…and this is a 
Fresh thread. Don't fill this one up!
Category: Open Thread
Posted on: July 17, 2008 10:16 PM, by PZ Myers
OK, people, you've got to stop this. These comment threads keep filling up with noise — I'm closing one bloated thread and starting this one, if you feel you must.
Just a suggestion: if you are an outraged Catholic who is here to tell us a) you're very upset, b) the cracker is very, very important to you, or c) that you'll pray for us all, please, don't bother. We've heard it a few thousand times already, it wasn't at all persuasive the first time, and we're just getting more and more exasperated at your obtuse lack of originality. Go to church, instead.
Comments
I claim this thread, in the name of science!
Posted by: Jon | July 17, 2008 10:25 PM
In the name of science? Blasphemy! You should have claimed it in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his Noodly Appendage. :)
Posted by: Alex | July 17, 2008 10:26 PM
PZ, you should declare this thread sacred. That way it'll stop those who care about religious tolerance for desecrating it. Otherwise they'd be hypocrites.
Posted by: Kel | July 17, 2008 10:27 PM
I can't believe these massive cracker threads are still going. They must be driving you nuts PZ. I'm just glad I found one early enough to be able to post in a recognizable position. I have nothing more to say about the cracker though. It's all just so stupid, and I just can't believe how this story has snowballed!
Posted by: LisaJ | July 17, 2008 10:28 PM
For some entertaining reading, check out the Eucharistic Miracles of the World. What happens when the cracker turns to flesh in your mouth? What happens when Jesus reaches down from the cross in church and takes up the chalice? What happens when a woman in Augsburg Germany in 1194 takes the cracker home? See...it's been done before. All of these are now examples of miracles.
Posted by: The skepTick | July 17, 2008 10:28 PM
I'm still catering this shit!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 10:29 PM
I claim this thread in the name of incisor!
Or perhaps not.
Religion is fun and everything, like science fiction and stuff (or fantasy), but especially when you get to hear world-class experts on theology discuss the important difference between Allah, worshiped by Muslims, and God, worshiped by Jews, Christians, and Buddhists[?!?]. Oh, and Hindus! Wish I were kidding.
They have vocabulary problems, too, and not even over words as tricky as eponymous.
Posted by: Zeno | July 17, 2008 10:30 PM
Kel, most religious people don't mind being hypocritical, especially when it comes to desecrating that which is sacred to others, so your plan might not work. :P
Posted by: Alex | July 17, 2008 10:31 PM
Hey, I posted this in the last one, but I had a hard time finding the replies...
I'm getting married next month and I'm looking for a good secular reading. I was hoping for something by Carl Sagan or Douglas Adams. Does anyone have any ideas?
Thanks!
Posted by: Geoff | July 17, 2008 10:32 PM
Actually, since this happens to be a fresh thread, I might stick a thought in before it fills up.
I'm not at all complaining that PZ Myers is being horrible or wretched or evil or that he's desecrating the body of Christ or whatever, but I wonder if, perhaps, his request for consecrated wafers might be construed as incitement to commit a crime? Could that be considered theft? I know they give them out without charge for consumption to Catholics and all, but I wonder if they might have some sort of Terms of Use on this thing. Does anybody know anything about that? Similarly, while I'm still at the top of the page, could taking a cracker from a Church during, say, Mass (let's talk about the poor chap in Florida for a moment) constitute a violation of the rights of parishioners to, for example, assemble peaceably or freely express their beliefs/opinions about this?
Again, I'm not actually trying to be a spoil-sport here, nobody would like to see these whiney bastards get a smack in the face more than me (well ok, that's a lie, some people would like that very much indeed), but are there possibly other legal/ethical issues here aside from the non-issue of whether or not blasphemy is a right?
Posted by: JM Inc. | July 17, 2008 10:34 PM
Crackergate is getting old. Most of the hysterical trolling seemed to be by 4 or 5 wackos who just wanted to fill their day up with ranting and raving.
Really, they should just take their shopping carts down to the park with a bottle of wine in a paper bag and wheel around. At least they would get some exercise and meet kindred spirts. Someone might even give them a box of crackers.
So how are the death threats coming along. It would seem logical that after the Kroll fiasco, they might drop off. OTOH, given the type of people sending them, logic is likely to work as well as common sense and their religion.
Posted by: raven | July 17, 2008 10:34 PM
evry time a catlick postid, i eated a holy cracker.
- srsly, teh ceiling cat
Posted by: BT Murtagh | July 17, 2008 10:35 PM
I'll repost this link early so any outraged Catholics who want to say PZ is anything but an equal opportunity desecrator can see they're full of shit before they begin:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/desecration_its_a_fun_hobby.php
It's not PZ's fault Christians give him more ammunition in this country.
Or maybe they don't find anything in that link offensive since it's not directed at them?
Posted by: MB | July 17, 2008 10:36 PM
I won't pray for you, PZ, but I will ask got to forgive your sins when I sacrifice a goat tomorrow--that is unless the entrails of a chicken look bad, in that case it will be a cow.
May God have mercy on your saltine-hating soul.
Posted by: Fiziker | July 17, 2008 10:37 PM
This has been going on for so long that even I'm beginning to get Koran envy.
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 10:38 PM
OK, so I just came from the website of Debbie Cook for Congress. She's challenging Dana Rorbacher (R-Nutjob) and has a pretty good chance, apparently. There is a photo of her taking the oath of some office or another. Her right hand in the air, her left hand...holding her child. That's right, not a single bible in sight! Could she be one of us? If so...shhhh *whispering* yaaay!
Aahh, maybe it means nothing.
Posted by: mk | July 17, 2008 10:38 PM
Just bumping this to the top of a fresh thread for PZ's consideration:
Thanks for bringing it back up to the top of the stack for me. I'm sad to have missed this one in such a rapidly growing thread, not just because it is sly and subversive, but because I have the highest regard for paradoctor, personally and professionally.
I think the only possible way to embellish paradoctor's suggestion for a respectful funeral and burial (God is dead, after all) would be to follow up the services with a suitably Irish Wake for the frackin' cracker, providing a glass of spirits, of course, for the delectation of the "transubstantiated gobbet of man-god flesh."
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 17, 2008 10:39 PM
(Plants Spanish flag in thread in process coughs giving 50% of thread viewers smallpox)
I claim this thread in the name of Spain!
(attempts to convert locals to Catholicism/enslave to work in mines)
Posted by: Hernando Cortez | July 17, 2008 10:40 PM
"Cake or death?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 17, 2008 10:43 PM
I had a secular wedding and we used these 2 readings:
Hold My Hand and I'm Yours: http://www.poemsforfree.com/holdmy.html
and
an American Indian wedding blessing:
http://www.wedthemes.com/indian-wedding-blessing.shtml
Good luck!
Posted by: Carla | July 17, 2008 10:44 PM
Sigh. How long do we wait before we get a long post on the meaning of the eucharist (because we haven't all heard that by now) and why it's important to catholics? No doubt it'll be followed by several more asking PZ why he's so anti-catholic and doesn't dare criticise what's sacred to Islam or other religions.
JM Inc wrote:
You and many others, about five thousand posts ago. IANAL, but the consensus is that it's not.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 10:44 PM
PZ-
You will probably...eventually...be forced to host your own blog on your own purchased server space just to keep up with the traffic.
Posted by: Goldfishflakes | July 17, 2008 10:45 PM
Posted by: Kel | July 17, 2008 10:48 PM
Somehow I think this would all have a better SNR if there was some kind of nested replies, like Usenet or something. I've long wondered why that never caught on for blog comments.
Posted by: Chris Granade | July 17, 2008 10:54 PM
JM Inc.,
No.
sincerely,
A Lawyer
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2008 10:55 PM
#16:
Well, I guess if I had to pick a least bad Christian church, I'd go with Episcopal.
Posted by: aporeticus | July 17, 2008 10:55 PM
Geoff, congrats on your upcoming nuptials. Ebonmuse at the Daylight Atheism blog has some good stuff, such as his atheist dinner benediction:
As we come together to share this meal, let us first remember how it came to us and be thankful to the people who made it possible.
This food was born from the bounty of the Earth, in warm sunlight, rich earth, and cool rain.
May it nourish us, in body and mind, and provide us with the things that are good for living.
We are grateful to those who cultivated it, those who harvested it, those who brought it to us, and those who prepared it.
May its consumption bring about the pleasures of friendship, love, and good company.
And as we partake of this food in each other's company,
as what was once separate from all of us becomes part of each of us,
may we also remember what we have in common and what brings us all together.
May this sharing of food foster peace and understanding among us,
may it bring us to the recognition that we depend on each other for all the good we can ever hope to receive,
and that all the good we can hope to accomplish rests in helping others in turn.
May it remind us that as we reach out to others to brighten their lives,
so are our lives brightened in turn.
Cheers
Posted by: KiwiInOz | July 17, 2008 10:59 PM
PZ, maybe a set of FAQs would help, so we can quickly reply to the nutters with just, "No. 1," the cracker thing; "No. 2," the cartoon/Koran thing; "No. 3," atheism isn't religion; "No. 4," Pascal's wager; "No. 5," natural selection isn't biogenesis; "No. 5a," evolution isn't random; "No. 6," Kenny take your meds, eat shit and die; etc.
Posted by: dkew | July 17, 2008 11:03 PM
#9 - Geoff - I'm a member of FFRF, and as best I recall they have secular wedding texts (?) posted on their website. Just search www.ffrf.org
PZ - thanks for starting a new thread - these HUGE long things are getting tiresome. It's like a holy war & neither side is giving one inch. (I'm guilty too)
Posted by: Patricia | July 17, 2008 11:05 PM
Forget PZ's cracker, Catholics! There is nothing you can do about it! It was gone the minute it touched his evil atheist hands. But there is still a cracker you can save!
Posted by: Cracker Bandit | July 17, 2008 11:07 PM
dkew, you're making too many assumptions there - that the sort of troll we've experienced here over the last few days can a) read, and b) process information.
Well, information that wasn't beaten (or buggered) into them by a priest anyway.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 11:09 PM
#26:
Ah, Episcopal should (in its Anglican form) be know as "Catholic Lite": Sin's great! Less guilt!
Posted by: MartinDH | July 17, 2008 11:09 PM
It's safe to say that an atheist taking a wafer in the circumstances of a eucharist would be a crime in the UK. "Obtaining property by deception" under Section 15 the Theft Act 1968 fits the bill exactly. I would be very suprised if there was not similar law in the US.
Proving that PZ intended to incite such an action would be trickier given that his language admits of a strong possibility that he was being flippant and didn't mean it. Whether he actually did or not is a question of fact, though.
Not that I'm condoning the rather remarkable behaviour of Mr Donoghue et al, I'm just a passing lawyer...
Posted by: OMH | July 17, 2008 11:09 PM
#25, Andrew: Hah, ok, thanks mate. Sorry, all, for still trying to talk about this, it's just that I haven't been assiduously following everything said on the subject ever and modern search engines don't have the intelligence to reliably and robustly search for content yet; I've just been thinking a lot on these sorts of implications and checking back occasionally, that's all.
By the way, anybody see this yet? Sorry if that topic of derisive conversation is old hat as well.
Posted by: JM Inc. | July 17, 2008 11:10 PM
At least we got a few good linguistic items — platosphere and fatwa envy and the I'll pray for you" meme — out of the mess.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 17, 2008 11:12 PM
Right now, I'm listening to the quadraphonic mix of "Nilssohn Schmilsson." It's pretty cool!
Hey, you did say this was an open thread, right?
J. D.
Posted by: J. D. | July 17, 2008 11:15 PM
If they're serious about this they'll make everyone at the ceremony sign a form. I say go for it - make the long, horrible ceremony even more onerous and you're only guaranteeing a further decline in attendance.
If nothing else comes from this other than the catholics announcing they're going to keep a stricter guard over their crackers then PZ's succeeded in getting them to demonstrate the strength of their irrationality.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 11:18 PM
@ OMH #33
You do realize that the Church is claiming to hand out a Piece Of Zombie when in fact all they are giving people is a mere cracker. If this isn't fraud, then what is?
On the other hand if they are really handing out pieces of Jesus then of course they cannot claim ownership of those pieces unless owning other humans (or deities) is permitted in your jurisdiction.
Posted by: Michael | July 17, 2008 11:22 PM
Woohoo, I got in before #50 this time! Seems like SciBlogs needs to buy some more bandwidth...
Posted by: Sam L. | July 17, 2008 11:25 PM
Sam L. wrote:
I think the outraged Catholics were more interesting.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 17, 2008 11:30 PM
This idea that there might be a jurisdiction somewhere that would consider putting a wafer in one's pocket instead of one's mouth a crime intrigues me. If there is a place in the US where I might be arrested for such an act I would like to know. I'm not sure I could afford to take the time out of life that would have to be spent in jail but I would consider it. I'm also not sure that the place to draw the cultural line is at the catholic altar but I lean in the direction that it's a good starting point for cultural disobedience. Like I said, I'm intrigued.
Posted by: AgnoAtheist | July 17, 2008 11:30 PM
#37, Michael: Actually, the Church is the Body of Christ, the idea is that the Eucharist binds all the members of the Body together. Think of it like Borg assimilation technology, and the cracker is the nanoprobe injection tubule straight to the jugular. Try working that into property law!
Although, if we've been taught anything we already thoroughly knew by this whole crackergate affair, it's that theology and secular law should never ever be mixed, ever (ever!)!
Posted by: JM Inc. | July 17, 2008 11:31 PM
Dr. Myers,
Do not sidestep reason at the foundation of your arguments. You are in the extreme minority compared to the theists, thus the onus of proof rests on you against the established opinion. You present your logical case as to why I should not respect the Eucharist and I will believe you.
Posted by: Trevor | July 17, 2008 11:32 PM
It's funny, but the cracker is probably the major reason why I've become an atheist.
I used to believe Catholicism. Mind you, I was young, very young, less than eight years old, and I pretty much believed everything I was told. I have distinct memories, for instance, of being astounded that the Israelites were worshipping a golden calf when Moses returned from his mountain. How could they not know that God was real. It was written there in black and white, and they'd been told. And they'd seen the miracles surrounding their departure from Egypt, not to mention the parting of the Red Sea. I just could not understand how they could be so stupid.
I looked forward to my first Communion. I believed that it was something real, that being able to ingest the cracker -- the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ -- would make a difference in my life.
The Saturday before, I got to go to my first confession. As an eight-year-old I didn't have anything juicy to confess, but afterwards I felt so clean, so pure, so free of sin that on my own I decided to stay in my room for the rest of the day instead of playing with my friends so as to avoid even the possibility of committing a sin and of being less than totally pure for my Communion.
I was really excited. I remember having the cracker placed on my tongue and going back to my seat, kneeling and praying, and expecting to feel something. I guess I was naive, but I had been told so often that this was a transformative event, one that would bring me closer to Jesus, that I was sure that I must feel something new or different. Thus, as I prayed, eyes closed, I scanned my inner self looking for something different, something new, something, anything, to validate this ritual.
I never felt anything different.
For months afterwards I would go to Communion and pray and scan and wait for something, anything to tell me or show me that this was real, that I had been accepted, that Jesus was nearer -- that something had actually happened. I'd look around, see all the other people in church, heads bowed, apparently communicating with God while I experienced nothing.
I felt like a fraud.
After a while I came to the conclusion that I had been lied to. This was part of a more general awakening when I recognized that the adults in my life did not practice the moral precepts they preached, at least not nearly as vigorously as I would have expected, given all that I had been told about God, etc. I lost interest in the church and in God and whereas I once went to church eagerly, I now looked for any opportunity to avoid it.
When I was first told about God I was young enough that I took every word that my parents uttered as ultimate truth. How could I have done anything else. The world that was defined for my developing consciousness was one in which the Christian God was real, and the Bible was his story. So it's no wonder that I believed. What I think is ironic here is that the very seriousness of my faith led me to become disillusioned. If I hadn't taken it seriously, I wouldn't have expected anything; therefore, the fact that nothing seemed to happen would not have mattered much to me.
So that's the story of the cracker and I.
I think it's sad that religions continue to exist only because they fuck up little kids when they're far too young to know better. It's pathetic, and they ought to be embarrassed. I'm just lucky that I was a boy. Otherwise, in addition to the usual crap, I would have also been force-fed the belief that as a girl I was somehow not quite as good.
Are they proud of themselves that they can brainwash little children?
Why are we supporting these people with our tax dollars?
Why do we show deference and respect to people who make claims that they couldn't possibly know, let alone prove?
If the Pope were on fire, would I piss on him to put it out?
I wonder if the crackers would taste better with guacamole?
Pax!
Posted by: Alex | July 17, 2008 11:35 PM
Trevor
First you need to get over the delusion that being in the majority equates to being right.
Once, people who believed the earth was round were in the extreme minority. Are you realizing the stupidity of your position yet?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 17, 2008 11:37 PM
I second dkew's call for a FAQ. If its all in one place then you don't have to search for it thus leaving more time to smite idiots.
Posted by: Pandora Neurospora | July 17, 2008 11:37 PM
It's a CRACKER.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 17, 2008 11:37 PM
-argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "If many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."
Theists and their logical fallacies.
Posted by: BeeNY | July 17, 2008 11:39 PM
Hate to break it to you, Trevor, but Xians are the minority as far as world superstitions go.
Posted by: Remy-Grace | July 17, 2008 11:45 PM
For the record, here are all the posts related to wafergate, along with the number of comments:
frackin cracker: 1007
got bill's attention: 855
fresh crackers: 1466
fight back: 1227
internet getting full: 649
get more insane: 574
email cracker edition: 1440
FYI: 1123
mail dump: 994
stop it now: 509
science heathen: 697
delusional derangements: 464
cyberpistol: 1323
For a grand total of: 12,328
And an average of: 948 per post
...and still counting
Have you read them all?
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 11:45 PM
Hey Mr Myers, it is not *just* a cracker - it is a cracker that goes great with wine!
Posted by: Pandora Neurospora | July 17, 2008 11:46 PM
First of all, the lawyer is wrong, or at least the issue is not nearly as clear as he claims. A jury, I think, could eaisly find that the act of presenting oneself in the communion line could qualify as an "artifice, trick or device" under Minn. Stat. 609. Although the issue may closer, Prof. Myers' incitement to others to obtain a Host could, I think, satify the conspiracy or aiding and abetting statute. I also bet that it would be an actionable tort. I have not studied criminal law in some time, so I could be proven wrong, but I doubt it.
I will also violate Mr. Myers rule. The contours of this debate seem clear: the few catholics here are saying, in essence, that the Host is very important to us. You don't need it; it means nothing to you and the whole reason why you are taking it is to mock us. Please respect our beliefs and leave the host -- which is, after all, our property -- be. The response seems to be that the Catholic Church (and its belief about transubstantiation) is so ridiculous that there is simply no need to respect what these morons believe. We see it as just a "cracker"; we don't see any harm in what we are doing; to hell with their beliefs.
In the end, this issue is a simple matter of law and courtesy. We all know that the host is the property of the Catholic church. We all know that by presenting themselves in the communion line, an individual is representing (however implicity) that he or she is a Catholic and wishes to participate in the communion as a Catholic (or at least as a respectful worshiper). We all know that taking the host out of the church is a fraud. This is not a matter of imposing Catholic beliefs on others -- we are not requesting that you kneel down before the host when it passes by in a car; we are simply asking that you not enter our churches if your purpose is malicious.
So we are clear, no one should be threatening anyone's life for any reason. A pox on their house too, even more so.
It seems pretty simple, really.
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2008 11:46 PM
Dr. Myers,
ERV has information on how you can finally see Expelled in the theater. They're pimping private screenings for $2,400 per showing. I shit you not.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | July 17, 2008 11:47 PM
I love how often Catholics assume this whole thing is some sort of malicious attack. Yes, that's right, atheists hate Christians most of all, your denomination especially! You'd better watch out because we're tenting our fingers and thinking of you!
Posted by: JM Inc. | July 17, 2008 11:51 PM
@#35 - A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night is deviner than any cracker.
Posted by: SplendidMonkey | July 17, 2008 11:52 PM
Trevor at 42,
So, since there are more Muslims than Christians in the world, I expect you'll be headed down to the local Mosque tomorrow to renounce Christianity and join Islam, right? What's that? You won't? But why not? It's only sensible because the majority of people believe it to be true!
Oh, wait, that's really not the way you think either? Huh, funny that, cause neither do we.
Try this. Now that you've made that leap. Try looking at your religion from an outsider's eyes. Imagine what it looks like to someone who hasn't been brainwashed to not even think that it might all be a cruel joke. Uh-oh! That's right, your religion is just wacky and false as all the rest. Time to live by reason.
Posted by: Dahan | July 17, 2008 11:53 PM
It's safe to say that an atheist taking a wafer in the circumstances of a eucharist would be a crime in the UK. "Obtaining property by deception" under Section 15 the Theft Act 1968 fits the bill exactly.
I'm not sure. Let's look at this in another context:
Suppose the local supermarket is giving out free samples of something I already know I don't like. I take one sample, but instead of eating it I send it to Dr. Myers so that he can make fun of it on his blog.
The supermarket can argue that there was an implied contract that I'd think about buying a box of the product, and that I violated this by taking the sample when I knew I had no intension of buying. But I could come back and say that this wasn't really a contract, it was just a social obligation that I was free to ignore.
The supermarket could formalize the transaction and not let me have the sample unless I signed a contract. If I violated the terms of the contract they could sue me for damages, and they could charge me with fraud if they could show that I signed the contract with the intent of breaking it.
But in that case, I could defend myself under the doctrine of "de minimis non curat lex". ("The law does not concern itself with trifles") The argument is the value of the sample is so small that it isn't worth wasting the court's time over, or, in layman's terms, "It's a frakkin' cracker!"
Posted by: chaos_engineer | July 17, 2008 11:53 PM
Posted by: Kel | July 17, 2008 11:53 PM
I posted this before on one of the humongously long threads, but I hope PZ won't mind if I do it one more time. You can contact 1-800-flowers at
http://ww12.1800flowers.com/serviceform.do
If you'd like to ask them to consider giving Ms. Kroll her job back. Being married to an asshole should be punishment enough; I think a lot of you agree with me it's a shame she should also lose her job because of it.
Posted by: oriole | July 17, 2008 11:56 PM
What would happen if they tried to consecrate a sangiovese-based chianti? Would Jupiter have to have a slugfest with Jesus to see whose essence gets to make up the wine?
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 11:57 PM
Dr. Myers et al,
To be clear, I did not say majority means right- only established, as I said above (42). If we are operating on reason then do not put words in my mouth nor infer things I did not say. I am asking you for a logical argument Dr. Myers.
Posted by: Trevor | July 18, 2008 12:06 AM
If I can't get my hands on consecrated Host, how the hell am I supposed to fight vampires? Pointy sticks? As if.
Posted by: Abraham van Helsing | July 18, 2008 12:07 AM
The full moon is commin...the ILK are gettin' restless. *grin*
Atta boy PZ, give em' hell! ;)
Posted by: Patricia | July 18, 2008 12:08 AM
Andrew (#51)
I don't think it is as clear cut as you state. If I presented myself in communion line it would not be to keep Catholic rules as I am not Catholic. If I did so it would be because I believed that putting the host in my pocket instead of my mouth might produce a greater good. I see it as potentially an adaptation of civil disobedience into cultural disobedience. I understand the distress this would cause but I would have to weigh the relative goodness of either disobeying Catholic rules or not disobeying them.
Posted by: AgnoAtheist | July 18, 2008 12:09 AM
JM Inc @ 53
Good... good... mwahahaha
laugh with me now mwahahaha
Posted by: commissarjs | July 18, 2008 12:13 AM
OMFG. I've read all of the prior threads on this Eucharist thing. But this was the best of the best. Fucking hilarious. I mean, these people are kidding, right?
Posted by: Lowell | July 18, 2008 12:13 AM
You are in the extreme minority compared to the theists, thus the onus of proof rests on you against the established opinion.
You don't understand logic. The onus of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
We can see, touch and taste the cracker. So we have enough evidence for a justifiable belief that it's a cracker. If you want to claim that it has some other properties, provide the evidence.
Posted by: Neural T | July 18, 2008 12:14 AM
Dr. Myers, have you received the apology from Mr. Kroll that he said he would email to you? I think that he said he would do this in the notpology that "he" made on Greg Laden's blog (if, indeed, it was the same person who made the now infamous "1800flowerws.com death threat")?
Posted by: kevin colquitt | July 18, 2008 12:15 AM
Again, I am asking for a logical argument as to why I should not believe in the Eucharist Dr. Myers. You are right about the great deal of noise on this thread. In case you have retired, I am going to bed and will check back in the morning.
Posted by: Trevor | July 18, 2008 12:17 AM
I knew I should have kept quiet...
@37 "You do realize that the Church is claiming to hand out a Piece Of Zombie when in fact all they are giving people is a mere cracker. If this isn't fraud, then what is?"
Crazy is it is, they believe it to be true. Therefore dishonesty, a necessary element for fraud, is absent.
@40 Most jurisdictions make taking a thing belonging to another under false pretences a crime. Yours no doubt included.
@56
1. The "de minimis" doctrine does not provide a defence to criminal acts. I appreciate that's it's just a fraking cracker but that's the way the legal cracker crumbles...
2. Your analogy doesn't really work. In the eucharist, the cracker is explicitly given out on the basis that it is given to the recipient on the basis that they are catholic and will only do the necessary catholiccy things with it. No conditions are attached to free gifts in supermarkets as a rule. They could be, in which case the free goods could be obtained by deception in the right circumstances.
All I'm saying is that, as someone who was a criminal prosecutor until last October, I would have had no difficulties establishing that deceiving a person into giving you something on a mutually-understood false premiss is a crime in the law of England and Wales. I'd be positively shocked if the same didn't apply in the US.
Posted by: OMH | July 18, 2008 12:18 AM
Trevor,
In the Middle Ages, many people believed the stars were pushed through the sky by angels. They had no evidence for that belief, and although they were great in number, and it was more or less an established belief, doubters were perfectly justified to be doubtful.
Then Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton came along, gathering evidence from observation, and discovered that the motion of the heavenly bodies is dictated by the same gravitational attraction that sends an apple hurtling toward the earth.
The fairy tale explanation was destroyed. What's the evidence for your fairy tale about the cracker?
Posted by: Neural T | July 18, 2008 12:19 AM
Hey this is an open thread right? Well I have a biology assessment and no I'm not going to ask you to do it for me, haha. I just need some clarification on what the genus and species is for Meningococal, cause when I looked on the net I found two different things and it confused me. Any help to cure my confusion would be appreciated. =)
Posted by: Pandora Neurospora | July 18, 2008 12:22 AM
Trevor, before any discussion could shouldn't there be some sort of evidence presented that a consecrated communion wafer is more than just a piece of unleavened bread? Please present your evidence that it is in fact the body of christ.
Posted by: Commissarjs | July 18, 2008 12:22 AM
@ Trevor
Logical argument eh? Its a small biscuity type thing that's full of carbohydrate goodness and bugger all else no matter what you "believe". Belief does not equate reality.
Its a cracker.
Posted by: Spankermatic | July 18, 2008 12:23 AM
I can just see the DA taking this to the Grand Jury.
"Ladies and Gentleman, what we have here is a clear case of an elitist biology professor engaged in a conspiracy to mock. Sensibilities have been damaged. We must prosecute and he must be shown that religious tolerance is not a concept to be toyed with."
As for the actionable tort, who would have "standing?" Jesus, the Kidnapped host?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 18, 2008 12:23 AM
Back to Geoff at #9 (yes, I know I should be quicker) -
Oh, the places you'll go, by Dr. Seuss. Best reading I've ever done as a wedding officiant.
Posted by: Steve in MI | July 18, 2008 12:23 AM
AgnoAtheist --
From a legal stand point, your actions would clearly communicate an intent to receive the host as a Catholic (or at least as a worshiper). It would, I think, pretty clearly be fraudulent to receive the host with the intent to steal it.
And while there may be situations where it is moral to violate the law (civil disobedience), I can't imagine how anyone could find that situation here. I think you would have to assume that the act of receiving and distributing communion, on its own (i.e., as opposed to other political views of the church you might oppose) harms someone other than those receiving the host. It would be absurd to think this; how could anyone in good faith be so dismissive of another's moral action where that action in no way harms anyone? It should be obvious that distributing communion to the faithful is not establishing a mandatory apartheid regieme in southern states.
Posted by: Andrew | July 18, 2008 12:23 AM
Trevor, you asked for:
You already know at least one "logical argument" for why you shouldn't believe in the Eucharist. It's the same argument that underlies your disbelief in religons you do not follow (e.g., Hinduism, Islam, etc.).
Just apply your critical thinking a little further, and lose one more god. Then you'll be an atheist. You won't burst into flames or anything.
Posted by: Lowell | July 18, 2008 12:28 AM
#68, Trevor: The logical argument is empiricism. Get with the times, mate. If you want to make a claim about the way the universe is, either you have to provide the evidence and show why it's a correct claim, or you have to admit that it might as well not be so.
Believe in the Eucharist if you must, but don't act all intellectually justified like you've got a good reason, and then sit on it. You could be saving our souls here, mate. Oh no, I can feel the flames a-roasting at the edges of my soul! Tell me why I need to get to confession and eat that cracker right quick! Otherwise quite wasting the precious little time both of us have strutting your intellectual stuff about it.
Post Script, #64: Mwuahahahaha! Excellent...
Posted by: JM Inc. | July 18, 2008 12:28 AM
"If many find it acceptable, it is acceptable." (#47)
By definition, the majority is sane.
That's why we have laws to protect minorities in this country.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | July 18, 2008 12:28 AM
cracker:communion :: water:homeopathy
what's the big deal?
Posted by: mdh | July 18, 2008 12:32 AM
ERV has information on how you can finally see Expelled in the theater. They're pimping private screenings for $2,400 per showing.
Would it be worth watching even if they paid you $2400 to see it?
Posted by: hje | July 18, 2008 12:36 AM
Trevor:
As a pathologist, when I am presented with a sample of human tissue, I describe it macroscopically, then prepare it so that our lab staff can section it to make microscope slides. I can then examine it under the microscope and identify the tissue and assess any abnormalities.
If I were given a consecrated cracker, what do you think I would see?
That's right, a cracker.
I can respect the ritual and the tradition of the Eucharist. I despise the threats, the assaults and the crazy rhetoric (kidnapping, indeed!) that have been expressed by the cracker-freaks.
It's a fetish. Some fetishes are amusing. This one is weird.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | July 18, 2008 12:38 AM
...And on the Ninth day of battle, after 11,700 missiles had been fired(12,352 if you count the newspaper interview post, as the heretics do)and the stale, powdery reek of broken and desecrated Hosts filled the air, one lonely voice could still be heard in the Valley of the Crumbs.
Thus spake Trevor:
And PZ the Deceiver did reply:
And though the threats and cries of the faithful had mounted unto madness, and hair was pulled out, and garments were rent, and whole keyboards were laid waste, and spittle flew all about, not one Holy Soldier of God Most High could undo those three words of doom.
Here endeth the lesson.
Posted by: Neil | July 18, 2008 12:38 AM
As long as you are still employed, the Eucharist issue will not go away.
Posted by: john | July 18, 2008 12:39 AM
Posted by: Dustin | July 18, 2008 12:41 AM