I know I should probably cut them some slack because they're clergymen and not law-talkin' guys, but their legal reasoning, especially on constitutional matters, seems somewhat suspect:
We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional...
[...]
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. 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.
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. 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.
It's funny how their understanding of the First Amendment is exactly the opposite of what it actually means. Yes indeed I have a right to offend any faith tradition I damn well please, so long as I'm not damaging anyone's property or person. I can tell you the Church coddles pedophiles. I can tell you your mystical cannibalism is so much bullshit. Hell, back in college I used a page from the Gideon's Bible to roll a joint (that Word of God gets you fucked up). And it's all constitutional (well, the rolling a joint part is obviously subject to debate, but the blaspheming is definitely constitutional). And to equate symbolic blasphemy with the Holocaust? That's just fucked up.
Not content to just demonstrate their utter lack of legal understanding, they also show their unfamiliarity with the university and with these little things called facts:
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. 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.
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.
That's so cute. They seem to have this vision of PZ standing before his Intro to Microbiology class, blood dripping from his beard, gleefully desecrating the Host while giggling manically, "Kill Jesus! Kill Jesus!" It's almost a shame to have to inform them that the desecration to place in PZ's private home, on his own time, and the results posted on his private blog - oh yeah, and that what he does as a private citizen is none of the university's goddamned business (which, fortunately, his employer realizes).
I'm sure one of these priests is praying for my soul right now. But if their theological skills are on a par with their grasp of logic or law, I'm sure there's a very confused Buddha somewhere wondering why these fucking Catholics won't leave him the fuck alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment