fine and dandy, too. It's not the taking away that was the major problem, though.

edited 14th Jun '12 5:52:19 PM by Euodiachloris

Er-hem. Let's not derail this into "not liking religions".

I didn't say I didn't respect it. I just don't believe it at all. But I've explained why I don't think the object matters, just what it represents.

Moving on, as for the Teacher Bible-stomping, it was made clear early it wasn't too diss religion or Christ/God themselves. It was to send the message that one should look at all the details, and not just the act.

The action is still silly. Childish, not so sure I agree.

Re-read my post. It was not to take home for the sick or invalid. It was to take home to keep which was at times the norm as opposed to consuming it straight away.

And things have changed. There is a new norm and a new set of rules to abide to prevent upset. That happens.

And that might be cause for some form of castigation along the lines of the priest taking him aside once Mass was over and saying "We do it this way now and its not appropriate to take it home" probably would have been justified.

But what I am maintaining is that in light of historical precedent any reaction beyond that is thoroughly unjustified and unjustifiable and yes, that includes Carc's.

And? I wasn't part of the whole shebang earlier, you know. Also: to argue with Carc, you should really argue with Carc...

But, I'd like to point out that however historically accurate it was for some sects at various points: practice and belief about standard practices can, and does, change. And, from what Carc wrote, he was pretty unhappy about it. As an Anglican-brought up girl (with some other input thrown in), I just found that weird, but, hey: not unreasonable. I was pointing out that these days, it is fine to take Eucharist for the sick, if you arrange for it. Ditto, in the past, if you arranged for it. Heck: blessed Eucharist makes it into folk cantrips dating back since at least the C12th.

Not like I give tuppence for that, though, really. Just saying. But, I can understand how that belief morphed into "don't remove". Didn't see a point to raise it, either.

edited 14th Jun '12 6:19:55 PM by Euodiachloris

I don't believe that Carc's reaction is unjustifiable. He hasn't personally threatened the individual nor taken to harm them. Nor do I believe other reactions based along an older view on the topic are.

What is unjustifiable in my eyes are the death threats, As well as any attempt to harm the person. There may be other options I view as preferable to Carc's reaction, but I do not view it as unjustifiable as it lacks harm of the person as well as threats or intent to do so. That is myself however. Carc likely holds a different view on the subject.

edited 14th Jun '12 6:11:49 PM by Aondeug

From the OP:

Agree completely. If a concept is not durable enough to stand up to a little critical dissection (or mockery), then why is it being held so sacred in the first place? There's nothing wrong with disliking a person's critique or jokes about your religion, country, favorite movie or what-have-you, but don't expect the law to fight your battles for you.

Questions are how we learn, and criticism is a form of questioning. So is mockery, though its often not seen that way. Rendering religion immune to criticism does not protect religion, it only harms free thought. See; Protection from Editors.

edited 14th Jun '12 6:30:07 PM by drunkscriblerian

Scrib, LTNS.

I'm disturbed by the idea that an idea can't be criticized or disagreed with via any other means than being rude and petty. And I'm more disturbed by the idea that the way to combat the narrow-mindedness of your opponents is to stoop to their level.

It might make you feel really evolved and sophisticated to say "nothing is sacred". But unless you are a complete narcissist/sociopath, then there is something sacred to you. And you won't like it when people flip you off and say "This means nothing to me, so it shouldn't to you."

Bottom line, if you want your opponents to treat you with class; then have some.

edited 14th Jun '12 6:49:42 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

I mean I can see a lot of resemblance in attitude between fanatics of both sides. You don't need an official dogma to act dogmatic.

For the most part, transubstantiation is a Catholic-only thing. For most other denominations, it is indeed merely symbolic and does not carry nearly as much weight, so you will see looser rules there.

IIRC those occurrences (other than the obvious for the bedridden, etc.) were special dispensations to private chapels within large estates, approved by the local ordinary as a valid oratory because there was no official parish nearby for people who lived on-site and had no transportation to reasonably attend. It's a rule for boonies farmers, not permission to sleight it out of the building in secret.

And as for whoever's selling wafers online, none of this matters until the priest blesses it, so yeah.

edited 14th Jun '12 6:57:51 PM by Pykrete

@Starship: I think you misunderstand, sir.

Certainly, if one wants to have a serious discussion (as opposed to a shit-flipping contest), both parties are required to have some tact. But this goes for anything, not just things considered "sacred" by people.

I fail to see the benefit in legally declaring certain things to be "sacred" or "off-limits" by law, and not others. Where do you want to draw the line?

I will also say; most oppressive societies (both real and fictional) got their start because someone wanted to eliminate "undesirable" behavior.

There's a point that I think's being missed by some people here, admittedly probably by myself as well to a certain degree.

This is not a thread about whether blasphemy is the right thing to do. It is about whether or not there should be laws against it. Even groups like Neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members have their speech protected (up to the point where it becomes threatening rhetoric, at least), and no one in their right minds would say that these people have any sort of message that is worth listening to. That's not why they have freedom of speech in the first place.

I've said it before: I think deliberately trying to piss off the opposition is a poor way to make a point. But for the sake of free speech, they are still allowed to do so, albeit they must be prepared to face the consequences for their rashness. And in turn, the offended party must understand that being offended is not a license to respond in whatever way you please without penalty. It goes both ways.

Well yeah, but that's been a unanimous no since page one.

It hasn't been about those laws for a while mostly due to the religious people stepping up and saying "Yeah they suck and shouldn't be laws" along with the atheists. We all just shook hands and moved onto something else to kill each other over.

Weeeeelp, this is what I get for thread hopping and being the dumbs.

's okay. Honestly we should be asking for a title change and should have done so earlier. That or made a new thread.

Too bad. You want something to be the holy of holies and unassailable? Then you don't turn it into your excuse to launch campaigns of persecution against people who disagree with you. You do that, and people are going to set your holy of holies on fire.

edited 14th Jun '12 9:47:10 PM by Paul3

I don't hold with an awful lot of Islamic belief, but I wouldn't e.g. throw a copy of the Qur'an into a pig pen. I don't hold with the Eucharist actually being a part of Christ's body, but I still wouldn't make a show of desecrating it.

It's just that rude. Why should I deliberately go out there to make somebody who believes something very sincerely go off like a bomb? It's hardly conducive for getting them to think about their symbols in a new light, if the only thing you get them to think is "I hate their guts". It's the grandstanding for your own crowd I find repulsive in the extreme.

It's belittling to the seeming very human need to believe in something, even if we have to make it up. And, ignores the fact that belief is a very real aspect of our brains being rigged for pattern-awareness. You don't have to believe in the symbol somebody else does. You certainly don't have to believe in their god. And, you don't have to go out of your way to make them suffer to uphold your sense of self-worth.

Belief itself, and even standardised religions in themselves, are not the enemy. It's when people use them as a handy means to create in- and out-groups... and then act on those distinctions that is. In short: it's humans who bully... not their beliefs. Just as it's the humans who kill, not the guns.

It doesn't hurt to have a little human compassion and understanding when dealing with other humans.

edited 14th Jun '12 10:27:46 PM by Euodiachloris

And also, by belittling other people sacred symbols, you hurt far more people than the one you want target. For what?