Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I'm sure a large portion of my readers also read PZ's blog so they're already aware of this, but I missed it for a few days and the whole thing cracks me up. It all started when a student at the University of Central Florida went to mass and instead of eating the wafer during communion, he took it out of his mouth and took it with him instead. Why that would upset anyone is beyond me, but some hardcore Catholics have gone completely off the deep end over it.
Webster gave the wafer back, but the Catholic League, a national watchdog organization for Catholic rights claims that is not enough."We don't know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was," said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. "However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it."
They're demanding everything but the crucifixion of the student. One priest says this is kidnapping!
Regardless of the reason, the Diocese says its main concern is to get the Eucharist back so it can be taken care of properly and with respect. Cook has been keeping the Eucharist stored in a plastic bag since last Sunday."It is hurtful," said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. "Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family."
PZ had a rational and ideal response: it's a fucking cracker, people. A piece of bread. Get over it. And he asked his readers to send him some "sanctified" eucharist crackers so he could really show them sacrilege:
Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them -- my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure -- but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart.
Pointless provocation? Maybe. But boy are these drama queen halfwits begging to be ridiculed in this way. And it provoked the ire of - who else? - Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, about whom the Warren Zevon classic Excitable Boy would serve as understatement. He wants the student expelled and he wants PZ fired for threatening to offend him. One of these days I expect to see Bill Donohue just explode from an overdose of highly exaggerated outrage on national television. I just hope it happens when I'm watching.
And just to take things from the ridiculous to the surreal, now Donohue and his idiots-in-waiting are demanding that the Republican National Convention increase security because PZ lives in Minnesota and might hurt them. No, I'm not making that up. There really is no limit to just how absurd these people can be. There is no bottom to this barrel.
Comments
What really got to me was when I read that, as a result of Mr. Webster's actions, the church in question began having security guards escort the crackers to be sanctified and then remain on hand to ensure that everyone participated in their required act of metaphorical god-cannibalism. I expect to read about this stuff when I'm studying a text from 13th century France, not when I'm reading about current events in Minnesota.
I guess the whole things goes to show just how powerful and absurd the grasp of superstition can be.
Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 9:50 AM
You say some hardcore catholics were up in arms, but AFAICT, people actually tried to pry it from his hands during the mass.
He claimed to have palmed it in order to take it back to his seat and show it to a curious friend he brought along, and decided to take it with him when people in the congregation freaked on him.
I don't suppose his friend came away with a sense that catholics are into peace and love. Even during mass.
Posted by: rpsms | July 12, 2008 9:55 AM
I suppose I am one of those Neville Chamberlain types that doesn't find PZ's provocative nature to my liking. But, that Bill Donohue is a complete nut and I am willing to forgive anything that gets his panties in a bunch. I remember seeing Donohue on the Colbert Report complaining about how the media is controlled by secular Jews. Talk about coo coo for Cocoa Puffs......
Posted by: carlsonjok | July 12, 2008 9:56 AM
And yet hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans go to church with their crackers unmolested or even knowing who PZ or Donohue are. And I personally can't think of how the Convention Committee can increase security more than it already is. Its already passed insane.
Posted by: yoshi | July 12, 2008 10:05 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | July 12, 2008 10:13 AM
Ah, Ed, you're wrong on this one, at least in part. And so is PZ. And Donahue being a moronic gasbag does not change that.
It's a fucking cracker to PZ. It's not to believing Catholics [of which I am not one]. It's the body of Christ for them, the "real presence" as the doctrine goes. Regardless of how ridiculous you or I or PZ may find that belief, it is their belief. And this particular belief and practice harms no one who is not a believer.
Going out of his way to find a way to offend such believers as PZ is doing does not speak well of him. What he wants to do is, of course, not illegal, nor should it be. But it's a reprehensible thing for him to do, none the less. There is no point... no valid one, I think... to looking for ways to offend others merely for the joy of offending them. And that's what PZ is up to. It does not, as I said, speak well of him.
Posted by: flatlander100 | July 12, 2008 10:30 AM
indeed Mr. Hanley, though you have to admit that its kinda sad that people felt so deprived of justice in this federation that they felt the only way to secure it was to pass laws that made a crime out of the reasoning behind their persecution.
Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 10:31 AM
Kidnapping? Get real! While I treat the elements of communion with respect, I would never accuse a member of kidnapping Christ if they did this! (Although I would try to have a conversation with them at a later time to find out why they felt compelled to receive communion and not heat the wafer). And this is from the same church who created the habit of "kidnapping" by keeping the Mass in a language people didn't understand. They thought something magical was going on up there (we get Hocus Pocus from Hoc est corpus-this is my body). Taking the wafer from church in medeival times was common practice. People would place the Host in their house for good luck.
Guess the "Church" hasn't progressed much since then.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | July 12, 2008 10:35 AM
I have such mixed feelings about this. I sometimes wonder what PZ's motives are--is it to command an army of mouth breathers? Or is to affect change--to preserve the science classroom for science? If the latter, it seems to me that he should have made his points regarding the attacks on the student who took the wafer and left it at that.
When PZ wrote about the Danish cartoons, he was split on the matter. While pointing out that he found Islam as insane as all other religions, he also wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/poxridden_houses.php
Now you can always play the "Oh, but that is different" game, but I don't see it. In this case PZ is the Danish cartoonist, and the Catholics are the outraged Muslims, sans, thus far, the inclination to riot. I think, given that he is "basically flipping off" Catholics, that he is not being consistent with what he wrote concerning the cartoons. (Not that it is trivial for any blogger to remain self-consistent over any extended period.)
On the other hand, playing "What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?" one can only wonder what would be happening if Donohue had taken the high ground. If had published a polite, open letter to PZ asking him to reconsider his threat to desecrate a smuggled Eucharist because of its importance to millions of Catholics--if Donohue had done that rather that playing the poor-persecuted-martyr card he might have effectively disarmed PZ.
This is a really hideous battle where one side looks like peevish children and the other side looks like-- peevish children.
Posted by: heddle | July 12, 2008 10:35 AM
I'm sure somewhere there is a Catholic priest who would eagerly volunteer to spank both PZ and the college student who set off this tempest in a chalice.
Posted by: Elf Eye | July 12, 2008 10:38 AM
Oh, pull the other one, flatlander.
I thought we all agreed after the 300 years of religious war following the Reformation not to get bent out of shape over disagreements regarding dogma. Do you knuckleheads really want to leap so joyously overboard in the hope of denying that right-of-mockery to atheists? You know, we've always been here, and we've been your political leaders, artists, writers, lawyers, judges, and some of your better priests and monks for centuries; why don't you Christians just get over it already and accept that you can't muzzle and cow us into denying what we really think anymore.
Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 10:39 AM
Notice that stealing a holy cracker magically imbued with the spirt of your imaginary friend's friend is a hate crime, actually assaulting an actual young man for stealing said magic cracker is perfect fine, no crime there.
Hopefully Ed you'll get a shed load of hits on this one (PZ did), the bad news is most will be from whiny relgious rednecks banging on about "respecting thier feelings/traditions/beliefs". Do Catholics refuse to eat animals (respecting Buddist beliefs) or not eat shellfish (Jewish) or cows (Hindus) etc.? Oh silly Dingo we have to respect thier beliefs (ie never, ever criticise or point out thier arbitary idiotcy), while they blithely ignore or trample the beliefs of others.
Freedom of relgion for these fools equals to no free speech (except for Rightwing Catholic blowhards) -DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | July 12, 2008 10:40 AM
At the risk of being taken to task (again) on a new blog:
Overreaction on the congregation. Period. Overreaction on the part of Donohue. Period. Overreaction on the part of PZ. Period.
Now two people, one of which is supposedly rational, both puffing their chests out going. "Oh yeah? Oh yeah? OH YEAH?" and playing it out like a couple of media whores.
Obviously, where religion is concerned, irrationality still reigns supreme.
Posted by: Pineyman | July 12, 2008 10:41 AM
"Obviously, where religion is concerned, irrationality reigns supreme."
Um, I think that was PZ's point. Don't colleges still assign students to read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"?
Posted by: Elf Eye | July 12, 2008 10:45 AM
Oh yes, if anything counts as a hate crime, it's certainly this.
I hate to think what kind of stink these folks would make if someone really *were* persecuting them.
Posted by: Hypatia | July 12, 2008 10:47 AM
The difference, heddle, is that u.s. citizens don't have a history of tyrannizing and murdering swathes of catholics, whereas the Danes do have a history of doing that to the peoples of the Middle East, albeit under the auspices of other European powers. AS unfair as it might seem to you, those sections of the world which we Westerners have been dicking with since 1600 sort of get a pass these days from us when it comes to outrage. Beyond this, the Danish cartoons, as Myers implies, also encapsulated certain racist ideas about Near Easterners which not eating a cracker just doesn't possess. So, the Danish cartoon situation is different, and generally a more difficult situation for a Westerner educated about our history being The World's Biggest Jerks (tm) to deal with.
Having said that, though, the main point, that Danish cartoonists have a right to make fun of anyone, and that the same idea lies behind what you and I can do with crackers is correct, even if it misses the point and is a blatant attempt to change the subject from an argument you know you can't win :p.
Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 10:47 AM
Hypathia: They'd do what they always do; loudly declare their readiness to die in the name of Christ and beg their persecutors to kill them. See "Lives of the Saints".
Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 10:53 AM
Julian:
You wrote: Do you knuckleheads really want to leap so joyously overboard in the hope of denying that right-of-mockery to atheists?
You did note, I hope, that I said that what PZ is doing is not illegal, nor should it be. I questioned the propriety of what he's doing, not its legality.
You wrote: You know, we've always been here, and we've been your political leaders, artists, writers, lawyers, judges, and some of your better priests and monks for centuries; why don't you Christians just get over it already and accept that you can't muzzle and cow us into denying what we really think anymore.
If the "we" above means atheists, sorry to tell you I'm one of them. Your assumption that I must be a Christian because I critized PZ's gleeful plan to offend Catholics just for the joy of offending them is flat wrong.
I think Pineyland got this one right when he wrote:
Overreaction on the congregation. Period. Overreaction on the part of Donohue. Period. Overreaction on the part of PZ. Period.
Posted by: flatlander100 | July 12, 2008 10:56 AM
I am having several tee shirts with the words: "It's a F***ING cracker!" (litterally) on them for World Youth Day* let them try and fine free speech. -DJ
*World Youth Day is a Catholic celbration of youth - no Muslims /Jews /Hindus /Shintoists /Budistits etc. allowed. What part of 'wrold youth' do they not get?. And it lasts A WEEK. Catholics aren't good at counting either apperently. And, is it just me or does Ratzi's inaction on pedophiles make this just a leettle creeepy?
Posted by: DingoJack | July 12, 2008 10:57 AM
Oops; it just occurred to me that the kid's name was Webster Cook, not something Webster. I'm a doof. I suppose that should be "Mr. Cook" up there at the first post then.
Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 10:58 AM
Julian,
No mas! I get it, oppression of the masses, etc. etc. I saw Monty Python's Holy Grail. I recall the peasant's manifesto. But thanks for your rendition.
Posted by: heddle | July 12, 2008 10:58 AM
In the course of his Crusade, Bill Donohue has committed blasphemy, violated the first commandment, and demonstrated a lack of faith in God and Jesus so profound that it's nearly as certain as my own. I don't have a problem with any of that, but one would think that other Catholics or the Vatican would be calling him on it.
Bill Donohue is a Golden Calf for the 21st Century. We really should commend him on his great success in demonstrating the shallow and uncertain nature of the fanatically religious mindset. He's accomplished more in this regard than PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Ed Brayton and Daniel Dennett combined.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 12, 2008 11:01 AM
Hmm lets see.
Is not eating a cracker that was given to you a crime?
Is threatening and physically assaulting someone a crime?
Is saying you are going to eat a cracker a crime?
Is threatening physical harm, incouraging others to harass and threaten physical harm, a crime?
Is threatening and harassing someone's boss, in order that they get fired because they said something you didn't like, a crime?
Ok Pineyman, you want to rethink, who overreacted? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 12, 2008 11:10 AM
Elf Eye -
If your question wasn't purely rhetorical...don't know. Been out of college for 30+ years.
And my point was regarding both PZ and Bill D:
Bill D: Yer sacriliggin my stuff...
PZ: Grow up you ignorant rube and join reality. Oh, and here's a start on the journey...
Flatlander covered it pretty much as I would as far as PZ's reaction. Take a step back, take 10 deep breaths and then explain why its overreating, not 'I'll see your rightous indignantion and raise you a sacrilege...'
1...inhale...exhale...2...inhale...
Posted by: Pineyman | July 12, 2008 11:10 AM
Dang!
Should've been "overreacting" not "overreating" Freud's slip is showing...
Posted by: Pineyman | July 12, 2008 11:13 AM
Second, there's no such thing as "sacrilege" if you don't buy into the superstition in the first place. That's the whole point. Nobody should be expected to take someone else's superstition seriously, particularly in a culture with enough educational resources that people should know better than to believe in witchcraft in the first place.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 12, 2008 11:16 AM
Posted by: chelydra | July 12, 2008 11:17 AM
Two comments from flatlander:
...
I critized PZ's gleeful plan to offend Catholics just for the joy of offending them is flat wrong.
What? It appears you haven't been paying attention to what set this whole thing off.
Did you just not notice that he sought to offend Catholics because of how they treated that student in Florida? I mean, did that motive just completely blow by you? Is it incomprehensible to you that he might have had a purpose other than someone's personal feelings?
I don't see how anyone could miss the fact that it was the treatment of the student that set this bullshit off to begin with, unless they wanted to miss it. I mean, shit, the whole "cracker desecrating" quote that has everyone's panties in a bunch is embedded in a long article discussing how outrageous the incident was. How could you miss that?
Posted by: Wes | July 12, 2008 11:23 AM
I have to agree with flatlander100. I don't think the kid should face legal consequences. And the people who overreacted are hilarious as always. But that doesn't make that kid any less of a douchebag. The logic is simple.
*Even if these crackers mean nothing to you, they were important to the Catholics in the church.
*Most Catholics are good people who don't deserve to be insulted.
*This kid went out of his way to offend people who seriously didn't deserve it.
*Therefore, the kid is a douchebag.
Here's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna go to the next atheist meeting and scream at the top of my lungs, "Atheists suck!" Then if anybody gets offended, I'll write a blog post titled, "It's fucking soundwaves, people." Then I'll go to the NAACP and wear a white hood. Blog post, "It's a fucking hood, people." Then I'll go to your house wearing the corpse of a dead relative. "It's a fucking sack of meat, people."
So this student and PZ Myers have every right to do what they're doing. That doesn't change the fact that they lack the basic level of decency that is expected of human beings.
Posted by: Brandon | July 12, 2008 11:23 AM
Oops.
I fucked up my blockquotes on that last post. The block quotes should continue past the ellipsis, and my comment begins with "What?"
Posted by: Wes | July 12, 2008 11:25 AM
Mike -
I think we are in somewhat violent agreement, as we discussed on your blog. I don't expect anyone to hold to the sacrilege if they are not of the same belief. Agreement?
Where I disagree with you is the next statement. While you may consider it idiotic and superstitious, that's fine. My opinion, totally my own and written here for the purpose of expressing myself and not to proselytize, is to respect the beliefs of others as long as they do not harm or try to convert me.
And I do not respect either side for what they are doing.
Posted by: Pineyman | July 12, 2008 11:32 AM
And Pineyman, these people physically assaulted someone for taking their magical cracker. Then they threatened and harassed him. Then they assaulted him again. That's what their belief engenders. Respect is somethig to be earned; such behavior should make them subject to the ridicule of their beliefs in the first place.
It should also be pointed out, once again, that nobody actually DID anything here, other than the people who actually assaulted the student in the initial incident. You want to be entitled to your opinion? Fine, you are.
So is PZ Myers. Did any of his statements advocate proselytizing to or doing harm to others? If not, then you are inconsistent in your assertion that the beliefs of others should be respected when this is the case.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 12, 2008 11:40 AM
It's a fucking cracker to PZ. It's not to believing Catholics [of which I am not one].
But that's the rub of the matter - it is most certainly a cracker and not a human body. It lacks all of the major organs, not to mention DNA. You may humor a child with their fantasies, but adults deserve no such patience.
Posted by: jeffk | July 12, 2008 11:40 AM
PZ has never been the most diplomatic of disputants and his hyperbolic comments about communion wafers have been taken entirely too seriously. Elf Eye's reference to Jonathan Swift is right on the money. (Though, frankly, I've never been able to take Swift's arguments seriously after he proposed that the Irish eat their babies!) PZ would have been better off to have taken it down a notch, but the true overreaction has been on the part of ostensible Christians.
More commentary here, complete with my helpful, loving, and constructive recommendations for all those religiously deranged people out there.
Posted by: Zeno | July 12, 2008 11:42 AM
@heddle
It IS fundamentally different. One ridicules someone for who they physically are (something they can't change), the other ridicules a belief (something they can change and must justify). If the second is bigotry, then we may as well throw any possibility of discourse, rational or otherwise, out the door. Beliefs are always fair game.
Posted by: Jeff Schmidt | July 12, 2008 11:43 AM
I was raised in a Catholic home until my parents divorced in 1963, and my mother flat out said "I don't believe in God". I later attended a Catholic Church as an adult, at the request of my alcoholic girlfriend. I spent months talking to this incredibly boring priest, and taking classes and went through the confirmation process. It never once occurred to me that the cracker was supposed to be literally Jesus. I thought it was all symbolic bullshit. And trust me on this, I asked a lot of questions, 90% of which were never satisfactorily answered. I attended Catholic Churches, took communion and never once thought it was Jesus. It tasted like a fucking cracker! Anyhow, I'll be happy to get PZ or anyone else that wants one, a fucking cracker. I'll kidnap and hold the son, who also happens to be the father, AND the creator of the fucking universe, hostage. I'll let the pope know that he can have Christ back for a cool $1,000,000. They've got the money. If they don't pay, Jesus goes in the Campbell's Tomato Soup with some Premium Saltines.
Posted by: soboco | July 12, 2008 11:45 AM
Two things:
1. It does seem to me that catholics who feel threatened in their believe because someone takes a wafer out of mass (which happened regular, at least in the past), are very weak in that believe. If objects become so crucial that it threatens your religion, the objects have become the religion, and it is not longer in yourself.
2. What PZ does is brilliant. First of all, he takes away the heat from this poor boy who did not think about the consequences. PZ does think about those, and he is upping the stakes so that everybody is going after him and not the guy in question. And I think one reason he does it to show how fragile the believe of people is as I indicated under 1. As PZ is tenured, they cannot just find a feeble excuse to fire him or something, and if they would succeed, he will smack them down in court hard.
Quite frankly, if just taking some wafers out of mass is having such an effect, I see a very effective way to destroy a whole religion if that where my purpose (it is not), and that is to systematically go in, secretly remove wafers, and desecrate them in public. What a marvellous weapon did the catholics deliver those that truly hate the church. Good job guys, you just showed your weakest point (after condoning the rape of young boys over and over again)
Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2008 11:50 AM
Jeff Schmidt,
I don't see your distinction, but I don't care to argue about it. But I would comment that this is not about ridiculing belief, but ridiculing belief appropriately, tactically, and strategically. I don't think PZ's theatrical destruction of a Eucharist, should he carry through with it, is illegal. I think it is mean-spirited, childish, and uncivilized.
I think the Mormon faith is ludicrous. When the LDS evangelists come to my house, I invite them in, offer them a bottle of water, and have a discussion about why I think their faith is ludicrous. I don't take out a Book of Mormon, put it on the ground and piss on it just because I can, just because it's free speech.
Posted by: heddle | July 12, 2008 11:54 AM
Andrew Sullivan had a post chastizing PZ for boorish behavior in this matter. I more or less agreed with it, until I read these dissents:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/dissent-of-the.html
Now I see that I too am much more inclined to give religions which I grew up around a break from ridicule. Probably I'm not respecting the religion as such, but the good people I know who happen to espouse it - whereas I don't know the good people (I'm sure there are some) who espouse other religions.
I blame evolution, for making us territorial.
Posted by: JimV | July 12, 2008 11:55 AM
Someone infiltrates an organization under false pretenses, takes part in a ceremony with a set of rules (and I would imagine an implied consent to conform), then lies about his role by stealing an artifact of the ceremony for the purposes of ridiculing the organization for their beliefs and/or practices. Sounds like a jerk-maybe a thief. To ingore him would have been the best option, though, I think.
Posted by: Phil | July 12, 2008 12:00 PM
Some of the comments here have chastised PZ for his insensitivity to the beliefs of others...Catholics in this case. I might be inclined to accept that chastisement if it were not for the fact that this religion is one that denigrates homosexuals and strives to deny them full civil rights or even a place at their cracker table unless they deny their true selves. Such a religion deserves none of my respect for anything they do. Tolerance begets tolerance, its a two way street. Catholics, among other religions, do not keep their superstitious beliefs to themselves quietly in their churches. They use them to bludgeon others over the head if they do not fall under their rules for living.
Posted by: Cyril | July 12, 2008 12:05 PM
If I believe I own the Broojlyn Bridge, and I want to stop all traffic using it so I can built a house on the bridge, the courts would ask me to produce documents proving the sale and of ownership. It is irrelevant to the courts how deeply and sincerely I believe in my ownership of the bridge, the court needs facts.
Similarly no matter how sincerely and deeply Catholics believe this wafer to be the body of Christ, no actual crime was commited in not eating the wafer but removing from the church. Not even theft since the wafer was voluntarily given to him. However if threats and violence toward the kid who didn't eat the wafer CAN be proven, then a crime HAS occured, and can be prosecuted.
Donahue's basis for claiming "kidnapping" would require the church to prove the wafer IS the living body of Christ. How would they do this? Also how would they prove that the wafer was, in fact, even consecrated?
PZ Myer asking someone to send wafers to him so he can desecrate them, also, is not a crime. "Descrating" a wafer is not illegal, and even if it were, no crime has actually ocurred, since this is a future act.
Inciting others to send hate mail isn't illegal, unless words were used that carried an imminant, specificlly targeted, explict threat. But I don't think Donahue would be quite that stupid. However those threats that were sent to both Myers, and his boss might be libable for action.
All up it is the Catholics who seemed to acted illegally here not the young man or PZ Myers. -DJ
PS Since, if taken litterally the Euchrist is a form vampirism and cannibalism (laying aside the disturbing oral sex angle), if this cermony was held in a public park could it be reguard as 'offensive behaviour'?
Posted by: DIngoJack | July 12, 2008 12:05 PM
One of these days I expect to see Bill Donohue just explode from an overdose of highly exaggerated outrage on national television. I just hope it happens when I'm watching.
Man, it would be on Youtube forever! I for one would burn it on DVD to loop over and over endlessly :-).
Posted by: Brian | July 12, 2008 12:10 PM
Eating cows is offensive to a billion Hindus, yet few people argue that we should not do it on the grounds that it violates a central tenet of a major religion. Respect for other people's religious delusions is not something that one can rationally argue is deserved. And speaking as a former Catholic, do you really think that student is the only recipient who ever left the Mass with the wafer unswallowed? The whole notion of transubstantiation is so creepy and ghoulish that, for many Catholics, it is not a subject for deep consideration.
Posted by: drb | July 12, 2008 12:10 PM
Mike -
I surrender!!! I AGREE with you that the church overreacted in doing what they did! YES, really truly I do! The nun who "tackled" him could've just as well took him to the side and explained why this was wrong. Case closed, no shitstorm. I get the impression that the kid was scared spitless and just wanted to do a "take over". Fine. Let him.
I was raised Catholic and have seen and gone through things similar to WC's...not as extreme, but similar. Does that cause me to hate the Church? No. To me, hatred is a waste of energy. But I did leave. What it did is cause me to really look at the humans who ran it. Pretty much into the ground. And starting at the local, parish level all the way up to the Pope. As I have said, I am agnostic. The politics are disgusting. The treatment of people is disgusting. But I have respect for the people who can get past that and accept the idea of love and respect of other human beings no matter what the background. And keep the religiousness to themselves.
And no PZ did not advocate violence. But he did know what he was doing in riling up Catholics. My position is, if he wanted to defend the kid, he could've done it more diplomatically.
Gotta sign off for a few hours. I have a different ceremony to go to with my wife. A 50th Birthday party. Hopefully there won't be a ruckus over the cake... Looking forward to all the responses when I get back....
Posted by: Pineyman | July 12, 2008 12:14 PM
To add to my comment: I also don't think that they even truly believe it anyways. Believers' actions always show they're much more interested with the attention they get in the real world than what they think about the afterlife. In the modern world, even the most daft idiot has to really kid themselves into believing in all the Catholic tripe; I suspect most of them, whether they're aware of it or not, are just along for the ride, and enjoy being victims.
Jeff:
Exactly, and I think it's also worth pointing out that a person's (for example) skin color only tells you statistical things about them. You still don't really know anything about them until you get to know them. But just knowing someone's a Christian, I know a lot about them: specifically either that they're a sucker or that they don't pause to carefully examine what they espouse to believe.
Posted by: jeffk | July 12, 2008 12:19 PM
I agree, it's a slippery slope. How do we go about picking and choosing which beliefs and practices are to be respected when they're contradicted by another religion? Islam certainly doesn't believe that communion wafers become the flesh of Christ. Is it okay to disrespect Islam by respecting Catholicism? Is eating a hamburger a hate crime against Hinduism? Should we all become vegetarians so we don't offend the Buddhists? Aren't Protestants being disrespectful to Catholics? Isn't atheism automatically disrespectful to all religions by not sharing any of their beliefs? If we can't privilege every single religious practice, then why are we expected to do so with this one?
Posted by: Chayanov | July 12, 2008 12:21 PM
I loved the talk about denying communion to politicians that support abortion rights. I imagine intelligent, educated men like John Kerry know that crackers aren't really Jesus, although I may be wrong. When I read that originally, all I could think about was some old doddering priest, who in his younger days slipped his dick in the mouth or hand of some 11 year old boy, denying John Kerry a cracker and a sip of wine. What bullshit.
Posted by: soboco | July 12, 2008 12:32 PM
I do think that PZ's offer to "desecrate" some eucharist is pointless and goes a bit far. I think the point was made merely by pointing out that it's just a damn cracker and making fun of those who are overreacting on the other side. But the overreaction to PZ threatening to harm a cracker is just as silly as the overreaction to Webster taking one out of the church. I think it's a perfectly reasonable reaction to say that PZ is engaging in needless provocation; I don't think it's a reasonable reaction to want him fired or to consider him a threat to anyone. This post is aimed at the latter, not the former.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 12, 2008 12:32 PM
Phil wrote "Someone infiltrates an organization under false pretenses, takes part in a ceremony with a set of rules (and I would imagine an implied consent to conform), then lies about his role by stealing an artifact of the ceremony for the purposes of ridiculing the organization for their beliefs and/or practices. Sounds like a jerk-maybe a thief."
Did he sign a end-user license agreement? He certainly didn't steal it, as it was given freely. His 'crime' was taking it back to the pew in his hand rather than in his stomach. After he was assaulted, he decided to take it out of the church and keep it in a bag (and he later returned it in-tact). The other worshippers masticated it, dissolved it with stomach acids, incorporated it with shit, and flushed it down the toilet. So tell me, who treated that little bit of 'Jesus' with more respect?
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 12:40 PM
Why must they justify their beliefs?
To whom must they justify? Can't remember you being elected judge & jury.
If you happen to be a materialist or believe material reality is an illusion go for it.
Only if you try and convert me to your beliefs do I have a case for requiring any justification on your part.
You have the other obvious problem of course, I may not consider your evidence valid and may simply class it as delusional idiocy.
So it is OK to insult someones beliefs at any time you feel like? Strange, why would you want to cause emotional hurt to someone not impeding you exercising your beliefs (they might stop you acting on your beliefs via democratic means such as civil/criminal laws but that is another matter)?
Posted by: Chris' Wills | July 12, 2008 12:43 PM
Julian,
If you think that the Danes have a history of tyrannizing and murdering the peoples of the middle east then I think it is you who need a history lesson. And what racist stereotypes do the Danish cartoons embody? Are you one of those people who can't tell an ideology (Islam) from a race?
Posted by: Bill Poser | July 12, 2008 12:54 PM
{begin clip}
Cook claims he planned to consume it, but first wanted to show it to a fellow student senator he brought to Mass who was curious about the Catholic faith.
"When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him," Cook said. "I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they'd leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth."
{clipped from a news site linked at PZ, closed the link before citing, apologies}
Further, he was physically accosted at his seat. He is a catholic, he filed a complaint afterwards, returned the wafer. This wasn't a stunt, and he did not appear to "infiltrate and organization under false pretenses."
The hyperbole surrounding the event, mostly from profesional offendees painted this as some sort of Jackass© event, which does not appear to be true.
Posted by: rpsms | July 12, 2008 12:58 PM
"If you think that the Danes have a history of tyrannizing and murdering the peoples of the middle east then I think it is you who need a history lesson. And what racist stereotypes do the Danish cartoons embody? Are you one of those people who can't tell an ideology (Islam) from a race?"
One can only assume Julian thinks Greenland is to be found somewhere in the Middle East.
Posted by: John Doe | July 12, 2008 1:05 PM
Don't you end up taking the fucking cracker with you either way?What about this body of jebus fucking cracker thingy coming out the other end?How come it's just poop now.Why don't some pointy hat bullshit holy man give it a proper send off.Clearly mere stomach acid can't break down the body of jebus!I say fuck-em.Good job P.Z.and to anybody offended fuck you too!The priest fucking little boys offended me.The cover-up offended me.It's a fucking cracker!
Posted by: ed | July 12, 2008 1:08 PM
It should also be noted that not all communion ceremonies require the wafer to be ingested immediately. It is sometimes allowed to be taken back to the pew to be prayed over. And the concept of transubstantiation didn't even exist for the first millennium of the Church's existence. It was a medieval invention.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 1:33 PM
(I posted this at Wilkins' blog as well)
I've been following this in the various Sciblogs, and one thing I don't see recognized enough is what I feel the primary point PZ was trying to make...
Believing that a wafer magically turns into the physical body of a guy who died 2,000 years ago is absurd and goofy to a very high degree
Oftentimes, once such absurdities become ingrained in a society long enough, they are blindly accepted without much thought, and a bit of "blasphemy" serves as a collective wake-up call that exposes the insanity for what it truly is.
Look at the Sciblogs treatment of the creation museum in Kentucky. We all looked at it and rightly pointed out just how stupid, ridiculous, and insane it is to believe that people rode around on dinosaurs like the Flintstones. Some laughed, others shook their head in disbelief, and others still were rather outraged. Why? Because the whole thing is blatently stupid.
So maybe someone needs to explain why it's ok to be rude, disrespectful, and nasty towards fundamentalist Christianity's creation museum, but it's in bad taste to be the same towards Catholicism's belief that not only does a cracker turn into flesh, but that once it does, you're supposed to eat it?
I'm sorry, but I put this whole "transubstantiation" thing on the same level as flat-earth geocentrism, young-earth creationism, and faith-healing. They're all pathetically ridiculous beliefs that can quite easily be demonstrated to be wrong, and thus not only deserve ridicule and disrespect, their very nature demands it.
Was PZ rude? Yep...but no more rude than many here have been to various forms of creationism.
Posted by: Jason F. | July 12, 2008 1:40 PM
Assuming the student in question is a Catholic, why not just excommunicate him? Has it seriously not occurred to the pitchfork-toting mob to simply call for a religious punishment for Mr. Cook's religious "crime" of wafer-napping, rather than going off the deep end with attempts to have him expelled or charged with hate crimes?
Posted by: Martian Buddy | July 12, 2008 1:44 PM
"Some Catholics are mean, therefore they're all poopy heads and I don't have to be nice to any of them." You are just fucking brilliant, Cyril.
There is a distinction between eating a hamburger and waving a cow's head in front of a Hindu's face going "Na na na na na na I'm eating your sacred cow." The latter is what PZ Myers just did to Catholics. It isn't hard to extend that courtesy to all decent people, and doing so is vital to a pluralistic society. Heck, there are Muslims who think it's offensive for a women to show her body in public. Doesn't mean you should start hiring strippers to give surprise lap dances to everybody who's wearing a turban.
Posted by: Brandon | July 12, 2008 1:51 PM
I think you are overlooking a key element of the reaction -- the psychological significance of symbols. A flag is just a piece of cloth. But you know what will happen if you burn an American flag in public, or use it to patch the rear end of your jeans, etc. etc. Is the flag America itself? Of course not, it is just a piece of colored cloth, etc.
The wafer has no significance to me. But I am not so blind as to miss its symbolic significance to devout Catholics. I don't share their beliefs, but I'm not surprised at the reaction. Are you?
Is there any object in your life that has great symbolic significance to you, but that would have no meaning to a stranger?
Posted by: Dave | July 12, 2008 1:53 PM
It turns how you can get 250 authentic eucharist wafers for $5.47 online... with a little more diligent shopping I'm sure I could get a better deal. For 39.95 you can get a 210 set of prefilled cup with a eucharist chaser... the only crime here is one against 'creation' --- how very very wasteful.
So to anyone curious or artistically inclined, there is a ready supply of holiness - without the hassle of a congregation of hysterics chasing you out the door.
Perhaps the easy access to the commonditized cannibal snack should be a more serious concern for the seriously concerned. I mean ANYONE and I mean ANYONE can buy 500 of them for a mere 85.00 and go to town on a binge and purge session and no one would be the wiser... Therefor I suggest a RFID tracking system for all containers of wafers traded globally, so the scourge of cracker kidnapping can be avoided.
I side with those that say more serious crimes than 'disrespect' have and are being committed by those attacking the young man physically and the career of PZ Meyers.
Idolatry for those interested in religious breech would be the thing that any concerned Priest should be chastizing his gullible flock for...
the wafer in question = a golden calf
Those concerned about 'respect for Christ'...need to go check out this TERRIBLE animated avatar explaining the benefit of the easy open Eucharist kit...
http://www.kingdom.com/category.aspx?categoryID=430&adcode=Google&gclid=CLXi29rzupQCFQOjFQodWnPeSw
Posted by: Cityzenjane | July 12, 2008 1:57 PM
DarkSyde at DailyKos wrote about this cracker kerfluffle Friday, July 11 and has received 657 comments so far.
"PZ Myers is in holy hot water."
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | July 12, 2008 2:00 PM
If the priest can consecrate the wafer [magic], why can't he deconsecrate it? What do they do with the leftovers? Do they keep them in a consecrated pile for the mass next week, or do they get rid of them. If the latter, then the priest could just say the magical words and deconsecrate the wafer in Cook's possession. Nya, nya, nya. End of story. But no, we have to make a huge fuss about the matter, give Cook more than his 15 minutes of fame, give PZ a chance to show how silly this is, and show how religious wars can start.
Posted by: natural cynic | July 12, 2008 2:01 PM
Dave said:
In a word, yes.
There is no symbol whose desecration would provoke me to physically attack someone and advocate their arrest, no. You could burn a picture of my grandmother, tear up a copy of the Bill of Rights, defecate on a copy of my birth certificate or high school yearbook....nope, can't think of a one that would elicit more than a bemused look on my face and probably laughter.
I actually don't think that PZ is overreacting by offering to desecrate as many communion wafers as he can get his hands on. He's trying to send a message, and it's a very important one: no one gets to decide that their symbols are so precious that they are justified in attacking people who disrespect them. That is the essence of free speech. The moment somebody gets confused about this, one of us should probably spit on their particular symbol of choice out of sheer principle, even if we have nothing against it. Each time some moron proposes an amendment to the Constitution banning flag burning, I immediately want to burn a flag. It's dangerous when symbols get confused for people, and when this line gets blurred it is imperative for people who care about free speech at all to make sure that it is clarified.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 12, 2008 2:06 PM
I don't think PZ had any real intention to "desecrate" a communion wafer. As far as I can tell, his offer to do so was meant to draw attention to the overreaction on the part of a few very loud Catholics. And he was perfectly right to do so.
@heddle: I don't think I've ever agreed with anything you say on this blog, but in this case, you are right. The fury over the Danish cartoons was exactly parallel to the fury over the "stolen" wafer.
Posted by: Gregory Earl | July 12, 2008 2:06 PM
Cityzenjane, you can even buy them in grocery stores. I was wondering, if you got a consecrated wafer from a Catholic friend who decided that he didn't want to eat what he had been given, and you puréed it up with 180 lbs of shop-bought wafers, and then made it into a statue of Jesus, would it then BE Jesus?
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 2:07 PM
We allow people to wave around big signs with pictures of dead and dismembered fetuses on them, you know. It's protected speech, even.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | July 12, 2008 2:10 PM
Natural Cynic asked "If the priest can consecrate the wafer [magic], why can't he deconsecrate it?"
Even more effective would be to pretend that the doorway of the church had magical properties which would de-consecrate any magical cracker that passed through it. I mean, why not? It's all make believe.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 2:12 PM
Brandon wrote "There is a distinction between eating a hamburger and waving a cow's head in front of a Hindu's face going 'Na na na na na na I'm eating your sacred cow.'"
According to Vedic scripture cows are to be treated with the same respect 'as one's mother'. Don't you think that the thousands of burger joints in the U.S. are basically waving cows heads in front of the Hindu population's collective face? What about all the adverts for burgers (and other beef products) on TV? Are you going to advocate their banning? No, because you don't actually think that all religions should be respected, do you. Hypocrite.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 2:21 PM
Apparently you can get them in 'whole wheat' -- which begs the question what of our gluten intolerant Catholic friends... Is it possible that Christ causes terrible IBS pain, without of course, intending to? The Cavanaugh brand is made "strictly without additives" and is packaged in a very high end well designed box, the wafer itself - never touched by human hands before being wrapped in plastic (which may or may not contain biphenol-a.)
The more economical eucharistic suppliers ship in little plastic tubs, with very little marketing efforts going into the container design... From a designer's perspective I would suggest that 'going on the cheap' for your flock shows real disrespect when the G*diva of wafers is available online right next to the crappy Micky D's version...and your priest chooses the cheap-o wafer. Where is the love?
Also - you can get them in a nice glass bottle, a plastic bag or box. The bag and box might be the best choice, for the planet...but it begs the question..can the temporary home of the host be properly recycled? If it can and it is not, is the priest then subject to the same kind of approbation as PZ Meyers when he blithely tosses such a holy conveyance to the garbage?
Also I am shocked to find the old bait and switch with regard to the 'blood of Christ' - fermented wine can apparently be switched out for grape juice (also available in handy once off disposables.) The mind reels. Was this just a cost cutting measure on the part of penny-wise pontiffs or a conciliatory gesture to salvaged sinners on the wagon?
Also for a mere 40.00 from "Aquinas and More" you can get a handy freeze-dried package of holy grape juice 'granules' for those moments when popping an actual cork is just too darned inconvenient!
Has the Vatican sanctified whatever facility is freeze drying the 'blood of Christ' for convenient packaging and shipping?
The host is also available in 'extra thick'...and I will just leave THAT ONE just as I found it.
Posted by: CityzenJane | July 12, 2008 2:25 PM
Sorry belief DOES NOT construct reality. If I really, really shut my eyes tight and believe I am the King of Ireland... it don't make it so.
The beliefs of these idiots is totally irrelavent. The law of the land prevails in privite houses too. If I believe that beating the shit out of my wife is my god-given right in my own house, it is still domestic violence. If I believe I should be able to have sex with 8 year olds, it is still statutory rape. If I believe killing and eating teenage girls strenghtens my supernatual powers, it's still murder & cannibalism. But not eating a waver that is given, freely, to me, IS NOT A CRIME. Since it was given to me without condition (there are no signs up saying I MUST eat it immeadiately, or even on the premises) what I do with it is no-one's business but mine.
Would a reasonable person expect such a condition to be applied? Since (here) about 28% are Catholics then at least 72% of the population would NOT expect such a restriction. Thus it is unlikey a reasonable person would KNOW that such a condition appied. HOWEVER assault IS illegal, and even nuns and preist know that such behaviour is against the law.
Was PZ Myer provocative? Yes, Is it illegal to say other's beliefs are moronic? No. Therefore the Catholic Church has not a legal leg to stand on, no matter how "hurt" they feel.
Again if this ritual is performed in a public space, such as a park (as opposed to a space open to the public, like a church), bearing in mind the litteral meaning of the ceremony, could it be considered to be 'offensive behaviour'? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 12, 2008 2:33 PM
DingoJack said:
My boyfriend suggested to me that it might be, if the guy took the wafer under fraudulent circumstances (i.e., acted as if he would eat it according to the communion ceremony, but then did not). I would love to see somebody try to make this case in court.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 12, 2008 2:42 PM
One thing I've taken away from all this is a firm conviction that I have no duty to respect the beliefs of others. I have to respect their right to have those beliefs, but the beliefs themselves? How can I think something's absurd and respect it at the same time?
Posted by: Taz | July 12, 2008 2:43 PM
Don't worry, I know the difference between dickish and illegal. If I say something is wrong, that doesn't mean I think it should be banned.
Not really. If a Hindu is offended, he can always choose not to watch TV and avoid those burger joints. Having a burger commercial on TV is not the same thing as wheeling a TV into a Hindu temple, during services, and playing that commercial.