Andrew Sullivan’s readers pick, among their choices for Worst of 2008, an interview excerpt from lawyer/comedian/commentator Ben Stein that Bradlaugh, at NRO “Corner”, accurately described as “dreck” and “shameful” (Godwin alert):
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That’s right.
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.
Ben Stein is a big deal in conservative circles and gets invited to headline many events, perhaps in part because of the gravitas conferred by his status as a New York Times business columnist, though as I’ve tried on occasion to show at one of my other sites (and as financial bloggers Felix Salmon and Larry Ribstein show much more frequently and brilliantly than I) Stein’s views on business and economics are not really much more solidly informed than his views on Intelligent Design.
P.S. It will be difficult, but could we please avoid in the comments adding a proliferation of other Godwin violations to Stein’s own?
I propose a quick model. Consider human mentality as consisting of three factors: Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Now: choose any two.
The people who possess Intelligence and Charisma will be highly skilled at producing very powerful propaganda. However, they will lack the resistance to social trickery necessary to disbelieve in the propaganda of others – and more importantly, they will be vulnerable to the mental viruses they themselves produce, and often end up believing the nonsense they tried to wield as a weapon against others.
We must ask ourselves: why did Stein feel this line of propaganda initially favored his interests?
Pingback: The Agitator » Blog Archive » Anyone?
Stein’s statement was just plain stupid, and as the contempt implied in terming this a “Godwin’s Law” incident implies, it’s a lazy form of argument.
That said, I have a problem with Myers’ attitude as well. While there probably weren’t “scientists” directing Jews to the “showers”, there were a number of otherwise brilliant scientists who signed on the Nazi agenda, and others joined the Red team. Einstein wrote apologia for Stalin.
In fact, Myers contemptible little stunt with a purloined Catholic host shows he’s no prize himself.
Caledonian, interesting point, and if Stein needed an initial motivation, it probably spawned from the meme that “darwinism” is a tool of the liberalism. But then again, the D&D model of human intellect might be a little simplistic.
“In fact, Myers contemptible little stunt with a purloined Catholic host shows he’s no prize himself.”
This act of wafer-cide was done in response to the totally over-the-top treatment of a University of Central Florida student who didn’t swallow his wafer at a mass on campus (at a public U.) and, as a result, was allegedly assaulted, had death threats made against him, and was brought up on university charges. The only part of this episode that I regret is the fact that the horrible treatment of this kid got lost in the dust up.
This act of wafer-cide was done in response to the totally over-the-top treatment of a University of Central Florida student who didn’t…
I don’t care. It was theft and desecration, and it was contemptible.
The only part of this episode that I regret is the fact that the horrible treatment of this kid got lost in the dust up.
The kid was a thief and an attention whore. His actions had consequences. There more pressing cases in the world for your sympathy.
I never heard of the Florida thing, but I think Myers’ stunt was probably not the best way to deal it, even if by someone who wouldn’t be inclined to turn the other cheek.
Just to refer to the post below about the atheist ad, the reason it didn’t work is that in NC it seems that it was a nasty stunt, in that Dole’s opponent isn’t an atheist, and if you’re going to call someone something horrible, one had better be right.
Just to add as to why Christians might be wary of voting for an atheist, it might have something to do with stuff like Myers’ stunt, and his sort of self appointed atheist activist stance. One can add to that, citing famous self appointed atheist activists, Dawkins thinks that whether Christians should or should not have their children taken away from them a perfectly reasonable topic for a civil conversation, Dennett, at the end of the book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea suggest in the future Christians might be put in zoos, Harris thinks that some religious people might warrant execution (he doesn’t say Christians though), and I guess Hitchens hasn’t said anything like that, good for him. Maybe after hearing all that, and never hearing any atheists putting such people beyond the confines of polite society, it might be understandable as to why a lot of people in NC might not vote for an atheist.
“It was theft and desecration, and it was contemptible.”
It wasn’t theft, the priest gave it to him, free of charge. “Desecration” is in the eye of the beholder; if one doesn’t hold the wafer “sacred,” then no desecration occurred. Nor was it, in my opinion, contemptible. It showed poor manners, for certain, (and he certainly showed contempt for the people holding religious services on a public school campus) but certainly nothing worthy of death threats, assaults, school charges and the attention of the loathsome Bill Donohue. The reaction to this prank was contemptible, however, for sure.
“His actions had consequences.”
C’mon… are death threats and threats of expulsion appropriate “consequences” for the crime-less act of not eating a cracker?
“There more pressing cases in the world for your sympathy.”
And there are things in the world more worthy of your disdain than whether a professor mistreated a communion wafer. Like the fact that he, like the UCF student, was issued death threats. I think that the reaction is the real story here.
j mct: “Dawkins thinks that whether Christians should or should not have their children taken away from them a perfectly reasonable topic for a civil conversation”
Perhaps you can explain why it’s not a reasonable topic given that evangelical Christians are the driving force behind efforts to take the children of gay or lesbian parents away from them. What’s good for the goose…
@j mct
What are you referring to re: Dawkins, Dennett and Harris? I am unaware of Dawkins making any such statement, and have heard him deny this allegation. Do you have a source? Dennett was speaking metaphorically about zoos and quarantines. I recollect some dust up about Harris awhile back, but I can’t find anything on it. Do you have a link?
Thanks!
It wasn’t theft, the priest gave it to him, free of charge.
Gave it to whom? To the punk? The punk took it under false pretenses. To Myers? The priest should be defrocked as he stole it and Myers received stolen property.
“Desecration” is in the eye of the beholder; if one doesn’t hold the wafer “sacred,” then no desecration occurred.
I don’t hold your car sacred. Maybe I should bust it up. Citing the price value isn’t out either.
C’mon… are death threats and threats of expulsion appropriate “consequences” for the crime-less act of not eating a cracker?
Going into a room and screaming “nigger” is “crime-less.” But I bet you’d get a reaction pretty similar to what this idiot got. Hell, that chick playing Starbuck in the new Galactica got death threats. Welcome to the age of the Internet, and she truly didn’t do anything wrong. If you want to play attention whore, you’d better be ready for reaction.
I think that the reaction is the real story here.
No, it isn’t. It’s an utter non-story, as I’ve pointed out.
Dawkins has compared indoctrinating children in a religion to child abuse. He’s done it carefully couched terms, but his reasoning does lead to taking the kiddies away, even if he doesn’t face up to that openly.
As for Dennett, his zoo reference wasn’t literal. He was more or less making the point that religious belief would become an exotic rarity.
Harris, IIRC, was downright sloppy in his argument about just war, which is where the statement came up. His point was that a nation with dangerous beliefs (like Afghanistan) could be attacked because those beliefs in conjunction with modern weapons represents a threat to others.
“The punk took it under false pretenses.”
False pretenses? What statement do you think he make that you believe is false?
“I don’t hold your car sacred. Maybe I should bust it up.”
LOL. Well, if you did, it wouldn’t be desecration.
“But I bet you’d get a reaction pretty similar to what this idiot got.”
Perhaps, but are death threats an appropriate consequence?? Did you support Khomeini’s fatwa against Salmon Rushdie?? Do you think the Muslim protesters were right to threaten and riot in reaction to the Danish Muhammad cartoons?? Was the killer of Theo van Gogh right because van Gogh should have expected such a reaction?? They hold their religious tenets in just as high an esteem as the Catholics do the host.
“Hell, that chick playing Starbuck in the new Galactica got death threats. Welcome to the age of the Internet, and she truly didn’t do anything wrong. If you want to play attention whore, you’d better be ready for reaction.”
The fact that death threats from the unhinged may happen, doesn’t excuse them or the people who make them. Nor does it justify them when all that is at issue is a cracker.
“No, it isn’t. It’s an utter non-story, as I’ve pointed out.”
Nonsense. The fact that this kid faced death threats is reprehensible and should force people to ask, “What the hell is wrong with the religious people who would make such threats?” And the fact that he academic sanction for a religious dispute should force people to ask, “Why is a public university getting involved in a religious dispute?”
I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed …
Ben commits some mondo fallacy here (the Ad Steinium): a few nazi scientists quoted Darwinian ideas on occasion as support for eugenics; therefore, Darwinism leads to or equates to nazism. Nyet. And what about the science involved in say building bridges or airplanes: make use of Newtonian constants and you’re a nazi? BS. Thank Osiris that British and American science and engineering allowed the allies to defeat the Luftwaffe.
That said, naive, social-Darwinists are not unknown: many of ’em join up with like the Church of Scientology–or Ayn RandCo.
Perhaps, but are death threats an appropriate consequence??
Of course not, but the fact is, anonymous e-mail threats are standard fare these days. People are pointing to this case saying “Look how horrible Catholics are!”, when in fact there’s nothing shocking about it, because you can find even more trivial and non-religious matters provoking similar reactions.
The guy went into a religious service and stole a sacred item, and I’m supposed to be shocked that he got nastygrams? Sorry, no sale.
And, no, this is not comparable to the Rushdie case, where you had an author being threatened by a head of state for doing something that was completely legal.
And the fact that he academic sanction for a religious dispute should force people to ask, “Why is a public university getting involved in a religious dispute?”
He was in academic hot water because he did what he did on campus. The Catholic group had, legally, requested the space–as any other student group could do.
I disagree. As an advocate of reality based education, I frequently refer to crippling an emerging mind with fantasy, such as Santa Claus, et al, or altruistic fables, such as Robin Hood, as child abuse. I even regard sending them to public school as child abuse. I by no means intend to imply that they should be taken away by the state; quite the opposite. ◄Dave►
As an advocate of reality based education, I frequently refer to crippling an emerging mind with fantasy, such as Santa Claus, et al, or altruistic fables, such as Robin Hood, as child abuse.
Okay, Ragnar, so what do you make of this quote from Wired?
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism_pr.html
“How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?” Dawkins asks. “It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?”
“People are pointing to this case saying ‘Look how horrible Catholics are!’, when in fact there’s nothing shocking about it, because you can find even more trivial and non-religious matters provoking similar reactions.”
Well, I would simply say that just because similar non-religious matter provoke similar reactions should not mean that there is nothing shocking in either the religious or non-religious cases. There is no excuse for this type of death threats.
“The guy went into a religious service and stole a sacred item, and I’m supposed to be shocked that he got nastygrams?”
Again, he didn’t steal anything, it was given to him without condition. And, yes, you should be shocked (in my opinion) that people would make threats on someone’s life because they didn’t eat a wafer.
“And, no, this is not comparable to the Rushdie case, where you had an author being threatened by a head of state for doing something that was completely legal.”
Where is the difference (obviously, the “head of state” thing, but that’s why I included the other, more analogous situations)?? What this kid was completely legal, too.
“He was in academic hot water because he did what he did on campus. The Catholic group had, legally, requested the space–as any other student group could do.”
That may be so, but the error he committed was, in essence, not believing what the Catholics believe regarding whether or not to eat the wafer. I don’t see where it is any business of the state to enforce Catholic dogma on this.
Again, he didn’t steal anything, it was given to him without condition.
This is flat wrong. In the service, it’s made clear that only believing Catholics are to take the host. They don’t ask everyone if they’re a Catholic, but that is the assumption when you go up. Further, when he didn’t consume the article, he was told by church ushers to either consume or return it, and he refused. Since he’s from a Catholic family, the boy knew all this and really had no excuse.
This is not a case of someone minding their own business. He went in there with the intent of taking a consecrated host. Like the saying goes, “You f— with the bull, you get the horns.”
This act of wafer-cide
I found it amusing, initially. HOWEVER, the desecration tends to be mostly catholic, when desecration should be equal opportunity. Many non-believers might mock the Mass, or provide Mother Theresa with some sexual aids, and maybe put a yokel BILLY SUNDAY in his overalls or klan hood, yet they hesitate to do the same with Mohammed or jewish images. Had Dr. Myers flushed a koran or torah in the toilet, be assured it would have created a lot more problems than the mere wafer-cide did.
Such passion over a cannibalistic ritual is amusing. Michael Smith would have found our land strange, and grokked it as wasting food. 🙂 ◄Dave►
@Polichinello
The answer is emphatically no, and I disagree with his implication here. Parents have the natural right to acculturate their children in whatever manner they choose, whether Dawkins or I like it or not. ◄Dave►
Stein is baiting us. Don’t let them milk this thing any longer.
Move on and work towards a better future.
@J.
Myers DID treat a Koran, as well as a copy of “The God Delusion,” just as rudely as the cracker. A lot of people don’t seem to have the full story.
Last I heard, he hadn’t caught any flak at all from any Muslims.
I have a hard time caring enough about the cracker incident to muster up more than some vague amusement, but ‘fatwah envy’ is misplaced here (quotes indicate that J doesn’t seem to actually be envious). As he was desecrating the wafer, Myers also desecrated a Koran (and a copy of The God Delusion, I believe). I’m sure the pictures are still on his blog somewhere.
Ah. The point still holds, regardless: most online desecrators direct their scorn at biblethumpers, not so much to koranthumpers (or torah-thumpers). That’s understandable to some degree: Pat Robertsons and paddy’s are part of American life. Imams not so much (tho’ even most fundies agree to Copernican models of solar system: much of the muslim world does not).
I don’t care. It was theft and desecration, and it was contemptible.
I’d be amused that someone (a presumably intelligent educated individual) actually thinks mishandling a biscuit is “contemptible” and shocking if it weren’t for the fact that there are nutters out there who think mishandling a biscuit is worthy of death threats.
Politically, PZ Myers may be a loon (IHMO) but on religion and science he is largely spot on (inevitable bias disclaimer here: I’m also a talkorigins.org author)
Dave M
mishandling a biscuit is “contemptible” and shocking
This is the whole point, to the “nutters” the biscuit isn’t only a biscuit!
Though I am wholly on the side of the biscuit desecraters I am at loss about how to deal with this nonsense.
(I fully agree about PZ Myers BTW)
@Polichinello
I have been to many a Catholic mass, and although I’ve heard the request for non-Catholics not to receive communion, I’ve never heard any statement to the effect that, “if you get it, you must eat it right away or our offer to give it to you is rescinded.” Nothing like that. (And what the ushers did afterward is irrelevant to the question of whether he stole it.) So you can’t say because the Catholics dogma requires it to be eaten right away that he committed a crime of theft, otherwise, then, the law would incorporate that little piece of Catholic dogma, an outcome which is quite unconstitutional.
That doesn’t mean that this kid didn’t commit an unmannerly act, just that he didn’t commit theft.
Which brings up my other point: if what we are dealing with here is a disagreement on a point of Catholic dogma (re: whether it is acceptable for the host not to be eaten right away; a point upon which the church and this kid disagree), why is the state university getting involved?? This is strictly a religious matter, which the state has no place getting involved with.
In any event, the death threats were way out of bounds and are not justifiable under any circumstance.
—–
@J
I think you don’t see “desecration” of Jewish and Muslim things on the scale you do of Christian things, simply because there is an overwhelming number of Christians is America, so there is more occurrences where they overstep their bounds and attempt to wriggle their religion into the public sphere.
Also, I think, that with regard to Jewish items, because Jews tend not to try to convert people and are also often on the secularist side, in order to protect their free exercise of their religion from encroachments from the majority, there are fewer conflicts in this regard.
@GC
In the Heartland that may be. In urban areas, not sure. Sunday AM, around west valley, or LA, those benzes and jags rushing through the streets aren’t heading to baptistland, or La Misa. They’re headed to one of the numerous temples of JHVH (as Dawkins said, one of the most ridiculous figures in fiction. Das Stimmt). The muslims have a strong presence as well, tho’ more downtown. More mosques and madrassas are built now in US and EU than churches now, reportedly.
Grant Canyon:
That doesn’t mean that this kid didn’t commit an unmannerly act, just that he didn’t commit theft.
He was told by an usher to either return the host or consume it. He didn’t. It was theft. The material value may be nugatory, but that really doesn’t matter. The kid injected himself into what appears to have been a legal and peaceable service to whore some attention for himself and to swipe a communion wafer. That’s perfectly contemptible.
Which brings up my other point: if what we are dealing with here is a disagreement on a point of Catholic dogma (re: whether it is acceptable for the host not to be eaten right away; a point upon which the church and this kid disagree), why is the state university getting involved??
Because the people officiating at the service made plain to the kid the conditions of taking the host. He violated those conditions at THEIR service.
Gotchaye
As he was desecrating the wafer, Myers also desecrated a Koran (and a copy of The God Delusion, I believe).
This is true, but Myers only added the other objects after he’d been embarrassed by people pointing to his sympathizing with the Muslims during the Danish cartoon brouhaha. That’s the problem with Myers. When Muslims firebomb embassies and commit real murder over some perfectly legal cartoons, Myers offers them clucking solicitude. When Catholics get upset with someone who disrupts their service, they’re Torquemada.
“He was told by an usher to either return the host or consume it. He didn’t. It was theft.”
Then we disagree. If the usher imposed conditions after the acceptance by the kid, it is not theft for him to reject those condition.
“The material value may be nugatory, but that really doesn’t matter.”
I agree. The value wouldn’t matter on the question of whether it was theft.
“The kid injected himself into what appears to have been a legal and peaceable service to whore some attention for himself and to swipe a communion wafer. That’s perfectly contemptible.”
To you, perhaps; to me it was no more than childish. Certainly nothing to get death threats over.
“Because the people officiating at the service made plain to the kid the conditions of taking the host. He violated those conditions at THEIR service.”
Well, then we simply disagree. I’ve seen nothing in the coverage of this case that indicates that they made it known that, as a condition of receiving this wafer, that he had to eat it immediately. Absent that, it isn’t theft, but a religious dispute which the school had no business getting involved in.
I for one find it amusing how far standards have fallen in Catholicism.
At least the Eastern Orthodox care enough to not only request that only EOs take Communion, but at least in theory are supposed to actively refuse to present it to non-believers or believers fallen from good standing.
Originally, of course, the Eucharist was held to be so sacred that stories were spread about Arinas partaking and then exploding in the privy, and taking part in the ceremony without true belief was held to be a serious sin that could imperil one’s soul.
How many Christians do you know who, while claiming to take the Eucharist seriously, actually try to keep people from endangering themselves with it? I doubt it’s very many.
That’s a horrible line of reasoning: fear of science abuse. Hitler and other totalitarians never removed god from the picture, they only put themselves in place of god. They perverted science to justify themselves and abused it in that name. None of this makes evolution false.
Both science and religion can be used as tools to do all kinds of nasty things to people. Neither science nor religion has a monopoly. I would say that any ideology or religion that is based on the notion that the individual does not own his or her own life has the potential to be abused in this manner.
Ben Stein’s horrible predictions with regards to the financial markets and the current recession should make him irrelevant on any subject of substance.
As far as I know the practice of religion is considered a basic human right.No matter how ridulous such practices seem to atheists we cannot and should not interfere with those practices.However, multiculturalism introduces huge new problems with imported, very primitive religions from Africa, Haiti, and South America. The worst of these religions involve the killing of various animals including cats and dogs-even people in some cases. Religions can indeed pose very serious threats to the moral and legal order of a democracy.With Judaism and Christianity the organic connection with our history is intimate enough to pose no such problem. With the imported, exotic religions we indeed face ugly disputes which immigration restriction would have obviated.
Ben Stein is an anomaly because he is often an astute economist but acts like a yahoo on the issue of evolution versus creation. I was disppointed to see him attack science so blindly. He seems poorly read in these matters. Certainly politics, which has a tenuous scientific status but great importance in the world of governance, economics, and societal continuity, profoundly affects how science and religion operate.Liberal democracy may be the only form of society that permits science its widest range of exppression within a body of law.Islamic states offer theocracies that positively pervert science unless it conforms to religious strictures.The atheism so common among scientists in the West would not be tolerated in Islamic societies, for instance.
On the question of morality we only have one society that was almost entirely atheist-the USSR. It was puritanical in actual fact.Of course its citizens lived in fear and even terror. People who live in such conditions suffer from many psychological problems and are easily compromised morally. Russia today contains massive corruption as a “way of life.” Iam thankful both for our “rule of law” and our moral inertia from Christianity. I see, however, American life becoming more “multicultural,” tolerant to the point of amorality, vulgar, and liberal to the point of prefering myths to reality.We lie, for instance, about epidemic black crime 24/7. So our Christian morality, the only one we really ever had, is unravelling quietly as very noisy,self-important Americans go about their routine vulgarities.
Pingback: Where’s the love? « Robbie’s Blog