Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Let me gladly join PZ in encouraging people to write to the University of Central Florida in support of Webster Cook, the student who committed the horrible crime of not eating his communion wafer. For that great crime, 33 of 35 fellow student senators present voted to impeach Cook, who still faces possible charges by the university and even possibly expulsion from UCF. Why is UCF involved in a dispute over religious rules at all? Good question. Good luck getting a good answer.
But this gets much worse. Now a Catholic student group is going after Benjamin Collard, a friend of Cook's who was with him at the church service but didn't do anything at all.
"I tried to look at my class schedule," Collard said. "There was a hold placed on my account that I couldn't sign up for classes. I went to the office of Student conduct to see what was going on and they told me Catholic Campus Ministries filed charges against me."Collard learned that he has been charged with misconduct, disruptive conduct and giving false identification, the exact same charges as Webster.
Collard has been silent since the episode but when he learned of the charges, he decided he'd be silent no longer.
He said during the incident he sat silently while everything else around him was happening.
"I didn't talk to anybody, didn't say anything," he said. "While the situation, disruption happened, I was sitting in my seat looking forward, I did nothing."
"I never spoke to a university official, I never lied about who I was," Collard added. "I never engaged in any disruptive conduct. I just think this is absolutely disgusting that they're going after me."
Now Collard has been swept up in the middle of the controversy with Cook and both students fighting for their future at the university.
"Just being associated with this can affect my future," Collard said. "I had nothing to do with this."
Both students face expulsion, suspension or probation. A hearing is scheduled for next week.
We need to support both of these students against the witch burners. I urge you all to write to the UCF president. What should you say? You can start with informing the school that what took place at a religious ceremony, unless an actual crime was committed, is absolutely none of the school's business. The school has no authority to enforce a religion's rules against "desecration."
Politics
Comments
But, but Ed, it was a HATE CRIME goddamit!
Posted by: Matthew | July 28, 2008 9:33 AM
If nothing else, Webster Cook will probably have a book or movie deal lined up after all this is over.
Posted by: Brandon | July 28, 2008 9:35 AM
Ummmmm... isn't UCF a state-run school? They shouldn't even be allowed to make any kind of religious decisions like this. Impeach? WTF?
Posted by: Brett McCoy | July 28, 2008 9:43 AM
every student organization that holds an event on UCFs' campus has to sign a form
which states:
In the same words, 'the organization is responsible for the conduct of all members, guests, visitors, etc. during the course of the event.', and it's not UCFs' responsibility to act.
Posted by: heinrich | July 28, 2008 9:56 AM
I think this university is about to get into a lot of legal trouble if all this is true.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 28, 2008 10:00 AM
"If nothing else, Webster Cook will probably have a book or movie deal lined up after all this is over."
My suggestion for a title would be "Cracker Jacks."
Posted by: Kevin L. | July 28, 2008 10:00 AM
Posted by: Skwee | July 28, 2008 10:14 AM
"I think this university is about to get into a lot of legal trouble if all this is true."
True, he should sue soon, sue often, and sue hard, while attending a far more professional and secular university.
He may have to leave the country for that, though, or at least the state...
Posted by: Jason Failes | July 28, 2008 10:15 AM
They probably hope that Webster Cook will now denounce his friend as evil, Christians love that kind of thing.
Posted by: RAM | July 28, 2008 10:16 AM
What is wrong with these people?!
Other than the 'student senators', I wonder how other students on that campus are reacting to this business? I haven't seen anything relating to that.
I find the response of the university to this event baffling, as it seems not to be a specifically religious institution, but both students and and university are acting as if it is.
Posted by: Bee | July 28, 2008 10:50 AM
This is the real "Wafergate", as far as I'm concerned. Collard and Cook should contact the ACLU pronto and start making threatening noises about lawsuits.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 28, 2008 11:09 AM
I looked up UCF on Wiki, and sure enough, it's a state school. They shouldn't be enforcing religious rules. Let the Catholics enforce their own rules. If I were Webster or Benjamin, I'd be calling a civil rights group and letting the school know I'm not afraid to sue if the separation of church and state is violated.
Posted by: Wes | July 28, 2008 11:11 AM
Who are the witch hunters here? Why do you show no skepticism when it comes to claims made about religious groups? You are a journalist, did you even think about attempting to do a little bit of fact checking?
You've jumped to the conclusion that these two guys are telling the truth, even though Cook's story has been changing and his story is rather hard to believe (I was just taking it to show a friend. yeah, what could the friend see up close that isn't visible from a distance?).
You denounce the complaint by the Catholic group while ignoring the completely absurd hazing and serving alcohol to minors complaints that Webster Cook filed. (The Catholic groups complaint was filed in response to Cook's complaint)
You intentionally mis-report that he was impeached for not eating the communion wafer. Appearently, the proceedings were initiated based on statements and actions made during the initial kerfufle. "But the impeachement is not based on Cook's taking the wafer. It's based on allegations that he represented himself as a student government official at the service."
Oh, and the only two senators that didn't vote for impeachment are Webster Cook and his friend from the mass. Doesn't that indicate there may be more to this story than what these two are saying?
Posted by: tonyl | July 28, 2008 11:29 AM
Yeah, it does. It indicates that most people at UCF are willing to be bullied by the likes of Bill Donohue. Big surprise.
I would like to see a better explanation of why Cook was impeached. Just for representing himself as a student government official doesn't make much sense—he is a student government official, if he weren't they wouldn't be able to impeach him.
And I read the UCF alcohol policy. There is no exception for religious services. Serving wine at communion without carding everybody was completely against school policy.
Also, what is this ridiculousness about not being able to see anything up close that you can't see from a distance? A communion wafer is small, I don't think you can see anything from most pews other than a priest sticking something in people's mouths.
PS—who are the "witch hunters" indeed? What witch hunt, exactly, is Ed engaging in in this post?
Posted by: nicole | July 28, 2008 11:47 AM
Certainly, Cook deserves support--but Collard? It looks to me that the "friend" was perfectly willing to stay quiet and leave Cook out to hang on his own. But now that he himself is caught up in the matter--NOW he speaks out on the injustice and unfairness? Well, I'm not generally keen on wasting sympathy for cowards, even if they're innocent cowards.
Posted by: gary l. day | July 28, 2008 11:57 AM
I sent:
Please restore some sanity to this affair. For treating freely distributed bread as freely distributed bread, no one should be expelled nor sanctioned. They shouldn't be impeached, either, but it's too late for that.
Posted by: benjdm | July 28, 2008 12:02 PM
"Yeah, it does. It indicates that most people at UCF are willing to be bullied by the likes of Bill Donohue. Big surprise."
Oh, good one, they don't agree with you so they must be wimps who are afraid of standing up to the pressure. All 33 of them.
"I would like to see a better explanation of why Cook was impeached. Just for representing himself as a student government official doesn't make much sense--he is a student government official, if he weren't they wouldn't be able to impeach him.
I would like more info too, but right now Cook is the only one talking to the press, so we aren't getting it. My suspicion would be that representing himself as an official means he was attempting to claim special rights and or privileges due to his position.
Also, what is this ridiculousness about not being able to see anything up close that you can't see from a distance? A communion wafer is small, I don't think you can see anything from most pews other than a priest sticking something in people's mouths.
There is nothing on the host that can't be seen from 30 rows back. It's a small disk that might have a cross impressed on it. Additionally, over time his story changed from holding the host hostage in protest of student fees going to a catholic student group to him holding it because he wanted an apology. His story just doesn't make much sense to me, and I find him hard to believe. Frankly, I would love to have some reliable information on this story, but I doubt we'll get any until all of the various complaints have wound their way through the process.
Posted by: tonyl | July 28, 2008 12:04 PM
"But the impeachement is not based on Cook's taking the wafer. It's based on allegations that he represented himself as a student government official at the service."
Oh, and the only two senators that didn't vote for impeachment are Webster Cook and his friend from the mass. Doesn't that indicate there may be more to this story than what these two are saying?
A little confused here. If Cook and Co. are Student Senators (whatever that may mean), aren't they student government officials? Doesn't A follow from B here? Also, that's still punishing them for something that allegedly happened at a non-school function. Ok, kick them off this governing board if you really feel it's needed, but to expell them from the University is more than a little extreme.
Posted by: kodiak | July 28, 2008 12:15 PM
gah, first *2* paragraphs should be italicized... grumble
Posted by: kodiak | July 28, 2008 12:19 PM
After I sent my little message (that this issue is between the Church and the students, but not a University matter) and clicked the "Send" button, instead of the expected "Thank you for your comments"-type message I was relayed to a page that was blank except for the words "No spamming".
Having given my email address, it's possible I'll receive a reply - but at present I have to wonder if my note has been disappeared by a filter activated by the string w-e-b-s-t-e-r- -c-o-o-k.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 28, 2008 12:21 PM
tonyl wrote:
I don't care if they're telling the truth about why he took the wafer because it simply doesn't matter. Even if he took it to do horribly evil things to it, so what? That is still not the university's business at all. It's a goddamn piece of pseudo-bread (it isn't even real bread, which would take effort for someone to bake, it's almost always mass produced little disks of a styrofoam-like texture to it). I went to a Catholic mass once and took communion and I spit it out because it was inedible. That isn't a crime either.
The serving alcohol to minors complaint is indeed silly, but the complaint for how the Catholic group has treated him is, if the press reports are anywhere near accurate, absolutely justified. And my argument is not against the complaint, it's against the fact that the University is taking it seriously and hasn't dismissed it (as they did the student's complaint). The university cannot constitutionally enforce religious rules, plain and simple. If they take any punitive actions against Cook they are headed for a big lawsuit they're going to lose - and should lose.
Which sounds a lot like a disingenuous excuse to me.
No, it indicates that the Student Senate enjoy flexing their muscle.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2008 12:27 PM
The university cannot constitutionally enforce religious rules, plain and simple.
Where do you get the idea that the university is attempting to enforce religious rules? Do you have a copy of the complaint? I suspect that the complaint is not about not consuming the wafer, but other behavior that happened during the incident.
If they take any punitive actions against Cook they are headed for a big lawsuit they're going to lose - and should lose.
So you're saying that if I go to a religious service and engage in conduct that would normally not be allowed by the university, I'm immune from punishment? Where's the logic in that?
Posted by: tonyl | July 28, 2008 12:34 PM
tonyl wrote:
Like what other behavior? All of the outrage over the incident has been over the act of not eating the wafer. No one, not even the Catholic group, has said anything in the press about any other behavior. No one has accused him of assaulting anyone; indeed, the only accusations of assault are by Cook against people in the congregation who apparently attacked him physically to get the cracker back. Your suspicions don't have any actual evidence behind them.
No, you're misstating my position. The only thing he has been accused of doing to this point is taking the wafer. That is a purely religious violation, not a civil one. If any punitive action is taken against him for that, they're screwed when he files a lawsuit. And they should be. If he violated some criminal law, then by all means provide the evidence for it; so far there isn't even an accusation of that, much less evidence for it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2008 12:41 PM
By all accounts, Cook and friend were the TARGETS of any action, not initiators. Do you have anything different?
And I hope you're not referring to any action regarding the wafer--because that IS an instance of the state enforcing a religious rule (and one that is peculiar to the local church, at that).
Posted by: gwangung | July 28, 2008 12:42 PM
One additional question, Why the complete lack of skepticism? If it "feels" true you don't need any more info? I'm a little troubled by your complete lack of desire to know why the impeachment proceedings were initiated. Why are you jumping on the religous persecution bandwaggon without even attempting to find out the most basic details of the story? You're acting like the kooks proclaiming that the teacher was being persecuted for having a bible on his desk! Or the guys that ran with the "APS changed it's stance on global warming!" story without bothering to check the APS website.
Posted by: tonyl | July 28, 2008 12:43 PM
The fact that Cook protected the wafer and gave it back intact should count in his favor heavily, shouldn't it? Yet Donohue and the others are acting as outraged as they were over PZ's wafer desecration.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 28, 2008 12:43 PM
Ed wrote:
Not to mention the most important point: COOK GAVE THE WAFER BACK. Intact and unharmed. Undesecrated, even! Even if Cook could have been charged with some sort of "theft" for taking the wafer, he returned the "stolen" property as good as new...and legally you couldn't even really call it "stolen" since it was freely given (this was established during PZ's debacle). He certainly couldn't be legally charged with kidnapping, fer Chrissakes.
Agreed.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 28, 2008 12:47 PM
Like what other behavior? All of the outrage over the incident has been over the act of not eating the wafer. No one, not even the Catholic group, has said anything in the press about any other behavior.
Emphasis mine. Why do you assume that the complaint mirrors the press report? Especially when the Catholic group has not said a word to the press.
The only thing he has been accused of doing to this point is taking the wafer.
No, that's the only thing he's been accused of in the press. We don't know what is in the impeachment complaint or Catholic group's complaint.
Like I said, we don't have any reliable information on this story. So why are you acting as if we do?
Posted by: tonyl | July 28, 2008 12:49 PM
By all accounts, Cook and friend were the TARGETS of any action, not initiators. Do you have anything different?
All acounts? You mean Cook's account. I can't find any reliable information from anyone else! (there are some anonymous "eye witness accounts" on some blogs, but I wouldn't consider that reliable information)
Posted by: tonyl | July 28, 2008 12:55 PM
tonyl, get a clue. The only one who doesn't understand the facts of the matter - as they are currently known - is you. Read Ed's last comment, or here I'll summarise it for you: Two kids went to mass, one kid didn't eat the cracker and tried to bring it back, as he was leaving some church official tried to make him give back the cracker (allegedly forcefully), but he took it out anyways. This isn't in dispute, not even by the church officials, apart from the specific of whether they forcefully tried to take the cracker.
Your only defense is basically "Well, all the facts are against me BUT, maybe the facts are wrong and what I'm imagining is actually true!!". Well, yes, what you're imagining could be true - maybe cook did something other then not eat a cracker, maybe he danced a bit or something, I don't know. But there is no reason to believe that your imagination has it right and all the news coming out, both from the students and the church up to this point are wrong.
Posted by: Coriolis | July 28, 2008 12:58 PM
I take that to mean, "I can't find any information that supports my viewpoint." And that may stem from the fact that other people, particularly the ones involved, aren't disputing what Cook said.
Dude. Stop for a moment. Think.
Posted by: gwangung | July 28, 2008 1:04 PM
One additional question, Why the complete lack of skepticism? If it "feels" true you don't need any more info? I'm a little troubled by your complete lack of desire to know why the impeachment proceedings were initiated.
And I'm a little impatient at your refusal to offer any alternative information. If we get one story, and you refuse to provide another, how can you accuse us of "complete lack of skepticism?"
Like I said, we don't have any reliable information on this story. So why are you acting as if we do?
Obviously YOU don't have reliable information; but the rest of us have -- at the very least -- more information than you do. Put up or shut up.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 28, 2008 1:10 PM
tonyl wrote:
I find it amusing that you accuse me of a lack of skepticism while inventing secret possible accusations of wrongdoing that might have been hidden from everyone. If you have any evidence, or even a credible accusation, that Cook did anything wrong at that church service other than not eat the cracker, feel free to offer it. Making up hypothetical accusations that no one has ever made in the hundreds of interviews and press reports on the subject is hardly a compelling argument.
Jesus, what universe do you live in? The Catholic group has been talking to the press constantly. Where do you think we got all those quotes about how he had "kidnapped the body of Christ" and all the aggrieved outrage at what he'd done to the cracker? No one has yet accused Cook in public of doing anything other than not eating the wafer. You can imagine all sorts of unspoken accusations if you want, but don't expect the rest of us to think your imaginings are evidence of anything or any reason to change our positions.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2008 1:14 PM
I take that to mean, "I can't find any information that supports my viewpoint." And that may stem from the fact that other people, particularly the ones involved, aren't disputing what Cook said.
Dude. Stop for a moment. Think.
Yes, if I don't agree with you, I must be the one that's biased!
I find it more likely that the lack of information stems from the fact that he's the only one taling to the press, with the other people involved not wanting to make a big deal out of an annoying incident. It's not like it was the Catholic group that drummed up the press about this story, causing the current circus.
Look, the impeachment complaint was filed by an eye-witenss and appearently contains additional eye witness accounts, but we don't know what it says. Do you really think it says the same thing as Cook's complaint?
I'm at least trying to get information. It's not like I'm running with the "eye witness" accounts that claim the two were disruptive throuought the mass and that Cook was doing an obnoxois keep away game with the woman who wanted the host back. Why not, becuase, unlike you, I'd like something more concrete than either an anonymous eye-witness or a the butt-covering of a self-aggrandizing student senator.
Posted by: tonyl | July 28, 2008 1:18 PM
Is it just me or does this conjure shades of Duke's lacrosse team? Acting on rumor, innuendo, and threats without considering the students' well-being or the truth of the conflict? The college/university has some kind of duty to consider the contractual rights of the student. The college/university lets itself open to all sorts of nasty lawsuits if it is not following its own stated policies. If the i's and t's are not properly dotted & crossed?
I assume that the University of Central Florida is a state institution. If it pursues actions that would seem to lend state support to religion and religious activities.
If I were either of these young men, I would be discretely looking for a competent legal counsel, preferably a firm with a fierce reputation. Nothing like bleeding money from stupid lawsuits to bring about a change of policy.
Posted by: Bob Kowalski | July 28, 2008 1:34 PM
It's not like it was the Catholic group that drummed up the press about this story, causing the current circus.
Actually, it WAS the Catholic group that caused the overwhelming majority of the "current circus," first by disrupting their own Mass freaking out about one guy not eating the wafer where he should have; then by accusing him of "hate crimes" and "kidnapping the body of Christ," etc. etc.; and now, apparently, by making a HUGE push to get someone expelled for not being polite enough toward their ceremonies.
Do you have ANY actual case to make here, tonyl? Or are you just going to keep on repeatedly accusing us of not having the full story, when -- by your own admission -- you don't even have one tenth of it?
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 28, 2008 1:43 PM
Jesus, what universe do you live in? The Catholic group has been talking to the press constantly.
Source please? Really, I haven't seen word one from the Catholic Campus Ministry.
The quotes about "kidnapped the body of Chtist" did not come from the campus Catholic group.
Ed, step back for a minute, stop being so reactionary, and look at what has actually been reported.
I'm not "inventing charges". Here are the few press reports about the allegations:
"The impeachment, however, isn't centered on what Cook did with the wafer. It centers on allegations that he abused his position as a student government official during a confrontation with Catholic Campus Ministry officials at the Mass they sponsored June 29 in the Student Union."
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/community/news/ucf/orl-wafer1908jul19,0,4279608.story
"Wednesday evening, the UCF student government held a meeting to discuss the issue and go over reports of the incident.
"My major concern is the accuracy of the witness reports that accompany the affidavit," Cook said.
Anthony Furbush filed the complaint against Cook.
"I served on the student senate for over three years; I've been in SGA for a total of four years and I've never seen anything this disgusting of how to act and then to run around to try to save your butt basically," Furbush said."
http://www.wesh.com/news/16904130/detail.html
There's clearly more to this story, but you seem not to care.
Posted by: tonyl | July 28, 2008 1:49 PM
Tonyl,
So far, you've ignored the fact that the Catholic group has spoken to the press. You've ignored the fact that no information, from the Catholics or anyone else, has come out that Cook did anything wrong beyond taking the wafer when he shouldn't have. You've ignored the fact Ed and everyone else here are not claiming Cook is entirely innocent, but only that this isn't the kind of thing that the University should be getting involved with.
Rather, you have decided to hurl baseless accusations at everyone who disagrees with you, accusing them of "religious persecution" and comparing them to global warming denialists and right wing demagogues. You've created hypothetical scenarios which fit your view better, but have not backed them up with a single shred of evidence. You've alleged a conspiracy of "the press" to attack Catholics, but have provided no evidence at all to suggest such a thing exists. And you've flat out lied in saying that Cook is the only one who spoke to the press. You're full of accusations and vitriol, but short on facts.
Look in a mirror, dude. If anyone here is distorting the picture to make it fit their own view, it's you.
Posted by: Wes | July 28, 2008 1:57 PM
Actually, it WAS the Catholic group that caused the overwhelming majority of the "current circus," first by disrupting their own Mass freaking out about one guy not eating the wafer where he should have; then by accusing him of "hate crimes" and "kidnapping the body of Christ," etc. etc.; and now, apparently, by making a HUGE push to get someone expelled for not being polite enough toward their ceremonies.
Do you have an iota of evidence to support the claims that they went around accusing him of "hate crimes" and "kidnapping the body of Christ" and are currently engaged in a HUGE push to get them expelled? All they did was file a complaint after a complaint was filed against them. That's it. I've heard nothing from the campus group, just from cooks like Donahue.
Posted by: tonyl | July 28, 2008 1:57 PM
Impeachment issues aside, the only reason UCF is taking actions against these two is for not showing proper deference to Catholic rituals and beliefs. And I think you could make a case that Cook did indeed come out in favor of "respecting Catholic sensibilities" when he returned the wafer unharmed. But the crazies haven't stopped calling for his head.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 28, 2008 2:00 PM
So far, you've ignored the fact that the Catholic group has spoken to the press.
No, you've ignored the fact that they haven't. If you have a source quoting them, please provide it, cause I'd love to hear what they have to say.
Rather, you have decided to hurl baseless accusations at everyone who disagrees with you, accusing them of "religious persecution"
I've done no such thing. I've simply asked for the slightest bit of skeptisism and accuracy when reporting this story.
and comparing them to global warming denialists and right wing demagogues.
Yes, I used that as a parallel example of the lack of thought being used here.
You've created hypothetical scenarios which fit your view better, but have not backed them up with a single shred of evidence. You've alleged a conspiracy of "the press" to attack Catholics, but have provided no evidence at all to suggest such a thing exists.
I have done no such thing. Read what I write, not what you add to my words inside your head.
And you've flat out lied in saying that Cook is the only one who spoke to the press. You're full of accusations and vitriol, but short on facts.
I did not lie, nor have my posts been infused with vitriol. If you can support your claim that the campus group talked to the press, I'll retract that statement, but I haven't found anything from them.
Look in a mirror, dude. If anyone here is distorting the picture to make it fit their own view, it's you.
Right now it looks like you're distorting what I've been saying.
Posted by: tonyl | July 28, 2008 2:09 PM
Sheer nonsense. If they didn't want to make a big deal out of it they wouldn't be threatening a student with potentially life-changing consequences. They quite obviously do want to make "a big deal out of it", they just want to avoid public scrutiny.
You speak of skepticism, but all I see in your posts is a dogmatic faith that there must be some merit to this complaint. All your skepticism seems reserved for Cook and Collard, with none left over for those displaying the least openness in this whole affair.
Posted by: DaveL | July 28, 2008 2:11 PM
When you have actual evidence of any wrongdoing, I'll be happy to look at it. The fact that you can imagine that there are secret allegations of wrongdoing out there that we don't know about yet doesn't even constitution an accusation, much less support for that accusation. There's someone not being skeptical enough here and it sure as hell isn't me.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2008 2:12 PM
Sheer nonsense. If they didn't want to make a big deal out of it they wouldn't be threatening a student with potentially life-changing consequences. They quite obviously do want to make "a big deal out of it", they just want to avoid public scrutiny.
Yes, they responded when attacked by the complaint filed by Cook. I think it's stupid of them, and were I in there place would be attempting to drop it now that his complaints have been dismissed. However, they aren't the ones drumming up the media circus. As far as the life-changing consequences, is there any reason to believe that expulsion, or any serious punishment is a realistic possibility for whatever charges have been filed?
You speak of skepticism, but all I see in your posts is a dogmatic faith that there must be some merit to this complaint. All your skepticism seems reserved for Cook and Collard, with none left over for those displaying the least openness in this whole affair.
What makes you think I'll find their story any more believable? I'm just not willing to proclaim that the Univeristy is doing something unconstitutional when I have no idea what they are doing, or why. I'm not going to say that all 33 senators are wimps caving into pressure, when I don't know what the actual issue is.
The fact is that most people are taking the Cook story and running with it, despite the lack of information, and I've grown to expect more of that from the bloggers I read regularly, like Ed.
Posted by: tonyl | July 28, 2008 2:25 PM
Pretty much your entire behavior here.
Given the information that's available AND the time that the particular church has had to supply additional information, I'd say you're being more than a bit gullible here.
Posted by: gwangung | July 28, 2008 3:22 PM
tonyl, I think the most damning aspect of this, for me, is the fact that the CCM isn't talking to the press. If you have valid complaints about someone waging war against you in the press, you must make them public. Otherwise, if you shun the press, whether intentionally or not, you come off looking like you have something to hide.
Thus far the only complaint filed against Cook, which has surfaced, has to do with his taking the Eucharist. This is an incredibly stupid charge, and one which should not be supported by a state institution, nor frankly by any rational human being.
Are there other, more valid charges? Perhaps. But currently, with the absolute silence coming from one side, I am forced to conclude that their battle is being waged against Cook and Collard for inane reasons. As further evidence for my view, I point to the fact that Collard truly hasn't said anything in the press until having charges filed against him.
At this point, with the information which has been presented, it is fair to draw the conclusion that this is nothing but religious crackpottery. If new evidence comes to light, I will review my conclusion and reach a different one. However, until then, I stand with Cook and Collard.
Posted by: Damien | July 28, 2008 3:27 PM
and comparing them to global warming denialists and right wing demagogues.
Yes, I used that as a parallel example of the lack of thought being used here.
And anyhone familiar with either global-warming denialists or right-wing demagogues would know your example is just plain wrong.
I'm just not willing to proclaim that the Univeristy is doing something unconstitutional when I have no idea what they are doing, or why.
But apparently you ARE willing to "proclaim" that nearly everyone here -- including people who really seem to have more and better information than you -- is guilty of all sorts of hysteria and herd-mentality, when you "have no idea what they are doing, or why." If you're so sure the whole story isn't out yet, why can't you just say "I don't think we have enough information to make a firm judgement yet," and STFU already?
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 28, 2008 3:35 PM
tonyl said:
Excuse me? Your quote was:
The fact that you misspelled "religious" does not change the fact that you accused everyone here of "religious persecution".
tonyl wrote:
Excuse me? You wrote:
So, yes, you did exactly that.
tonyly wrote:
Accusing people of "religious persecution", comparing them to foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalists, global warming deniers, and other such riff-raff, is certainly vitriol.
As for the quotes from Catholics, as Ed already said, where do you think all the quotes about "kidnapping" and "hate crime" came from? Certainly not from Webster Cook. Anyways, here is an article that I just grabbed randomly off of Google, which clearly refers to statements from the church itself:
Is that clear enough?
You're giving me an extreme case of SWOTI syndrome.
Posted by: Wes | July 28, 2008 3:38 PM
Damn, Wes, did you really have to spank him that hard?
Posted by: Damien | July 28, 2008 3:47 PM
I haven't read all of the comments. I apologize.
I am a Catholic and I am offended by all of this crap.
Not the fact that the kid chose to "desecrate" the communion wafer(as I am sure some view what he did with the wafer) but by the actions of those trying to publicly lynch him. It is my belief that if you do not believe as most Catholics do then the wafer is not sacred to you and you do with it as you please. Perhaps I am not a diehard enough of a Catholic to want him punished.
I am not in favor of mocking anyone's religious or other type of service but this hardly fits an act of inciting a riot. The reactions of the student senators and the other Catholic student group is way over the top and almost unChristian in their actions. (that should get some people going though it is not my intent).
Sorry for the poor grammer but my head wants to explode when I read ridiculous actions such as this.
Posted by: DavidR | July 28, 2008 4:00 PM
Excuse me? Your quote was:
Why are you jumping on the religous persecution bandwaggon without even attempting to find out the most basic details of the story?
Fair enough, I can see how I screwed up that statement to say something other than I intended. I was trying to refer to the bandwaggon supporting Cook's claims of martyrdom, but didn't do a proper job of proof reading. I apologize for the insult. But I do think that people are jumping on this bandwaggon a bit prematurely.
Excuse me? You wrote:
"Like what other behavior? All of the outrage over the incident has been over the act of not eating the wafer. No one, not even the Catholic group, has said anything in the press about any other behavior. Emphasis mine. Why do you assume that the complaint mirrors the press report? Especially when the Catholic group has not said a word to the press."
Read in context of the posts, I emphasized "the press" to show that that is not necessarily what was in "the complaint". I made no accusations of media conspiracy.
As to your source, it does not contain any quotes from the campus group, simply a statement that they filed charges. Additionally, Ed simply stating that they made these statements does not make it so. Other catholic groups have been making these statements, but they aren't the ones directly involved.
Posted by: tonyl | July 28, 2008 4:03 PM
tonyl -
So why ARE student fees going to catholic student group?Posted by: Taz | July 28, 2008 4:06 PM
DavidR: I used to be a Catholic (my dad, a liberal Catholic, tried to raise me within the Church, only to see me turn to Marxism instead), but I NEVER met any Catholic who showed ANY sign of being this deranged about a damn wafer. I never tried to test the theory; but I think the parishoners I knew would have been hurt and insulted if you messed with their ritual, but they would never have embarrassed themselves with the public meltdown we're seeing today. (Has anyone further up the chain of commandment than Father Gonzalez spoken up about this yet?)
Gonzalez said intentionally abusing the Eucharist is classified as a mortal sin in the Catholic church, the most severe possible. If it's not returned, the community of faith will have to ask for forgiveness.
"We have to make acts of reparation," Gonzalez said. "The whole community is going to turn to prayer. We'll ask the Lord for pardon, forgiveness, peace, not only for the whole community affected by it, but also for [Cook], we offer prayers for him as well."
Wait, what? Now they're all gonna huddle together and ask GOD for forgiveness? With "acts of reparation?" Is that similar to an "act of faith (auto da fe)?" Whatever God these noncompoops worship, he's even more vindictive than Zeus, Odin, or Thor -- none of whom would have got so riled up over the childish acts of any puny mortal.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 28, 2008 4:15 PM
Those quotes came from the Diocese of Orlando, which is the relevant authoritative body in question here. These are not statements by "other Catholic groups"--these are official statements from the Diocese of which the UCF congregation would be a member. This is from the Catholic Campus Ministries of UCF website:
And if you go to the Diocese website, you'll see that the CCM of UCF is affiliated with them:
http://www.orlandodiocese.org/who_we_are/directory/campusministry.php
So that's why the articles in question are quoting representatives from the Diocese. They're not some outsider offering armchair commentary. They're the relevant authority for this matter.
Posted by: Wes | July 28, 2008 4:18 PM
tonyl said:
"Additionally, over time his story changed from holding the host hostage in protest of student fees going to a catholic student group to him holding it because he wanted an apology."
Maybe I'm misinterpreting what I've read about this, but whether or not his "first story" was protest of student fees, I gather that his wanting an apology stems from the alleged abuse he suffered between the so-called "kidnapping" and the actual return of the, er, hostage. That is to say, he took it for whatever reason (protest, perhaps), and following whatever people said or did to him after that initial act, he wanted an apology before he would consider returning it.
That doesn't really seem like he's changing his story. But again, I could be misunderstanding something here.
Posted by: Kevin L. | July 28, 2008 4:19 PM
-- none of whom would have got so riled up over the childish acts of any puny mortal.
And where are they today? Gone, right? If you let one puny mortal get away with childish acts then all the puny mortals start pulling shit. Then the other gods start making fun of you until your only choice is to go hide out on a mountaintop somewhere. Unless you were already on a mountain, in which case you'd have to hide in a cave. None of this is set in stone. A remote island, alien planet, the vast nothingness of space - all are acceptable choices for puny mortal induced self-exile. If you're really lucky, you've got a Fortress of Solitude, but even God is no match for Superman.
Posted by: bullet | July 28, 2008 4:28 PM
The most ironic -- tragic? funny? stupid? counterproductive? who knows -- aspect of this whole incident is the way it must seem to Collard (and, ultimately, to those of us who are not Catholics). Here's a kid who goes with his Catholic friend to Church, presumably to see what it's all about, only to end up embroiled in something that reads like one of the lesser works of Dan Brown. Are the Catholics who support the CCM's actions at all thinking of how this makes their church look in the eyes of potential converts (whom they seem to want, at least ostensibly, judging by the pronouncements of prayers for PZ's conversion)? If I get invited to a Catholic service, do I have to worry that the actions of the person who invited me will result in shadowy Catholic agents conspiring against me behind the scenes? If I do something slightly out of line with some of the props, will I be set upon by nunjas? The Catholic League of One likes to complain about negative portrayals of the Catholic Church, including the sort of conspiracy mongering found in works like the Da Vinci Code and His Dark Materials, but here they are making those works seem not so fictional after all.
Posted by: jpf | July 28, 2008 4:38 PM
I think I just pee'd a little bit. That visual... too funny.
Mind if I run with this? It may well serve as the premise for my next project.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 28, 2008 4:52 PM
Be my guest, just don't blame me if your credit score is ruined by Opus Dei albinos.
Posted by: jpf | July 28, 2008 5:02 PM
Sure, maybe the Campus Catholic Ministries, or whatever they're called, didn't speak to the press (maybe), but representatives of their diocese did. Are you saying that doesn't count?
At 12:04 you said, "right now Cook is the only one talking to the press." Oops, false--Diocese officials are, too.
At 1:18 you said, "he's the only one taling to the press, with the other people involved not wanting to make a big deal out of an annoying incident." Double oops--Diocese officials are talking to the press, too.
Yes, ok. Nobody has yet posted a comment by the Campus Catholic Ministry--"the group" you keep mentioning. But obviously your claim that only one talking to the press is Cook has been refuted--Catholic officials, whether or not they are directly affiliated with "the group" are talking to the press.
So why don't you fess up that you were wrong? It would go a long way toward encouraging loyal Dispatchers to think maybe you're not a complete tool.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 28, 2008 5:05 PM
The officials contend that Cook desecrated a sacred object by stuffing it in his pocket and refusing their demands that he give it back.
These people are grown adults, are they? Boo hoo, give us back our Jesus!
"We hereby officially contend that you will not returned our Jesus, and have thereby desecrated by stuffing into said pocket, waaaaaaaa."
Posted by: 386sx | July 28, 2008 5:14 PM
"We have to make acts of reparation," Gonzalez said. "The whole community is going to turn to prayer. We'll ask the Lord for pardon, forgiveness, peace, not only for the whole community affected by it, but also for [Cook], we offer prayers for him as well."
Is the Lord too stupid to know that only one guy put the cracker in his pocket? Or is the Lord mad because they didn't try even harder to get it back! Lol.
Posted by: 386sx | July 28, 2008 5:55 PM
I think Andy McDowell played a nunja in Hudson Hawk.
Posted by: c-serpent | July 28, 2008 5:59 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding it harder and harder to distinguish the retoric of Iran and the US from each other.
Maybe it's time to add some US churches to the EU terror list.
What is it with religion and the US? If something like this happened here in Denmark, we'd laugh all the way to sunday brunch.
Of course, here we primarily use churches for weddings and such. And, places to have art exhibits. We're closing them down as fast as we can.
Posted by: Michael Bo | July 28, 2008 6:32 PM
Read in context, my initial statement with regard to "going to the press" is clearly about those who would have knowledge of the events and charges (witnesses and those making the charges.). My additional statements addressed the claims made by others that the campus ministry members were the ones running to the press claiming "kidnapping" and "hate crime". If you choose to twist my words to read some other meaning so that you can call me a tool or a liar, feel free to do so.
Posted by: tonyl | July 28, 2008 10:07 PM
Cook's formal complaint is on the web. I've not been able to find CCM's. But I did find this:
Michelle Ducker is the woman who assaulted Cook. The school has $40,000 invested in ccm, and a lot in the smiles program run by Ducker, who apparently has a grudge against Cook. They've got nothing much invested in Cook, who seems to be just another student,basically. Follow the money.
http://cockingasnook.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/ucf-student-impeached-for-church-protest-speaks-out-on-radio/
Posted by: watercat | July 28, 2008 10:19 PM
Here is the message I just sent:
And here is my earlier response to people who somehow found Cook's action unethical on secular grounds. (Conclusion: what he did is no more unethical than any moderate, reasonable Catholic's mere participation in the Eucharist.)Posted by: bullfighter | July 28, 2008 10:23 PM
What if he had taken one of those funny little hats from a Jew in a Synagogue and run out with it?
Would that have been O.K. too?
Posted by: Eichmann | July 29, 2008 6:07 AM
Eichmann- "What if he had taken one of those funny little hats from a Jew in a Synagogue and run out with it?
Would that have been O.K. too?"
Eichmann. Repeat after me: "It's. Just. A. Cracker."
Posted by: Rick R | July 29, 2008 7:36 AM
If he had returned it intact, then no harm done, right?
Posted by: Adrienne | July 29, 2008 8:02 AM
If it was given freely to him, sure...
Posted by: Judas | July 29, 2008 8:12 AM
eichman;
If the Jew in the synagogue gave it to you, it would belong to you. Once it is in your possession, he has the right to demand you give it back, and you have the right to refuse. If he resorts to physical force to regain it that is a crime known as assault and/or battery.
If he holds psychopathic beliefs about little white wafer-men, that changes nothing.
Posted by: watercat | July 29, 2008 8:16 AM
Rick R
Don't feed the trolls. Especially don't feed them crackers; they'll become constipated trolls.Posted by: bullfighter | July 29, 2008 9:25 AM
I received a generic response to the message I sent to the UCF president. Part of it explains why Collard's account was placed on hold:
I have no idea why they have such a silly standard procedure, and the message doesn't explain any further. It seems to provide an easy way to harass a student: file a frivolous complaint, and he or she will have to deal with administrative obstacles.Posted by: bullfighter | July 29, 2008 9:33 AM
Contrary to what tonyl has been claiming, the Catholic Campus Ministry does have a statement on the front page about the controversy, as well as a running series about the importance of the Eucharist.
CCM's statement and other actions indicate that it is indeed the removal of the wafer that caused the first complaint against Cook and the complaint against Collard.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | July 29, 2008 9:51 AM
Bull fighter wrote- "Don't feed the trolls. Especially don't feed them crackers; they'll become constipated trolls."
Indeed. Especially the fiber-free eucharist variety....
I'm just amazed how all the catholic idiot trolls who have been posting everywhere on this issue keep mucking up the analogies trying to get us uninitiated to understand the GRAVITY OF THE ATROCITY!!!11111!!!!!one!!
It's a cracker. They give it away. Everything else is in your head.
Posted by: Rick R | July 29, 2008 11:08 AM
CCM has not made their accusations public. No published official account claims that the impeachment is due to wafer-stealing,..........
The sentinel first reported on the 18th that he "represented himself as a student government official" obviously wrong, corrected it on the 19th to " abused his position as a student government official", whatever that means.
He's not actually impeached. The senate voted to hold a hearing, and at that time they can vote on kicking him out of the senate. They can't expel him or anything..
Cook has put his complaint on the web, and you can hear his side of things in his radio interview.
http://cdn1.libsyn.com/ffrf/FTradio_117_071908.mp3?nvb=20080729023317&nva=20080730023317&t=0b84f4762be0e956949dc
Starts at 18:30. It sounds convincing.
Although we have only Cook's for it so far, there seems to be no denial that Michelle Drucker at least committed assault, which the UCF chooses to ignore. My lawyer friend opines that there was no theft. Have no information on the identity of the two no-voting senators.
(&just to be cranky, I think serving alcohol to minors is illegal, and using state funds to pay CCM's advertising is unconstitutional, and holding mass in the student union is crappy.)
Posted by: watercat | July 29, 2008 12:05 PM
Correction: he was impeached, but not yet convicted. A succesfful vote to hold a hearing is an impeachment.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | July 29, 2008 1:49 PM
I sent a letter to the president's office:
I have been following the news about Webster Cook, and now it seems,
Benjamin Collard. This witch-hunt simply has to stop. A university (or
the student senate) has no place enforcing any particular religion's
rules against desecration. What's next, will Muslim groups demand
expulsion for students that simply draw a picture of Muhammad? (This is
actually a serious offense to many Muslim groups.) If you allow your
students to be bullied by any outside group that feels like scoring
political points, it will send a message to prospective students that
UCF does not care about their freedom of speech, and that they should
seek higher education elsewhere. Nothing less than a statement from your
office that it is not the university's place to punish these two
students (Collard wasn't even involved) will be sufficient. It is my
hope that these two can get back to their regular scholastic lives, and
that UCF can prevent any additional damage from being done to their
ability to succeed in their studies and ambitions.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Regards,
Karl J. Mogel
And here's the response I got.
Thank you for your e-mail.
Laws regarding student privacy prevent us from commenting about
individual UCF students. But, in general terms, when a student allegedly
violates student conduct guidelines, his or her student account is
placed on hold.
The student is notified of this action and informed that the hold will
not prevent registration for classes. A student is allowed to register
after making a request to release the hold. The Office of Student
Conduct follows this procedure for any student who is referred to it.
More information about the entire Golden Rule and the student conduct
process is available on our Web site, www.ucf.edu. Please be assured
that UCF is committed to following its standard procedures to ensure
fair outcomes in all student conduct review cases.
Additionally, it is the university's policy to treat all people with
dignity and respect, without regard to race, creed, color, national
origin, religion, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual
orientation, veteran status, or political opinions and affiliations.
I looked through their Golden Rule information on student conduct, and they've got nothing on him. (Yet it has not been dismissed.) Still, it won't stop the Student Senate from making a big deal about it. From my experience with following student governments, it's a whole lot of hair=pulling over meaningless positions that decide how much money to spend on free T-shirts for sports games and such - a lot of time was wasted on suing each other for empty political power grabs.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | July 29, 2008 6:23 PM
@ W. Kevin, thank you for the correction.
Ms. Ducker has a contact address up on the CCM website
http://www.ccmknights.com/ccmWeb2007/contactus.php
if anyone wants to contact her and try to get her side of the story.
Posted by: watercat | July 30, 2008 2:47 PM
Update from Florida - The UCF student newspaper is reporting that Webster Cook's impeachment from the Student Senate has been overturned (by the student judidical council -- are there any responsible adults at this school??) as violating government in the sunshine and various judicial fairness provisions, including allowing "testimony" from Anthony Furbush. It's unclear whether the Senate can or will redo the impeachment proceedings from scrtach.
Posted by: JJ Ross | October 24, 2008 12:39 PM