Crackers and Chocolate Jesus: What a Difference A Year Makes

The Cracker kerfluffle reminded me of the the Chocolate Jesus affair. In each case Bill Donohue played a prominent role.


In the Chocolate Jesus Affair Donohue was a veritable ranging lion of Christ:

<a href="http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=May&read=2223"All those involved are lucky that angry Christians don't react the way extremist Muslims do when they're offended–otherwise they may have more than their heads cut off.

He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword, indeed.
In the Cracker Kerfluffle, however, Donohue can’t seem to make up his mind about whether he is a raging lion of Christ:

“Myers went on Houston radio station KPFT last night saying that Bill Donohue has ‘declared a fatwa’ against him. He should know better–I don’t need others to do the fighting for me. I’m quite good at it myself. But he’d better be careful what he says, because if I get any death threats, it won’t be hard to connect the dots.

or a weak lamb of Jesus:

“As a result of the hysteria that Myers’ ilk have promoted, at least one public official is taking it seriously. Thomas E. Foley is chairman of Virginia’s First Congressional District Republican Committee, a delegate to the Republican National Convention and one of two Republican at large nominees for Virginia’s Electoral College. His concern is for the safety of Catholics attending this year’s Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Myers’ backyard. Accordingly, Foley has asked the top GOP brass to provide additional security while in the Twin Cities so that Catholics can worship without fear of violence. Given the vitriol we have experienced for simply exercising our First Amendment right to freedom of speech, we support Foley’s request [bold mine - afarensis].

In that PZ was simply exercising his right to free speech, the irony of that last comment cracks me up. Especially, because I am not sure how PZ saying rude things about Donohoe’s cracker violates Donohoe’s right to free speech. Donohoe can say whatever he wants about his cracker, what he can’t do is stiffle the speech of others who think that his cracker is fair game for the same kind of rational thought and criticism that gets applied to everything else.

About these ads

5 Responses

  1. There would be many more Catholics in the US today if only the church would serve chocolate Christ Crispies!

  2. I do wish both the “militant atheists” znd the “militant Christians”(of any and all denominiations and traditions, would just shut up! Their endless diatribes about impositions on their collective freedom of speech is getting really tiresome!
    Anne G

  3. Sod off, Anne. We’re the targets of this witch-hunt, and no, you can’t intimidate us into being silent any more. We’ve learned over the centuries that ‘not making waves’ is about the worst possible way to be treated as an equal.
    If you want your freedoms, you have to demand them.

  4. stogoe, I’m with you. Being meek and quiet if exactly the WRONG tack to take. It enables the free hand of believers to push their evangilism down the throats of others. Insane beliefs need to be ridiculed for the ignorance they represent. This whole Christian “angry Atheist” argument is all about stifling discussion and free thought of non-believers, pure and simple. They want us back in the box. Religion has never been the friend of intellectual thinking

  5. I think Anne might just be tired of the same old sophomore arguments that deists and rationalist alike have been squabbling over for decades now.
    I mean, this story is hi-freaking-larious, and PZ is obviously having a lot of fun with the fact that he is so /dangerous/ to some people. As he should!
    The problem is, some of his most ardent semi-anonymous supporters have historically offered up some of the most weak-ass, boring and wrong-headed arguments to support their notion of the anti-religious pile-on.
    Unintentional irony can happen to zealots of all stripes.
    So, I can see why people are sick of these (somewhat US flavoured) arguments over the years, and refuse to join what they see as an anti-religious pile-on.
    As an atheist I reserve the right to stand apart from poorly constructed rationalists and neo-con religious proscriptions alike.
    But I can see why someone might not find that much fun.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 54 other followers

%d bloggers like this: