Re: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/dissent-of-th-2.html
Putting Myers in context.

----
I feel that there is one point about the Myers affair which is not
being made clearly and often enough: that is, Myers was not merely
attempting to provoke the ire of Catholics. Out of context, what Myers
did with the cracker - I am among those who believes that's all it is
- may seem strange, unnecessary, even hateful. Were he simply
desecrating a religious symbol for the sake of desecrating a religious
symbol, perhaps a case could be reasonably made that he was crossing a
line. (Though, and I think you would agree, it would still not be
reasonable to attempt to have him fired, to make threats against him,
and make threats against his family - all of which Catholics have done
in response.)
    However, in context, Myers' actions are entirely justified, and
quite appropriate to the situation.
    Remember, Myers did not simply wake up one day and decide that he
wanted to provoke Catholics. Rather, he was reacting in an entirely
reasonable way to an absurd situation. Poor Webster Cook, whose crime
was nothing greater than failing to ingest his wafer, was put through
hell for what he did. He received threats of violence and threats
against his life, and he now faces censure, even expulsion from his
university. And it is against the backdrop of this mindless bigotry
and fanaticism that Myers decided he had to act. He was not acting out
of bigotry, but in response to it. His point is one that needed to be
made - simply put, that Catholics (and Muslims, and Jews, and Hindus,
and any other faction, sect or group) do not have the right to impose
their views on the rest of us, particularly those of us who find such
views utterly irreconcilable with the facts of the world in which we
live, and choose to say so. Had those Catholic fanatics simply left
that poor kid alone, I guarantee you that it would never have even
occurred to Myers to do what he did. But they didn't leave him alone;
they insisted on demonstrating just how little progress Catholicism
has actually made - and Myers was happy to point this out. The simple
fact that they tried to tell him he's not allowed to do what he did is
reason enough for him to do it. There's a say, "Any book worth burning
is a book worth reading." The same principle applies here: any speech
that is banned is speech that must be said, and any expression
(provided it's non-violent) not permitted is an expression which must
be made - simply to make the point that this is a free society, and
such restrictions cannot be allowed to stand.
    That bears repeating: this is not the middle east; this is not the
middle ages. This is a free society. And in a free society, there
exists no right to not be offended. If the Catholic church can get
away with desecrating what others consider sacred (or, for those of us
who have no concept of sacredness, at least special) - if they can
call a loving union between two gay men or women an "abomination", if
they can call the union into which I hope to enter someday a
"perversion", then damn it, I reserve the right to desecrate what they
consider sacred also. Respect is a two-way street - if they want my
respect, they must give me theirs. If they want Myers to respect them,
they must also respect him (and Mr. Cook for that matter). But this is
something of which religion in general seems incapable - they always
want respect, but reserve the right to give none in return.
---
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.