On Facebook, I asked: “To anyone who’s ever complained about atheists being angry/militant/strident/whatever: can you explain exactly what you thought the problem was?” One of the responses I got was from a friend of mine from grad school, who complained about “invective, insults and rhetoric” from PZ Myers, and later followed up by specifically citing Crackergate. Here’s my response:

See again: death threats over broken religious taboos.

The doctrine of transubstantiation is bonkers. Normally, that wouldn’t be anything to get worked up about. Just laugh at it briefly and get on with your life.

But Crackergate was a response to a case where a young man faced both death threats and possible expulsion because he violated a religious taboo.

That’s insane, and the fact that it is insane is not something that should need to be re-argued in the 21st century. Rather, the thing to do is to stand up to the nutjobs in the clearest possible terms.

That’s what PZ did. In his position, I would have tried to be more patient with Isaac (the random commenter he quotes), but I think the rest of his post was exactly right.

While it’s never occurred to me to personally abuse a cracker, I did participate in Everybody Draw Muhammed day. Do you realize that the cartoonist who proposed the event had to go into hiding because of the death threats she received? Where’s your rage at that? Where’s your rage at what happened to Webster Cook?

I’m honestly appalled by the warped priorities that dominate many of these debates. I applaud PZ as one of the few people who has his priorities straight.