Notes from Evil Bender

It seems the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, a group of priests and bishops, is upset at PZ Myers for daring to desecrate a communion wafer. And in doing so, they make an argument so embarrassingly bad that it would fit in well on WingNutDaily:

We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional. His flagrant display of irreverence by profaning a consecrated Host from a Catholic church goes beyond the limit of academic freedom and free speech.

The same Bill of Rights which protect freedom of speech also protect freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion. In other words, our nation’s constitution protects the rights of ALL religions, not one and not just a few.

So many lies and misunderstandings here. First of all, this is not an academic freedom issue, since PZ made the comments on his own blog, not as part of his job or as a representative of his university. Moreover, the free speech argument is patently false: the Confraternity makes no effort to explain how their rights have been violated, and instead just asserts it. And it gets even worse:

Attacking the most sacred elements of a religion is not free speech anymore than would be perjury in a court or libel in a newspaper.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The difference, of course, is that making deliberately false statements in an effort to harm others is not the same thing as criticizing a religious view you find objectionable. Catholics surely know this, as they’re not shy about attacking protestants for not believing the host is really the body of Christ, or attacking atheists for, well, pretty much anything. So their argument really boils down to “our beliefs should be protected from criticism.” Which is always a sure sign of lack of confidence in one’s beliefs.

And they go on:

Lies and hate speech which incite contempt or violence are not protected under the law. Hence, inscribing Swastikas on Jewish synagogues or publicly burning copies of the Christian Bible or the Muslim Koran, especially by a faculty member of a public university, are just as heinous and just as unconstitutional. Individual freedoms are limited by the boundaries created by the inalienable rights of others.

Again, PZ didn’t lie: he merely said something Catholics don’t like. Secondly, PZ did not incite violence,* and “inciting contempt” is a ridiculous claim: no one has a right to be free from criticism, nor to be free from contempt.

And then things get really crazy:

The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance.

Oh so very wrong. Please, someone explain to these nice people that they have no right to only be criticized by other Catholics. And since the Catholic church has a long history of excommunicating those who disagree with Church leadership, this is particularly foolish.

The Chancellor of the University refused to reprimand or censure the teacher, who ironically is a Biology Professor. One fails to see the relevance of the desecration of a Catholic sacrament to the science of Biology.

Which would be relevant if PZ had done so in a Biology class. But all they’re really saying is that UMM should fire PZ because of a personal opinion expressed on his own time. Maybe Catholics think they’d like this: if so, they’ve got short memories, and have forgotten that it wasn’t so long ago that it was Catholics who were being discriminated against, not just atheists.

Were Myers a Professor of Theology, there would have been at least a presumption of competency to express religious opinions in a classroom. Yet, for a scientist to ridicule and show utter contempt for the most sacred and precious article of a major world religion, is inappropriate, unprofessional, unconstitutional and disingenuous.

You could argue PZ’s actions were inappropriate, perhaps even unprofessional (though, again, he wasn’t acting in a professional capacity). They clearly were not unconstitutional, and I don’t think this group even knows what “disingenuous” means.

A biologist has no business ‘dissing’ any religion, rather, they should be busy teaching the scientific discipline they were hired to teach. Tolerating such behavior by university officials is equally repugnant as it lends credibility to the act of religious hatred. We also pray that Professor Myers contritely repent and apologize.

Nice use of ‘the lingo,’ Confraternity (sigh).  I’m sure Jesus would appreciate the intentional blurring of the line between private speech and classroom conduct: way to represent your faith.

That said, here’s the biggest problem with this whole argument: the Confraternity would have us believe that free speech doesn’t extend to religion. Let’s think about the logic there. How shall we decide which views are “religious”? Do I not have the right to advocate for reproductive rights because the Church teaches that’s wrong? Or can I argue for those rights as long as I don’t criticize Catholic leadership from disagreeing with me? What about the Death Penalty? Am I free to disagree with the Church on that? The Pope says that I’m going to hell: if I criticize him for that, am I acting unconstitutionally?

You see, there is simply no way to legitimately separate religious speech from secular speech. If the right to free speech means anything, it must also apply to criticisms of religion. If we’re not free to criticize religious beliefs, we don’t have free speech at all.

Which brings me back to one of this blog’s most consistent messages: if you’re religious, you absolutely need to defend the right to free speech, especially speech you disagree with, because that right is the only protection you have to ensure you can continue to practice your faith. Sadly, the Confraternity would replace personal liberty with enforced “respect”–a position they would never tolerate if they were the ones being forced to respect my beliefs by, say, holding Catholic weddings for same-sex couples. If such standards were applied to Catholics, they would (correctly) be furious. It’s too bad so many Catholics don’t extend to others the same rights they use themselves.

*In case you’re not clear on the difference between, say, desecration of the wafer and cross burning or inscribing swastikas, if that’s the latter two are threats. It isn’t a hard difference to grasp.