Comments:Woman fired over husband's email threat to Minnesota professor

Actually, I find it rather easy to think of things more vile than desecrating the "body of Christ". To start with, there's people who supposedly practice a religion that advocates "love thy neighbour" but who send death threats and suggest that people should have their brains bashed in. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

--- Here you have a story where everybody is in the wrong.

The guy who took the host should learn about respect. Most of us live in free countries where its our choice to follow one idea or another. If you do not like what the Church offers, then leave. Move on. Find one that works for you, or not. The reality is, you have no right to be disrespectful to the traditions and practices of anybody or anything other than your own.

Myers should, as an educated man and scientist, also have some respect for those who choose to believe in religion. Desecrating another persons faith, be it with words or with actions, is clearly and plainly wrong. And there is no argument about free speech that even begins to address the kind of reprehensible and childish behavior that Myers exhibits and should be ashamed of.

The people who made the initial threats against the person who originally "took the host in protest" are even more disturbing than the infantile rantings of a maladjusted professor. Those who claim to be Christians (which is a lot of you) seem to have little understanding of the Word of Christ and the lessons therein. These people need to take a long look at themselves and recognize that threats are as much a sin as the actions they promise.

The "good Samaritans" who decided to take it upon themselves to police the world, are even more sick than the religious zealots like Myers (yes, atheism is a religion that is as radical as any other) and the host taker, as they are making real trouble for real people for things that have nothing to do with them.

So, as I stated in the beginning, everybody is wrong in this and everybody should be ashamed of themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxwolfen (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "(yes, atheism is a religion that is as radical as any other)"
 * There is a reason why Christianity is a religion and atheism isn't (it is a philosophy, not a religion). A religion is a bundle of ideas and traditions that *must* be spread in order to be maintained; if it isn't spread (to new believers, or to the children of current believers), then it dies out after a single generation. Whether or not religion is a bad thing or not is debatable, but the fact that philosophy =! religion is not. A philosophy on the other hand can arise spontaneously in individual people, and, while its core ideas can be presented, it cannot be forcibly transferred to anyone who does not understand the principle behind the principal belief (ehhe. I love using those two words in the same sentence). The equivalent (but opposite) philosophy to atheism is theism, not a religion. It is true that religious people tend to be theists, but that doesn't mean the two concepts are equivalent. Now you could attempt to claim that some atheists are forming a religion based on the atheistic philosophy, but that wouldn't make atheism itself a religion anymore than the existence of Christianity makes theism a religion. Gopher65talk 19:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"A religion is a bundle of ideas and traditions that *must* be spread in order to be maintained". Actually your definition of religion is pretty lacking with respect to sociology. "Religion consists of explanations of existence (or ultimate meaning) based on supernatural assumptions and include statements about the nature of the supernatural ..." (the sociologist Rodney Stark, Discovering God, p. 46) The atheist claim "I believe there is no God", which in turn is an assumption and statement about the nature of the supernatural. From there, some, but not all atheist build from this standpoint into philosophies like naturalism and in so doing bark up the tree of religion.

He isn't applying the same thing to islam or any other religion because they aren't sending death threats to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.214.9 (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh?
The husband does something stupid and sends a threat to a professor and yet it's somehow the PROFESSOR'S fault the guys wife gets fired? I supposed this is on the opinion that if the Prof hadn't said something so inflamatory Mr Kroll wouldn't have felt compelled to threaten him? I think Mrs Kroll should sue to be reinstated at her job considering it was her HUSBAND who did the threatening, and has admitted this, HE should be arrested for sending the threat, and the Prof should be a little more careful in his remarks about peoples religions. It's a sure way to get into trouble. Too bad this woman had to suffer for her husbands stupid mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.37 (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

God
Let me get this straight: The holy wedded wife gets fired but the professor doesn't. I guess that settles the matter - God is clearly on the professor's side. Oh, and remember ... "in sickness and health"!

PZ Myers Death Threats
As a practicing Catholic, I am disappointed by Professor Myers' request for consecrated host to desecrate. I respect his choice not to believe; however, I am saddened by his lack of respect for our faith.

But I am more disturbed by the news that he is received death threats. Presumably those who would send him death threats and other hate mail in response to his actions consider themselves Catholic or part of the Body of Christ. I believe that a loving response would be a better way to represent Our Lord on earth.

Mr. Myers did not cause this woman to be fired, her husband did.

SP —Preceding unsigned comment added by SP (talk • contribs) 14:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

someone with no respect, but not fool
People has lost common sense nowadays. Like a madhouse where anyone says much but mean nothing in terms of constructive attitude.

The " Scientist " is not going to attack Islam, very unlikely. He is smart enough to make fun ( bully perhaps ?) only on religious groups that he thinks are weak in the political game.

Whatever ,only time will say what comes next for us in terms of future.


 * I think you ought to look up the number of Christians in the US government and the number of Muslims. Since Lincoln, every American president has had to be openly Christian to be elected to the position. He's taking on a religion that was harassing a local student, so naturally he wasn't taking on Islam.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/islam_is_a_weaklings_religion.php

PZ Myers is critical of Islam often, a quick web search could have told you that.

Fire Myers
I see PZ Myers as nothing short of an active promoter of religious intolerance. It is one thing to have ones opinions and express them freely, and quite another thing to actively promote and elevate hate. Myers promotes hate and does so actively. That a University allows him to stay employed when they know perfectly well that he dedicates his life to the promotion of hate, is barbaric.

I am just curious to find out what the university would do if Myers were desecrating a Jewish object of faith, or a picture of Martin Luther King, Jr., or even a nameless woman. The Catholic Church has been systematically persecuted since its earliest days...as can be seen from the martyrdom of the Apostles. The devil has no need to go after those to whom he has won over, but zeros in on those people and organizations to which he despises. Evil exists, and is alive and well in America...to her very roots.


 * The Apostles predate the Catholic Church. Since near the start of its creation, the Catholic Church has been one of the most powerful organizations on Earth--at times probably the most powerful organization on the planet--and has used that power at times to persecute others, particularly non-Catholics. Myers has a legal right to do what he was doing, and those mailing death threats don't, for good reason.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)