Pharyngula

Posted by: andyo | July 8, 2008 8:11 PM

Yeah, instead of keeping it (safe), he should just have ate it, chewed it, and pooped it. That's how you don't abuse a cracker!

Posted by: Turdus | July 8, 2008 8:13 PM

Well sir, if it is that easy, I am going to get me my own cracker!

Posted by: Michael Russell | July 8, 2008 8:13 PM

Well, this is a community that believes that every sperm is sacred...

Posted by: Mena | July 8, 2008 8:14 PM

But christianity is not insane like those muslims who riot over teddy bears and who PZ doesn't dare insult in fear of bodily harm. [/snark]

Posted by: kestrien | July 8, 2008 8:17 PM

My mom used to drag me to church all the time while she set up the day before, and I used to pop them as snacks while she was busy. They're actually pretty darn bland. A little salt, maybe some shrimp paste and I bet they'd be delicious.

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 8, 2008 8:19 PM

I think we should use the link from Doug at #2 and mail as many crackers as possible to whatever religious loony bin is having the vapors, going all, "No, I am Spartacus," claiming to be Webster Cook's returned communion cracker.

Those fuckwits worship an imaginary asshat who told his acolytes, "Eat me," and his name wasn't even Michael Valentine Smith. They give these gomers drivers licenses and guns, too.

Posted by: cathi | July 8, 2008 8:21 PM

mmmmm ... Christ Crispies.

Posted by: Danley | July 8, 2008 8:22 PM

The world is insane and I must now end my life. Goodbye tards.

Posted by: amphiox | July 8, 2008 8:23 PM

Hmm. When I was a kid, I went to a Catholic School, and getting the eucharist was my favorite part of church because I got something to eat!

Posted by: Bob Russell | July 8, 2008 8:25 PM

It is certainly sacred when it gets pooped out...I'm sure I've Jesus in the toilet bowl more than once...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Stool_Scale

Posted by: sailor | July 8, 2008 8:26 PM

I think I should crying, but reading this whole thing just has me convulsed with laughter. If anyone want to show that Xtians are just as whacky and dumb as other radical fundamentalists, I think they have it.

Wowblogger (#4) good idea but you better have a special mark on it or they will claim they have found the right one by divine insiration. When you point out it was not the blessed one, they would probably claim that Jesus transfered himself from one to the other. Anyone that believes a blessed cracker is turning into flesh, is clearly really crazy or high on illegal substances.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 8, 2008 8:27 PM

I'd love a bold newspaper editor to title the article Wacky cult wants magic biscuit back and tell the exact same story with a few changes to exclude any references to Catholicism or Christianty until the very end.

No doubt all the Christers would be laughing their asses off at such patently stupid behaviour - until they realised what was going on.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 8, 2008 8:29 PM

The body of Christ compels you to get a little bit of brie.

Posted by: andyo | July 8, 2008 8:31 PM

Bob Russell #19,

It is certainly sacred when it gets pooped out...I'm sure I've Jesus in the toilet bowl more than once...

It's even been documented.

Posted by: jrochest | July 8, 2008 8:32 PM

When two Catholic friends of mine got married, a very devout relation sent them a host (the cracker) as a wedding gift, neatly packaged in a little envelope, rather like one of those money mailer things.

Unfortunately, Canada Post did its usual irreverent handling of the envelope, and when my friend opened it all that remained were, as she put it, "Little Bits of Jesus, EVERYWHERE".

They got quite giggly trying to figure out what to do: sweep it up? But what if they missed a bit, and trod on it? Reverently vacuum? But then, what to do with the vacuum cleaner bag? The cat ate some of it, before they could stop him: did this make the cat part of the Catholic Communion?

All in all, they were quite relieved to discover that it wasn't consecrated (even though they are both VERY secular, now divorced, and one is gay)

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 8, 2008 8:33 PM

If you don't like what Webster Cook did, all you have to do is complain to the university, and they will do the dirty work for you of making his college experience miserable. And don't assume the university would support Cook; the college is now having armed university police officers standing guard during mass.

Yep, that's librul academia for ya.

Posted by: thalarctos | July 8, 2008 8:34 PM

The body of Christ compels you to get a little bit of brie.

And of course you'll have heard about the new low-fat communion wafers: "I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus®!".

Posted by: llewelly | July 8, 2008 8:35 PM

Oh, by the way, PZ, you should get the cracker tested for Jesus DNA, and other evidence of transubstantiation. If you find any Jesus flesh, please clone a few cells and grow a blastocyst and hybridize it with a squid or something.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 8, 2008 8:35 PM

Can someone explain how it can constitutes a 'hate crime'? Isn't a hate crime an otherwise normal crime committed out of or motivated by hate? Technically, he hasn't committed a 'crime' in the first place - the cracker was given to him; he didn't steal it. Once it's in his hands he can do what he damned well (pun intended) wants with it.

Posted by: Holbach | July 8, 2008 8:37 PM

Ha, I wish he had held it up and pointed a spray can of Cheese Whiz at it and said; "If you come any closer I'll turn it into a Ritz cracker and throw it to the squirrels! Here is just an example that politeness and tolerance are just wasted on religious retards.

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 8, 2008 8:39 PM

Who's got a prescription for some medicinal marijuana? The recipe for a Leary Biscuit calls for a Ritz cracker, but wouldn't it be heavenly with a communion wafer?

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 8, 2008 8:39 PM

Oh, yeah, I'm also eagerly awaiting the sage advice from the McGrath/Craig brand of "enlightened" theologians, urging tolerance, forgiveness and a moderate view of the importance of a cracker.

When I hear that, I think I'll eat flying bacon to celebrate.

Posted by: Yoo | July 8, 2008 8:41 PM

Even if the cracker really was the body of Christ (ludicrous, but just for the sake of argument), who do these people think they are? How could they dare say that Jesus can't take care of himself. Do they think they're above Jesus Christ?!?

(Or at least I would say so if I were a Christian ...)

Posted by: Carlie | July 8, 2008 8:41 PM

Christ on a cracker! Always wondered where that curse came from. I never realized there was a tiny Jesus stamped on each one of those - us simple Protestant folk only use regular little plain crackers.

I read in "Running from the Devil" (GREAT book, everyone go read it) that one of the altar boys' jobs was to eat the host if someone tried to break in and steal it. I was like WTF? Now, I believe it.

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 8:44 PM

So:

(1) Webster Cook doing this is kind of asinine. At best, he made an honest mistake; at worst, he's one of those pissants who wouldn't dream of doing something as terrible and sacrilegious as pissing in the Protestants' grape juice but considers his shit too good for those Papists' wine.
(The Catholic League and other intra-Religious Right liasions aside, Catholics in America tend to be pretty reasonable - they, like most minority religions, fall somewhere on the left. A lot of the agitators here at Fox etc. are from different, more insane sects.)
Basically, there are a lot of evangelicals who are going to make a big deal out of this simply because the media image of it is someone doing something anti-Christian. They exploit this kind of crap to the ground - and they'll do it in the name of a religious sect that generally wants nothing to do with bullshit like this.

(2) It's worth noting that much more severe acts of desecration have been carried out against Muslims - those damn cartoons, some asshole flushing one of their holy books - and the response didn't include a concerted attempt to destroy the perpetrators' lives, major news networks overtly calling for them to be lynched, etc.
Long story short, this is as good evidence as you could ever ask for that our domestic Christianist phalange will do shit more radical than anyone in the Middle East could get away with, and it'll do it in the name of religious groups it otherwise wishes the US could make illegal.

If there's one appeal I can make to you, it's this - don't let Donohue make this into a Catholic thing, and don't let the evangelical and charismatic loons get away with pretending to speak for Catholics. And don't make a martyr out of some jackass who felt compelled to screw with a religious congregation over something this unimportant. It wasn't an act of protest and it wasn't a stumbling block to religious oppression; all it did was fumblingly throw the Catholic community one unfortunate step closer to the dour, vile theocrats who dominate the hard right in America.

This guy pulled a stupid stunt for no good reason - one that's pretty damned offensive in context - and not only are the Christofascists trying to make a mountain of pan-Christian sacrilege out of a single stupid stunt, but you're playing along with them. Please don't; we don't need another asinine culture battle and if we did it shouldn't be over something this unimportant.

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 8:46 PM

On the other hand, the 'catholics worldwide' are largely the European and Latin American answer to our evangelical fringe. Fuck them - and fuck anything that brings their American coreligionists closer to them.

Posted by: Zeno | July 8, 2008 8:47 PM

This incident is, of course, a direct consequence of the excesses of Vatican II! The crazy liberals who ran that ecumenical council unleashed the forces of modernism with their irresponsible relaxation of many time-honored rules, leading to such horrors as reception of the eucharist wafer in the hand. Oh, noooooo!

Trust me: I haven't seen this exact complaint yet, but expect some furious lobbying within Catholic ranks for a return to the old-fashioned communion practice of reception by mouth only. That's when the priest places the wafer directly on the communicant's tongue. Today lots of people receive the host in their cupped hands, after which it's their responsibility to transfer it to their mouths. The hand technique, of course, makes it much more convenient to pocket the wafer and later put it up for sale on eBay (remember that?) or for use in a satanic black mass. From the Catholic point of view, these are mortally sinful desecrations. The reactions of Donohue et alia, as we see, demonstrate the degree to which they are prepared to go absolutely nuts over it.

Webster Cook's action is a mildly rude prank by sane standards, deliberating slighting Catholic sensibilities by making light of a wafer of worship. These sensibilities, however, have shown themselves to be much tougher when contemplating various Church scandals (such as the recent one involving Cardinal Pell and his protection of a accused child molester). When it comes to picking battles, the members of my childhood religion seem rather injudicious in choosing the things that get them really, really upset.

By the way, since the communion wafer is supposed to be the actual body of Christ, you should take proper care of it when you obtain your own consecrated host. I recommend pushpins and a cork board. Five pushpins are probably best: four for the nails in the hands and feet and a fifth to represent the lance wound in the side. Naturally, it's not necessary to leave the fifth one in place, since that would not be consistent with the Bible accounts of the crucifixion.

Then brace yourself for visits from the Vatican's crack squad of ninja nuns.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 8, 2008 8:48 PM

"However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it."

We just expect the University to take this seriously," she added "To send a message to not just Mr. Cook but the whole community that this kind of really complete sacrilege will not be tolerated."

I think I've read something about the idea of making a sacrilege a crime ... something about "no law" and religion ...

Posted by: khops | July 8, 2008 8:50 PM

mmmm Christ Chex

am I the only one that saw that Dane Cook sketch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui3diDtZ6_E

Posted by: co | July 8, 2008 8:50 PM

Of course, all the holy sites on the intarwebs are up in arms about this. For example: http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/07/student-holds-eucharist-hostage.html . Some of the comments there are just... priceless.

Posted by: llewelly | July 8, 2008 8:51 PM

Please don't; we don't need another asinine culture battle and if we did it shouldn't be over something this unimportant.

Posted by: windy | July 8, 2008 8:52 PM

I like the way this guy describes it:

"Here's a video report on Webster F. Cook, the University of Central Florida student responsible for taking hostage Our Lord, keeping him a Zip-Loc Baggie..."

Oh no! The indignity!

Two observations:

-how is it "theft" if they are giving the crackers away?

-a stone tomb sealed by a boulder couldn't hold the guy, but a zip-loc bag can?

Posted by: Buenare | July 8, 2008 8:54 PM

So back when I was a Catholic, I suppose after I masticated Jesu...err..the cracker, digested it, and then deficated it, I should have given it back to the church?

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 8:55 PM

In truth - the silliness of a fight over a Jesus Cracker will show how ridiculous the pretensions and voodoo-thinking of the religious are.
About a third of the country buys into that Jesus Cracker bullshit, and have until the last decade or so been pretty reasonable about it. By all means, let's start a holy war over the fucking Eucharist.

Posted by: Jose | July 8, 2008 8:56 PM

#40
I have to say that I will feel bad when all the atheist are looking down on you as you burn in hell. Even if you have earned it.

Posted by: Mika H | July 8, 2008 9:00 PM

What chance is there that this originates from an Onion article that a local FOX affiliate mistook for a real story?

Holy crap.

Posted by: Chad | July 8, 2008 9:01 PM

If he gave up the cracker once they admitted to using physical force then its a fair trade off. They admit assault while he admits to a mistake. That being said, it should and hopefully will happen again - this time a point made in destroying the cracker in whatever disrespectful way possible simply to make a point.

Simply because your superstitious mythology denotes an act as sinful doesn't give you the right to do anything you choose.

Posted by: Zeno | July 8, 2008 9:01 PM

Zeno, #53, wrote:

but expect some furious lobbying within Catholic ranks for a return to the old-fashioned communion practice of reception by mouth only.

Are you still talking about wafers?

Well, Wowbagger, I was talking about wafers, but it could also apply to the Church's expanded program of acceptable birth control practices.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 8, 2008 9:02 PM

#66,

Mmmmmmm, that's some goooooood Jesus!

Posted by: Barry | July 8, 2008 9:03 PM

Considering the fact that he DID NOT swallow the cracker... I'd have to say he treated the cracker with more respect than everyone else in attendance. After all, the holy ones have basically just eaten, digested, and shit the cracker into a commode.

Posted by: Bob Spencer | July 8, 2008 9:04 PM

PZ, such idiocy has been going on in the Catholic church for many years. More than 60 years ago in a small town in western Kentucky a somewhat similar event occurred which your post recalled to mind. In preparation for her first communion, a beautiful little red-headed girl, age seven, was taught with the full authority of her parents and the church that when she ate the communion wafer it would literally be transformed into the flesh of a dead man in her stomach. On the big day, dressed in her special new dress, in front of a full church, the priests and God Almighty, she took the wafer like a good little girl, but the thought of that raw flesh in her stomach was more than her bright mind could handle, and it came back up as quickly as it went down. It landed on the carpet in front of the priest. She remembers a stunned silence for what seemed a long time, then much consternation and a great scurrying of the priestly staff. They brought out a specially prepared container, consecrated it and scooped the crushed and sodden wafer into it. A procession was formed and the container was carried with full pomp to the cemetery adjacent to the church where a brief funeral ceremony was held and the body of Christ nee wafer interred with full dignity and respect.

It doesn't seem things have changed for the better in the intervening years, does it?

Posted by: Barron | July 8, 2008 9:06 PM

Muslims protest depictions of their prophet: They are dangerous extremists.

Right Wing Catholics protest removal of a sanctified wafer: They are reacting to a hate crime.

It's good to be the white guy some days.

Posted by: Chris | July 8, 2008 9:06 PM

Hahaha thats the school I graduated from last year. I didn't realize it was getting so stupid... Most of the time you would never even know anyone there was religious. This is kinda funny.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 8, 2008 9:07 PM

Taking the host like that is a stupid, classless, mean-spirited thing to do

It's not a "host", it's a fucking cracker ... no one has any obligation to honor idiotic superstitions. And besides, he simply wanted to show to someone else; his taking it was a response to being physically abused. Your characterization of his action is absurd and dishonest.

Posted by: Nemo | July 8, 2008 9:08 PM

Wow, this almost makes me want to go to Mass for the first time in over twenty years, just to smuggle out a cracker.

Posted by: ben | July 8, 2008 9:11 PM

A friend of mine, not me, and my friend once used the holy biscuit as a medium for a well-known hallucinogen. Sacrilegious sparkly colours ....

Posted by: deichmans | July 8, 2008 9:13 PM

@Doug#2 nailed it. It's a tenet of Catholic faith that the cracker (despite maintaining the structural integrity and consistency of a cracker) *IS* the body of the Messiah. While I don't personally subscribe to the notion of transubstantiation, you should have a little more respect for those who do.

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 9:14 PM

Are you sure that -- in making a mountain out of such a self-evidently stupid thing -- the Christians aren't actually playing into our hands?

For every pundit and True Believer twisting their panties into a bunch over this, there may be at least a couple casual, mainstream theists thinking "what the heck...?"

Oh, sure - but the thing to do isn't to play along with them. Both parties are idiots; the Catholic Leaguers and ostensible evangelical sympathizers are by far the bigger, meaner, more violent, stupider, and louder idiots. The moderate theists' reaction to this kind of thing is almost always 'Well, that's a stupid overreaction.' The thing to do in that situation isn't to encourage them to convert by burning crosses on their lawns.

Posted by: jrochest | July 8, 2008 9:16 PM

Truth Machine:

Well, it is the Host. It's also a cracker.

You know, terminology: you say tomEHto, I say tomAto...

Posted by: Fernando Magyar | July 8, 2008 9:16 PM

TM re#72,
You beat me to it. My thoughts exactly. You think they might have tried him for attempted murder then?

Posted by: hubris hurts | July 8, 2008 9:17 PM

So, if the consecrated wafer becomes the flesh of christ - does that mean that vegetarians shouldn't take communion? Just wondering...

Posted by: MJMD | July 8, 2008 9:19 PM

OK, the Catholic Church AND all other religeons are nuts. I agree.
But why enter into a Roman Catholic mass and, with full knowlege of your offending people, perform an act that breaks one of the fundamental rules of the religeon.
Why do it, and then complain about the reaction, which is completely expected. Especially in a university where all us young-uns are as enthusiastically one-eyed about every single new idea we have.
Would it be acceptable to enter a physics class and waste everyone's time with a pointless debate on how electricity holds the planets orbiting the sun and not gravity? I think not as I would have no right to waste everyone's time and create meaningless confusion for those not equipped to handle my bulldust.
I appreciate the idea of debate and communication. But not direct, intentional offence for no reason than the offense itself. Or does he actually wonder if there is transubstantiation and needed to check this baloney? Would he have eaten it if he detected an anomoly. LOL. imagine if the anomoly was just residual salmonella from the priests left over pork rolls he had for breakfast.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
So those who believe that religeon is a crock of ...., fine, go buy some wafers and some dip. What difference is there in obtaining a "consegrated" wafer other than the offence it would cause?

Posted by: Zeno | July 8, 2008 9:20 PM

Omigawd! This is surely a sign! At this very moment my local Fox station is broadcasting a Family Guy rerun. It's the episode in which Stewie scarfs up several communion wafers, chugs the communion wine, and then vomits. The Church then demands that Stewie be turned over for an exorcism, since he is obviously possessed by Satan.

Could this be merely a coincidence, or is it a message?

Wooooooooooo.

Posted by: Dustin | July 8, 2008 9:20 PM

So, if the consecrated wafer becomes the flesh of christ - does that mean that vegetarians shouldn't take communion? Just wondering...

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 9:23 PM

I disagree. I think that religious beliefs have been granted too much automatic respect and deference. It is time they pulled their own weight in the marketplace of ideas, instead of throwing their weight around with no accountability.

A fan of the Left Behind series, I take it? That's kind of what subjecting religion to a 'marketplace' gets you - horribly corrupt and dishonest horseshit. Even the most hardline mainstream Catholics oppose the death penalty and the Iraq war - ethical consistency isn't exactly market ideology's strong suit, though, so LaHaye & Jenkins get to mix equal parts John Birch and Pat Robertson without anyone calling bullshit.

Posted by: brandon | July 8, 2008 9:29 PM

Step one: Buy bulk package of communion wafers - available a most bible and book stores - unwrap and set aside.

Step two: Attend Catholic Mass.

Step three: Wake up in time to receive communion.

Step four: Step back from eucharistic minister. Brandishig unblessed wafers from beneath your Scarlet-trimmed Atheist Cape(TM)...

Step five: ...toss crackers and Jesus into the air.

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 9:31 PM

Point of fact: calling this a hate crime is idiotic at best and dishonest at worst. Minority or no, there are enough Catholics and they have enough resources that they can handle something this piddling; the comparison to anti-black hate crimes is preposterous.

If someone did something like this to the Jewish equivalent - not familiar enough with Orthodox practice to name one, but I'm certain one exists - it'd qualify as a hate crime; same goes for someone kicking the shit out of a Catholic schoolchild for no better reason. But the numbers and severity make a difference; there's no legal issue here on the desecrator's part, just poor taste. Assault, on the other hand, is assault - the passionate situation in which it occurred may be a mitigating factor, but it's still at least substantially a willful and illegal act.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 8, 2008 9:33 PM

All the former Catholics here who smuggled out the host in a pocket as a curious child to inspect later to see what the fuss was all about, raise your hands.

*B raises his*

What an overreaction.

But what can you expect from an organisation that must be quivering with impotence now that they can no longer compel everybody to do their bidding with threats of eternal damnation?

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 8, 2008 9:35 PM

While I agree that there was a certain amount of disrespect in what he did - to the people who are upset by it, not the church; I couldn't give a crap about that - they've sacrificed any moral high ground that might have been able to claim by bringing the media in and blowing this stupid thing so far out of proportion.

Like I wrote earlier, have someone post an article titled something like Wacky cult fights for return of magic biscuit, omit all references to Xianity, and see what the response is.

It's all about who has the most public support for their particular brand of ooga-booga.

Posted by: Leo | July 8, 2008 9:36 PM

OF COURSE it's a sacrilege! Taking a piece of the body of Jesus out of the church is like taking a piece of the body of Vladimir Lenin out of the Mausoleum! In Russia, they'll shoot you dead for that!

Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 8, 2008 9:37 PM

Magic crackers. Immaterial monsters jumping into people's heads and making them do stuff they wouldn't do on their own. Dead people stepping out of tombs.

When it comes from a book that includes the words "hit points," it's an RPG. When it comes from a book that includes the word "Corinthians," it's a religion. They're not really all that different.

Although... hey... Florida.

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 9:38 PM

While I agree that there was a certain amount of disrespect in what he did - to the people who are upset by it, not the church; I couldn't give a crap about that - they've sacrificed any moral high ground that might have been able to claim by bringing the media in and blowing this stupid thing so far out of proportion.

Generally agreed, but do bear in mind that it was the clergy that initiated this (e.g. not most of the people affected), and also that even they didn't have any control over the right-wing media machine going into DESTROY HEATHENS mode.

The entire imbroglio is just pathetic for all concerned. And it ain't like the Catholics are the only ones who engage in this cracker foolishness. At least they have the good taste to serve them bland things up with wine.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 8, 2008 9:39 PM

I hear and obey, my great squidly master. I shall get you a consecrated Jesus cracker from a local Catholic mass, and I shall mail it to you. Then you too can earn Bill Donohue's rage when you desecrate it in all sorts of creative ways.

Posted by: uray | July 8, 2008 9:44 PM

Snipped from another board:
----------
Everyone should copy Webster
sga_ba1@mail.ucf.edu
and e-mail the president of the college:
Dr. John Hitt jhitt@mail.ucf.edu
----------
I haven't confirmed the accuracy of the Emails, but some "on the other side" are launching Email campaigns against the president. Perhaps some Floridians here could do the same?

Posted by: scooter | July 8, 2008 9:44 PM

#6

So that's what the flesh of Jesus looks like...

And after it transubstantiates, you have the handy cross splinters to use as a toothpick.

Posted by: The Pale Scot | July 8, 2008 9:45 PM

"IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!" + Florida = me thinking yea? it IS Florida stupid.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 8, 2008 9:46 PM

Well, it is the Host. It's also a cracker.

As Lincoln noted, calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it one.

I don't personally subscribe to the notion of transubstantiation, you should have a little more respect for those who do.

Uh, why? I have even less respect for that than I do for thinking that walking under a ladder or being crossed by a black cat will bring bad luck.

Posted by: WarrenJ | July 8, 2008 9:46 PM

CRAP!! Just Google it. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Make-Holy-Communion-Hosts-63307.shtml

Posted by: owlbear1 | July 8, 2008 9:50 PM

Don't forget the Cheez-whiz.

Posted by: Geral | July 8, 2008 9:54 PM

Huge overreaction. Who cares? The kid took one to show to his friend. He didn't post a video on the web pissing on it, burning it, reading satanic verses over it, kissing a member of the same sex over it, or something that would be seen as equally heathenish.

There's quite literally thousands of issues these people can get upset about, that we can all agree on, and they chose something as mundane as this.

... and in regards to this being a hate crime, please. Tell me this. How can one kid smuggle a wafer out of the church and be accused of a hate crime, yet pastors and bishops can deny the eucharist to those whom they deem unworthy of it - you know, like openly gay members and those who support gay marriage? I certainly find the latter more characteristic of a hate crime.

Posted by: Canuck | July 8, 2008 9:56 PM

My 13 year old daughter is brilliant, and we've of course raised her to believe that religion is absurd. I was just explaining to her the substance of this post and she said, "why don't they use gingerbread men, they look a lot more like people, and they taste a lot better anyway." I nearly split a gut laughing.

I think my girl is a pastafarian. She loves noodles with all kinds of different sauces.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 8, 2008 9:57 PM

Craig, #134, wrote:

They also kinda sacrificed the moral high ground by protecting their official wizard guys who like to fuck little kids.

Yeah, good point. How about this: They sacrificed the moral high ground malodorous, stagnant swamp of corruption and hypocrisy instead?

Posted by: Dustin | July 8, 2008 9:57 PM

He didn't post a video on the web pissing on it, burning it, reading satanic verses over it, kissing a member of the same sex over it, or something that would be seen as equally heathenish.

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 9:58 PM

They also kinda sacrificed the moral high ground by protecting their official wizard guys who like to fuck little kids.

Just sayin'.

The vast majority of Catholics polled found the behavior of the Church in the child abuse scandals repellant - and that's not even to mention the parallel abuse of children by youth ministers and other boy-hawking Christer cretins. And the people freaking out about the host desecration now were, for the most part, the ones who first started treating child abuse like an intrinsically Catholic issue.

Donohue, incidentally, made his bones professionally having the vapors over Sinead O'Connor's act of protest on SNL. If the American right had anything like a sense of shame, he'd have drowned when he tried to go down with the child-raping ship; instead, he's still contributing ever-so-preciously to ecumenical fucknuttery.

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 8, 2008 9:59 PM

We're not going to win any converts sneering at the dim-witted Papists.

Winning converts among the dim-witted Papists? We don't need no steenkeeng converts. Anybody who doesn't have the sense to be embarrassed about such fuckwittery isn't worth the energy it would take to cultivate them To Serve Man.

Posted by: Sophist FCD | July 8, 2008 10:00 PM

It's not a "host", it's a fucking cracker

Yeah, and Guernica is just some paint on canvas, and the US Constitution is just ink on paper, and...well, you get the point. The ideas we attach to a thing are far more important than the thing itself. I'm sure you have things to which you are sentimentally attached that to others would be nothing but a mess of pottage, and yet to you they are precious. However much you might think they are full of shit, it is indisputable that people attach a lot of meaning to that cracker. Going out of your way to stick your thumb in their eye for no good reason makes you a dick, and I say this as an atheist.

... no one has any obligation to honor idiotic superstitions.

I never said otherwise. There is a difference between not honoring and dishonoring, and while I think it is you right to do both, nine times out of ten doing the later makes you a dick. It's like flag burning or wearing blackface: you can do it, but you probably shouldn't, because most of the time it ends up being pointless, counterproductive attention-whoring.

In conclusion, eat me.

Posted by: Canuck | July 8, 2008 10:01 PM

She's hittin' them out of the park tonight. I just read her the comment on "desecration of the host" being the worst sin, and she "so it's bad to poop out the cracker?" (defecation of the host). I'm still laughing. There may be more to come. She's reading over my shoulder. Wicked punster, this one.

Posted by: amphiox | July 8, 2008 10:02 PM

Lack of respect??!! No belief, supposition or assertion deserves respect just for being a belief, supposition or assertion. Respect is earned.

It's a cracker (well, more accurately a wafer). To be offended over the disposition of a flattened piece of starch and gluten. . . . well it's a free country. we all have the right to be silly if we really want to.

To make death threats over a flattened piece of starch and gluten. . . . That is evil.

Posted by: Dragonfire | July 8, 2008 10:04 PM

@32

I love 'The Wall' Pink Floyd reference.

Posted by: Capital Dan | July 8, 2008 10:05 PM

While I don't personally subscribe to the notion of transubstantiation, you should have a little more respect for those who do.

Posted by: deichmans

Respect is earned, asshole. Spewing out death threats and harassing a college student isn't going to earn you that respect.

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 8, 2008 10:07 PM

There is a difference between not honoring and dishonoring, and while I think it is you right to do both, nine times out of ten doing the later makes you a dick. It's like flag burning or wearing blackface: you can do it, but you probably shouldn't, because most of the time it ends up being pointless, counterproductive attention-whoring.

In conclusion, eat me.

Come down off of your cross, walk over here and tell that to my face. I'd rather be a dick than a fecking concern troll.

Those people need to be mercifully mocked. Apparently, you do too. As Abbie Hoffman said, sacred cows make the best hamburger.

Posted by: Kel | July 8, 2008 10:08 PM

I think one should indeed have respect for those who believe in transubstantiation.

Posted by: Jack Bishop | July 8, 2008 10:09 PM

When Graham Greene wrote it ("The Hint of an Explanation", 1948), it was actually a moderately interesting story. Not one of his better ones, but how much drama and moral quandry are you going to get out of a stolen Host?

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 8, 2008 10:11 PM

@ Sophist, # 151:

Consider yourself eaten. And be aware that you are not tough and stringy, you are mealy. You are not spicy or tart, you are bland.

I am left needing a drink and some toothpaste.

Nevertheless, go well.

Posted by: windy | July 8, 2008 10:12 PM

Yeah, and Guernica is just some paint on canvas, and the US Constitution is just ink on paper, and...well, you get the point.

No, it's not the same point at all. If they were handing out free copies of those things, it would be stupid to get offended if someone used the paper "disrespectfully". Can someone "hold the constitution hostage" by putting a photocopy of it in a ziploc bag?

Posted by: bill r | July 8, 2008 10:13 PM

If this is news to people, a course in comparative religion might be in order. All the good little catholic altar boys have fun tales to tell of pranks involving the hosts. My favorite involves stepping on the priest's cassock and watching hosts in space. Sacred snow in July!

Those of us who were around during the hip folk masses of the 60's used all sorts of substitute hosts. Chunks of bred and Ritz crackers work just fine. Don't know if they do that any more.

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 10:15 PM

P.S. I wonder if the immeasurable suffering perpetrated by Catholic clergy (you know what I'm talkin' about) over the centuries has caused a commensurate level of outrage from the Flock.

The gay/married clergy issue didn't just pop out of thin air - a solid majority of Catholic priests are now in their 70s.

Dogma, for what it's worth (I don't like or agree with Kevin Smith, but I liked the movie), is a pretty solid bit of American Catholic religious contemplation. They really don't take the Church seriously; it embarasses them far too often, like a senile old grandfather who flies into tirades over condoms or IVF.

The ones instigating this shit do need their coffee pissed in, but they're not the ones you're going to smear with wry snark about those silly transubstantiationists. That shit only makes them stronger.

Posted by: Vic | July 8, 2008 10:16 PM

1) kidnap god in the form of a cracker
2) ???
3) PROFIT

Posted by: co | July 8, 2008 10:19 PM

> /I kid
> (But not in a Catholic way...)

#140 may have ended the thread, but I'm kind of glad that people kept posting. #162 is beautiful.

Posted by: Scholar | July 8, 2008 10:21 PM

Webster, you cannot hide from God.

Websta gonna bust yo head (weak)

Websta gonna bust yo head, irregardless (strong)

Posted by: Holbach | July 8, 2008 10:23 PM

NonyNony @ 172 Excommunication: Banishment from fantasyland.

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 8, 2008 10:24 PM

It's not just a cracker... It's a Triscuit!
..
.

Posted by: Greg Laden | July 8, 2008 10:25 PM

As an alterboy, I was trained to deal with this sort of situation.

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 8, 2008 10:27 PM

Anyone in the Church who stood up to the priests and crazy laity and said "hey calm down, it's just a cracker, leave the kid alone" would be, at best, ostracized by the rest of the Church.

And the apostates ask, "This would be a bad thing how?"

Oh, wait.

[Zappa]Catholic girls...[/Zappa]

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 10:29 PM

#182: I don't know if I buy Mithraism as a precursor to Christian ritual, partially because it's been so popular with your garden-variety mysticist universal-mythology cranks, and partially because, unlike various clearly traceable pre-Christian totems (Saturnalia, the Catalonian shitting Nativity figure, the Sunday solstice, the Germanic recreation of Jesus as a pious warrior figure, the Rapture, etc), the various Mithras rituals that Christianity is supposed to have repurposed are both (a) poorly documented and (b) in the version presented by modern mythography, far too spot-on a match to be credible.

It's difficult to dispute that Christmas is basically a smattering of pre-Christian ritual, for instance, but if it were like the way Mithrasian cooptation is supposed to work, it would involve an upending of the existing social order to serve Baby Jesus and incorporate significant Roman elements - and the tree wouldn't be a Douglas fir.

But that's just historiography.

Posted by: Kel | July 8, 2008 10:32 PM

And how can I possibly begin to respect someone who so egregiously twisted such a simple sentence?

Posted by: j | July 8, 2008 10:35 PM

Sophist FCD:
"Yeah, and Guernica is just some paint on canvas, and the US Constitution is just ink on paper, and...well, you get the point."

Man, your logic is sooo impeccable.

What an apropo name you have since you're the epitome of sophistry. You, sir, are a vile trolling fuckwit.

"In conclusion, eat me."

In conclusion, blow me asswipe, and I mean that in all sincerity...

Posted by: Adrienne | July 8, 2008 10:36 PM

OH goody, another True Believin' Catholic who thinks the student should have been beaten up and forced to hand over the consecrated wafer: http://www.catholicpillowfight.com/blog697.html

Posted by: Rick T | July 8, 2008 10:37 PM

There must be some concerted effort to out do the Muslums reaction to the Danish cartoons. Jesus Crapping Christ (well, not if you palm the cracker), try to maintain some decorum and not act like we're living in the 10th century.

I believe that the birth rate for Catholics is not as high as it used to be because, evidently, every sperm is not sacred, or at least too expensive if it leads to another little catholic. So, if American Catholics can ignore the Pope in this regard why still hold to the nonsense that Jesus is a cracker?

Posted by: Sir Jebbington | July 8, 2008 10:38 PM

Was Jesus like, a bread golem, if that's his flesh?

Posted by: amphiox | July 8, 2008 10:39 PM

It isn't cannibalism, I suppose, because god and humans are different species. For one thing, H. sapiens isn't capable of parthenogenesis (and parthenogenesis generating male offspring to boot.)

Anyone got a gene sequence on the Trinity?

Posted by: Jamie | July 8, 2008 10:41 PM

Ahem.
Correction: it is a god *blessed* cracker.

Carry on...

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 8, 2008 10:42 PM

Yeah, and Guernica is just some paint on canvas, and the US Constitution is just ink on paper, and...well, you get the point.

I get the point that you're a cretin ... and a sophist. Both Guernica and The U.S. Constitution have actual content. And stealing or ripping up copies -- perhaps painted or inscribed on crackers -- would have no special significance.

However much you might think they are full of shit, it is indisputable that people attach a lot of meaning to that cracker.

No one disputed that, moron. But these people are idiots.

Going out of your way to stick your thumb in their eye for no good reason makes you a dick, and I say this as an atheist.

There is a good reason, imbecile.

Posted by: BenQoph | July 8, 2008 10:45 PM

"good idea but you better have a special mark on it or they will claim they have found the right one by divine insiration."

Just palm the real wafer. like Penn jillet did with a key to randy at amazing meeting 3.

Posted by: Richbank | July 8, 2008 10:45 PM

This whole "significance of the host" thing the Catholics have going on reminds me of a parable we learned in english class:

"In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse. For 13 days the disputation raged without ceasing. All the ancient books and chronicles were fetched out, and wonderful and ponderous erudition, such as was never before heard of in this region, was made manifest. At the beginning of the 14th day, a youthful friar of goodly bearing asked his learned superiors for permission to add a word, and straightway, to the wonderment of the disputants, whose wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to unbend in a manner coarse and unheard-of, and to look in the open mouth of a horse and find answer to their questionings. At this, their dignity being grievously hurt, they waxed exceedingly wroth; and, joining in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him hip and thigh, and cast him out forthwith. For, said they, surely Satan hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and unheard-of ways of finding the truth contrary to all the teachings of the fathers. After many days more of grievous strife the dove of peace sat on the assembly, and they as one man, declaring the problem to be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth of historical and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same writ down."

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 8, 2008 10:46 PM

And, BTW,

However much you might think they are full of shit, it is indisputable that people attach a lot of meaning to that cracker.

It's not just that they "attach a lot of meaning", but that they think (or pretend to think) that the cracker actually is Christ's flesh. As such, they are demented fuckwits, and their baloney (sandwich?) is not deserving of any respect.

Posted by: Dustin | July 8, 2008 10:47 PM

Was Jesus like, a bread golem, if that's his flesh?

Posted by: negentropyeater | July 8, 2008 10:48 PM

So these people not only believe in God, but also that priests have some sort of magical spell that transforms crackers into cracker shaped Gods. Moreover it's very bad for this kind of cracker shaped God to be taken out for a walk and given some fresh air, but really very good for them to be eaten alive.

How can anyone seriously believe in this kind of joke ?
They can't possibly really believe in this, can they ?
Please tell me that they are just making a big fuss about the whole thing, just to show that they still exist, that they just want respect, which is so pathetic because they'll get the most worthless respect over the most ridiculous belief.

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 10:50 PM

#202: My personal theory as to why a lot of them are fairly decent here while in Europe actively religious Catholics tend to be reactionary jagoffs is to do with the role of religion in society. When a religion doesn't have the power to make laws around its own whims, its purpose becomes providing comfort and guidance to its membership - and that membership is voluntary. In majority, established, or highly politicized religions (along with cults, but that's a secondary matter), membership isn't voluntary, nor is the level of religious fervor or suspension of rational faculties.

Catholics in America can get away with being fairly heretical by high-church standards. (Even among those who believe the Church's fairly silly teachings about birth control, a minority actually pay attention to it in daily life.) You see a mirror phenomenon happen elsewhere in the world; in Latin America, for instance, the evangelicals and Mormons tend to behave (socially, anyway) rather like the Catholics here, and are much less ideologically stringent (especially in well-established communities). Religion loses whatever good it might have going for it when it becomes powerful enough to make the rules.

Catholicism is kind of in the middle-ground in America, and in some states they're very much conservative hardliners - although in no state have they gained enough power to actually make laws the way they do in Italy, Portugal, Bavaria, or wherever. Oddly enough, this can even become true of certain strains of atheism - in China, for instance, it's a pretty good bet most Christians you find will be social democrats and find the political alignment of their coreligionists in America baffling, and the atheists tend to be fairly authoritarian.

Basically, don't let any one religion get a lock on the majority and you'll do OK.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 8, 2008 10:51 PM

Anyone up for printing some bumper stickers patterned after those annoying "It's a child, not a choice" ones? Something along the lines of, "It's a cracker, not a corpse."

Damn that's good.

Posted by: mayhempix | July 8, 2008 10:52 PM

I'll have a Big Jesus with cheese to go, easy on the cross and hold the nails please.

Posted by: scooter | July 8, 2008 10:54 PM

I've been having my way with that HOST pun on the radio for years.

I'm your Host, scooter, owww stop biting me, not THAT kind of host.

etc etc etc etc

Posted by: Dark Matter | July 8, 2008 10:57 PM

Anyone up for printing some bumper stickers patterned after those annoying "It's a child, not a choice" ones? Something along the lines of, "It's a cracker, not a corpse."

Damn that's good.

Oh, please, please tell me the Sweeney Todd reference is intentional, because it's perfect. ;)

Posted by: BobC | July 8, 2008 10:58 PM

Somebody asked "They can't possibly really believe in this, can they?"

If they can believe in the Resurrection, they can believe anything.

I recently wrote a good description of the Resurrection on a Christian blog, but nobody liked it for some reason. Here it is.

The Resurrection.

A moron named jesus claims he's a god. He gets himself executed to save his gullible followers from the wrath of the daddy god. Then after 3 days of decomposing the stinking dead jesus turns into a zombie, later flying up to the clouds.

Posted by: Pahj | July 8, 2008 11:01 PM

I don't blame the church. I'd be really pissed if someone took MY snacks.

Posted by: Ragutis | July 8, 2008 11:04 PM

My deepest darkest secret from my religious days was that I never bought that transubstantiation crap. Among all the other silly bullshit that I accepted for all those years, that one bit of magic was just too damn ridiculous for me, even at my most credulous times. (My second deepest darkest secret was what I did with this girl named Monica in the church. Several times.)

Anyway, PZ, or anyone else thinking of ganking and desecrating themselves some Body of Christ, I've got an idea:

Hold the effing things hostage. Demands? Ransom? Hell yeah. For every Jeez-It® that they want back, make 'em turn over everything they know about one child-molesting/sexually assaulting priest to the cops and excommunicate the pedo/rapist bastard.

Posted by: N.K. | July 8, 2008 11:04 PM

This is ridiculous.

It's a cracker, people. I get that they believe it's symbolic of Jesus, or whatever. But fucking really now, saying a cracker is more important than a real, living, human being's life degrades the quality and value of life and is a horrid blight on the face of human dignity.

It's note a hate crime. It's a mild, innocent little deviation.

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 11:05 PM

Comprehend this Sophist, I'm calling you a dick, and a concern troll. Go FCC yourself.

Believe it from me, kiddo, the tough guy routine isn't doing you any favors. It's like wearing a giant codpiece; you only learn later that all it does is draw attention to how small you really are.

I mean, yeah, I used to do the same thing, but then I turned twelve.

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 11:09 PM

OTOH, to say that Guernica and the Constitution are "just" paper is to imply the falshood that they don't have meaningful content, whereas to say that they do have meaningful content is to state the truth.

People, primarily on the hard right, are pretty violently opposed to the idea that either carries meaningful content - they object to the idea that terror-bombing is presented as wrong and law is subordinated to the power of the Commander in Chief. Them quietly fuming about it when they're passed out and them kicking over the table and bumbling about and shouting and heiling der Fuhrer are two wholly different actions, and focusing entirely on the belief ignores the far greater impact actions have on people than private thoughts.

In both cases, the hypothetical fascist is wrong, just like the hypothetical atheist (I've yet to hear anything specifically about Cook's personal motive here) is right in both cases. That isn't what matters; in the first instance the actor is behaving with a modicum of politeness and in the second they're being an asshole, whether or not they're right about the objective content of the object.

Posted by: wrpd | July 8, 2008 11:10 PM

Not that it matters, but the gluten-free crackers would not be allowed in a RC church. They have to be made with wheat according to Holy Vatican Law. The wine, too, has to contain just the right percentage of alcohol.
The anglicans have been receiving the cracker in their hands since the 16th century. It's just been a recent revival in the rc church and when it was adopted the right wing catholics had a real hissy fit. The anglican beliefs about the crackers & wine range from transubstatiation, like the rc's, to "Oh, yea, this reminds me of that jeesus guy."
And, Jeff, you're starting to turn me on again. I always wondered how jeesus felt being in a mouth that had a cock in it just a few hours before.

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 11:11 PM

Pardon, that law is not subordinated to the power of the CinC. Thinko.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 8, 2008 11:13 PM

Thoughts have a significantly different ethical weight than actions, although I guess if you swear enough at the problem it might just go away.

For something to be ridiculous means that it's deserving of ridicule. So it's no "big jump" from believing that something is worthy of ridicule (and contempt) and actually showing it. That you claimed it is shows you to be a cretin, and that is indeed not going away.

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 11:14 PM

Jeez-It®

Hee hee. Has that one been used before? It's delightful.

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 8, 2008 11:16 PM

then I turned twelve.

Let us know if you make it to thirteen, concern troll.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 8, 2008 11:16 PM

This goofy idea may be the most obvious reason I gave up religion.

Learning during confirmation classes that "the wafer TRULY BECOMES THE BODY OF CHRIST" pretty much cinched that religion was a goofy endeavor.

Plus they're lame tasteless crackers that melt on the palate and sometimes stick to the roof of the mouth.

Posted by: bigjohn756 | July 8, 2008 11:17 PM

Way back when, I was about 8 years old -- 1946 or so, one of the most brainwashed of all, a nun, told my 3rd grade class that, once upon a time, a man took a host home and hit it with a hammer and blood splattered everywhere. This story was a significant step for me along th path to atheism. Later, when I took my own soggy bit of starch home and pounded on it nothing significant happened.

BTW, calling these bits of stuff a cracker is grossly overrating them because they wouldn't hold up a any jelly much less a dab of peanut butter. Back in the day, we didn't even get any wine to wash them down either.

Posted by: pvrugg | July 8, 2008 11:19 PM

Its like my parish priest always told me when I was an Altar Soy "Jesus WANTS you to swallow..."

Posted by: Enkidu | July 8, 2008 11:20 PM

A fan of the Left Behind series, I take it? That's kind of what subjecting religion to a 'marketplace' gets you - horribly corrupt and dishonest horseshit. Even the most hardline mainstream Catholics oppose the death penalty and the Iraq war - ethical consistency isn't exactly market ideology's strong suit, though, so LaHaye & Jenkins get to mix equal parts John Birch and Pat Robertson without anyone calling bullshit.

I think lots of people are calling "bullshit" right here.

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 11:21 PM

For something to be ridiculous means that it's deserving of ridicule.
Yes.
So it's no "big jump" from believing that something is worthy of ridicule (and contempt) and actually showing it.
And evidently 'you deserve to drop dead' is tantamount to murder.

That you claimed it is shows you to be a cretin, and that is indeed not going away.
What is this, a fucking forensics round? So you have a fucking dictionary; you want a cookie, a medal, what? You're ignoring the point with a ridiculous sophist's trick and now it's been pointed out you're just getting more abusive and insistent about it. The point I was trying to make, Professor Einstein, was that being loud isn't a proper substitute for being reasonable. You want to actually counter my argument instead of acting like a child about it, be my guest, but if you're not, stop wasting my fucking time.

Posted by: Ollie | July 8, 2008 11:22 PM

Ooo, piece of Jesus!

Ooo, piece of Jesus!

Ooo, piece of Jesus!

Ooo, piece of Jesus!

Ooo, piece of Jesus!

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 11:24 PM

What an incredibly stupid and intellectually dishonest statement.

It's a statement of fact for which there are abundant examples. I'm not sure how exactly you can get from that to 'stupid and intellectually dishonest', but it's not like silly things like logic have stopped your torrent of inane abuse yet!

Posted by: Diagoras | July 8, 2008 11:26 PM

Heck, not only have I on multiple occasions not eaten the eucharist when it was given to me, but I have also several times thrown it into a urinal and pissed on it! As well as throwing it into the trash, toilet, and onto the floor. I think that I even once feed it to my dog.

I just hope that Catholics don't read this.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 8, 2008 11:28 PM

And

I accept your concession.

being loud isn't a proper substitute for being reasonable

Idiot strawman and false dichotomy.

Regardless of the blather from the concern trolls, Webster Cook is a minor hero of reason.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 8, 2008 11:30 PM

I'm kind of baffled

Admitting your faults is a good beginning.

that the thesis "having thoughts and expressing thoughts and acting on thoughts are three different things in ethical terms" is apparently so controversial for some folks here.

You're baffled by your own strawman construction.

Posted by: Patricia | July 8, 2008 11:32 PM

#254 - Kel - Bet I can trump you. I'm gonna sneak in to my local parish, and steal PZ a cracker while NOT being a catholic & menstruating. Nah, nah!

Posted by: llewelly | July 8, 2008 11:34 PM

Does that give him any special immunities, or is a bread golem some 4th edition bullshit?

Posted by: dkew | July 8, 2008 11:35 PM

My message to Dr Hitt:

Dear Sir,
It seems as if Webster Cook was making a completely valid point about the overlap of church and state at UCF. Seems like the intolerant cultists should be banned from campus.

Posted by: IasonOuabache | July 8, 2008 11:37 PM

As an unofficial representative of the Discordian Movement, I fully approve of any desecration of said crackers.

Hail Eris!!

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 8, 2008 11:38 PM

Good thing I gave up on irony meters ages ago.

[Hi, Ken!]

Ayup, considering the noise being made about that nasty Webster Cook fellow and his ... oh dear ... "disrespect" ... for stupidity and ignorance.

Posted by: ajrw | July 8, 2008 11:42 PM

Apparently everybody missed the irony of calling a communion wafer "god-damned" :P

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 8, 2008 11:45 PM

if you had been both we'd actually have something to discuss. As it stands you're gibbering incoherently and violently

Ah, see, here you're a pathetic and transparent liar ... just after writing "What is this, a fucking forensics round?"

Honestly, you're too stupid and dishonest for me to waste any more time on.

Posted by: mjs | July 8, 2008 11:46 PM

Catholic crackers in my soup
Mystical wafers loop the loop
When I pass the Lord on through
Mythical constructs in my poop!

++++

Posted by: Enkidu | July 8, 2008 11:48 PM

The point I've been trying to make (I don't know about the other people making it) is that it's a big jump from thinking the belief is ridiculous to parading about contempt for it. The reaction is inappropriate, but in the situation you couldn't expect it to be otherwise.

Posted by: Paul W. | July 8, 2008 11:49 PM

If this has been posted already, sorry, but I for one missed the Return of Jesus:

http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html

Jesus has been saved.

Posted by: Big City | July 8, 2008 11:50 PM

The most ridiculous part is that all of these idiots KNOW that it isn't Jesus, and that it's just a damn cracker, but they think that whoever pretends the hardest gets a prize.

Get these fuckers out of my country.

Posted by: alec | July 8, 2008 11:52 PM

All the hate and anger directed towards Cook is definitely unjustified and terrible -- but it was to be expected.

The thing that lead to tragedy here was that he had to have expected a negative reaction, but physical assault and death threats are too goddamn much - a more negative and extreme reaction than anyone should ever have to respect in response to anything, let alone something this minor.

His action was minor and rude and the response should have been as well. The response was as if he had taken it out and wiped his ass with it in front of all assembled. Besides the prison time, Mehmet Acga wasn't treated as harsh as this - and what he did was substantially worse.

I'm going to be really happy in 2009 when the religious right doesn't have an organized, electorally viable party to represent it anymore. They haven't just gone too far, they make an official policy of going too far, and if they're going to go and martyr some poor kid for being a punk bitch, they need to have consequences attached to that.

Posted by: Sophist FCD | July 8, 2008 11:53 PM

Dicking around with idiots who worship crackers may get Sophist's panties in a twist, but as a result of this story there are many, many smart children who will learn about this, hesitantly brave some trial private blashpemous empiricism, and precipitously spare themselves a few years of brainwashing that will make them even smarter, while simultaneously lowering the collective IQ of those they'll have to leave behind.

So, basically, what you're saying is that the ends justify the means, yes? We can be dicks because we're right?

Regardless of the blather from the concern trolls, Webster Cook is a minor hero of reason.

I guess the bar for heroism has gotten pretty damned low lately.

Posted by: BetentacledBrad | July 8, 2008 11:54 PM

Hee... For some reason I am reminded of a conversation between two (atheist) friends of mine, one of catholic extraction and one of baptist origins. The ex-catholic was absolutely mortified to learn that at least one baptist church was performing communion with Wonder Bread carved by an electric knife. I suppose, technically, that wasn't just just wasn't a cracker (and yet the reaction still didn't make a hell of a lot of sense; methinks there is a cultural difference here).

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 8, 2008 11:57 PM

If you want to make a point, this is an extremely counterproductive way to make it. Arguments in his favor just end up as "preaching to the choir," as it were, while I doubt any Catholics are suddenly having a crisis of faith as a result.

I doubt that Cook could have planned to make the point that got made, but it has been made. And while you may doubt that any Catholics are suddenly having a crisis of faith as a result, it is a quite different issue to consider how many children are being raised to be Catholics (a not insignificant distinction, one Dawkins is keen to make) who will witness the public apoplexy over this non-event, and will be spared the indignity of growing up to be so obtuse as to be angered by such a non-event as the rape of a cracker worshiped by fools, as if it were The Rape of The Lock.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm behind in delivering to the local Cathedral my quota of delicately carved erotic misereres. The choir can't be expected to stand up all the time, can they?

Posted by: lisa | July 8, 2008 11:58 PM

Maybe the cracker was topped with a zygote, a little stem cell, or some sort of feti. Actually, it could have just been a slap of Smart Balance in the SHAPE of a feti, and then you're talking, like, sacred life or something. At least it might be a religious item with amazing healing powers, eh?

I've seen it before. I have. It was a penne pasta noodle that, during boiling, had taken on the shape of Jesus. Well, not exactly Jesus himself, but Jeffrey Hunter, a fabulous actor who had played Jesus rather convincingly in a film I believe titled "King of Kings." And, rather propitiously for me, this pasta dish with the Jeffrey Hunter noodle was being served on the very same evening I had sustained a stress fracture in my right first metatarsal, or big toe.

So, of course, we took the appearance of the Jesus/Jeffrey noodle as a sign, nothing to be laughed at, ignored or covered in a thin layer of freshly grated reggiano.

We debated the existence of god and of miracles. We wondered whether a supreme being would have the time or inclination to heal an overworked toe, what with all the dying and want and poorly worded agent/writer contracts in the world.

Some of us even argued that Jeffrey Hunter was too obscure for today's generation and really, shouldn't we try to find a food in the image of the actor who worked on Mel Gibson's movie?

In the end, it turned out that someone carelessly combined the Jesus/Jeffrey noodle with their own meal during the discussion. It was consumed by one of us, we never knew who. My toe remained painful for days.

But ... not one person got heartburn that night. And we all should have, because the tomato sauce was much too acidic for most of our tastes, AND the wine seemed off.

Take that story for what it's worth. But every bit of it is true. In some fashion, anyway.

Posted by: Enkidu | July 9, 2008 12:00 AM

All the hate and anger directed towards Cook is definitely unjustified and terrible -- but it was to be expected.

Posted by: alec | July 9, 2008 12:00 AM

But then, I guess it's hard to figure out the finer points of reality when you really and truly believe that a fucking cracker and some wine become an ancient man's flesh and blood, and then you ingest it.

The most mind-boggling one I've ever heard is the suggestion that because gluon theory has holes in it, atoms must be held together by the might of Jesus, our Christ who is Lord.

Every natural religion has a pretty serious level of concern for ethics, but if you put them in power they're eventually going to wind up making laws based around the retarded metaphysical crap that gets people worked up.
Millions of people a year are dying because of a disagreement over which first-millennium Semite, if any, was the final representative of the involuntary contract between the entirety of mankind and an inscrutable man with infinite power. This is why the separation of church and state exists.

Posted by: alec | July 9, 2008 12:02 AM

I've seen it before. I have. It was a penne pasta noodle that, during boiling, had taken on the shape of Jesus. Well, not exactly Jesus himself, but Jeffrey Hunter, a fabulous actor who had played Jesus rather convincingly in a film I believe titled "King of Kings."

Anyone know the net skeptic who found Lenin in his shower curtain? I mean, at least he left a body.

Posted by: pmon | July 9, 2008 12:03 AM

One of the comments from the creativeminorityreport site:

"Many Saints over the ages have died protecting the Eucharist from desecration. Rest assured, Mr. Cook, had you been at my church when you committed your outrage, getting grabbed on the arm would have been the least of your worries.

"I would happily have gone to jail for assaulting and battering you if that's what it took to protect the sacred species."

I'm with #80. These people are insane. They can't look the other way fast enough when their leaders rape their children, yet they get apoplectic over a chip of dried dough that tastes like envelope glue. It's fucking mad, I tell ya.

Posted by: Enkidu | July 9, 2008 12:05 AM

So, basically, what you're saying is that the ends justify the means, yes? We can be dicks because we're right?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 9, 2008 12:06 AM

when their leaders rape their children

That's to be expected, doncha know?

Posted by: alec | July 9, 2008 12:09 AM

The reformation was a trun towards rationalism and away from the illogical stances of the RCC.

Have you actually read Luther and the other Reformation theologians? They somehow manage to pull off being worse than their contemporaries in the RCC, and considering that we're talking about the church of Duns Scotius that's no mean feat. The Reformation only wound up helping along the Enlightenment by historical accident - the latter wouldn't happen until a century and a half after the former, and as as much a French phenomenon as English and German.

Posted by: Jeremy | July 9, 2008 12:17 AM

Dawkins help us!

I am officially freaked out.

Posted by: Sophist FCD | July 9, 2008 12:18 AM

One could, and should, expect the reaction to be otherwise, but the concern trolls can't even decide just how much vile fuckwittedness they're willing to justify.

Find me a post in this thread where assault, death threats, or expulsion are justified. Find me just one.

I'll wait.

All the hate and anger directed towards Cook is definitely unjustified and terrible -- but it was to be expected.

So it's ok, it's expected, for irrational people to threaten to kill a kid over a cracker? We're supposed to be alright with this? We just let it slide because, well, we expect them to ac this way?

In what language does "unjustified and terrible" translate to being alright with something or letting it slide? Because I was under the impression we were speaking English here, in which I'm fairly confident that "unjustified and terrible" implies not being alright.

Posted by: Brian W. | July 9, 2008 12:19 AM

"Webster Cook is a minor hero of reason."

Sure? Nothing i've read has said that he wasn't also a Catholic.

Posted by: Patricia | July 9, 2008 12:22 AM

Oh come on! What great sport this is. PZ asks his skulking minions to sneak into catholic churches to snag him some consecrated wafers.
I'm hauling my Brethern Old Believers hind end straight off to Ratzi land. It'll be a challenge to see if they will let me pass.
Or maybe -
"The way is shut."
This is gonna be so much fun!

Posted by: alec | July 9, 2008 12:23 AM

Legal blood alcohol limit for driving: 0.08%
Blood alcohol level usually resulting in death: 0.50%
Jesus' BAL: around 10.00%!

This guy should NOT be allowed to make any rules for mankind until he sobers up.

Awesome scene from a webcomic (would appreciate anyone remembering which): Jesus in an AA meeting, culminating in 'Spit is 98% water, okay?'

To this day it still weirds me out that there's people who actually try and claim the story describes Jesus turning water into grape juice. It takes a ridiculous myth and sugar-coats it for some fucking reason, like rewriting Bambi so his mother doesn't die, only even more pointless.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 9, 2008 12:25 AM

Sure?

Yes:

"The church feels that I'm the problem here," Cook said. "The problem is actually that this is a publicly-funded religious institution. Through student government here, we fund them through an activity and service, so they're receiving student money."

Cook is upset more than $40,000 in student fees have been allocated to support religious organizations on campus for the 2008-2009 school year, according to student government records.

Nothing i've read has said that he wasn't also a Catholic.

So is Ken Miller. I did say "minor".

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 9, 2008 12:27 AM

A lewd suggestion... sir, you are a rare charmer.
Shall I just 'assume' you saw one in Singapore?

One doesn't generally see a lewd suggestion, and I've never been to Singapore, but I'd like to find out what constitutes desecration to a Buddhist. The last altar desecration I can recall participating in was in some West Valley Unitarian Church years ago that had decided that the folks who wanted to celebrate Beltane naked were as welcome as anybody else. Of course, with Unitarians, it's kind of hard to imagine what would constitute real desecration and sacrilege, although I imagine if the participants had told their hosts that being all friskily skyclad was a privilege, not a rite, eyebrows would have been raised.

Posted by: Jason | July 9, 2008 12:32 AM

lol @ #33 and #60, too funny

Posted by: sil-chan | July 9, 2008 12:40 AM

If it turns into zombie flesh when you eat said cracker, does it magically turn back into cracker again if you puke?

Posted by: IBY | July 9, 2008 12:43 AM

I would sneak out the cracker, but you see, my family is catholic, and that would kill them. Anyways, catholic church is probably one of the most boring church in the world. And if I had the choice, I would never go there again, even if I had to choice to go just to sneak out a cracker for PZ :)

Posted by: kc | July 9, 2008 12:44 AM

I want to be able to just laugh at this, but I've actually heard otherwise intelligent people attempt to explain transubstantiation to me, and worse, I've tried to justify believing it myself. Yuck.

The part that bother's me the most is that I have actually bowed down and worshiped a cracker. A cracker in a shiny sun-shaped metal holder, but a CRACKER: Eucharistic Adoration

Again, yuck.

But hey, at least when I'm feeling like a bit of an idiot for whatever reason, I can stop and think... I haven't done any cracker worship lately, which means I MUST have stepped up a few levels in sanity in the past few years. Right?

Posted by: lurker_above | July 9, 2008 12:46 AM

wowbagger #4: For fun, obtain thousands of the exact same cracker from the manufacturer, and then add said stolen cracker to a pile - then invite the clergy and the concerned parishioners to pick out which it is.

If it's special, surely there's some way of discerning that?

I like the idea, but there's an a ridiculously easy way for Catholics to foil your devious plan: simply get a priest to wave his arms and say the magic words over your bastardized pile of wafers and presto! ALL of the crackers become Jeebus.

Then they can be swept up (reverently!) and put back to bed in the tabernacle, after what for them will surely have been an exhausting and traumatic day.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 9, 2008 12:49 AM

Adrienne, #330

Oh it gets better - I glanced at the blog and saw even more further down:

What we need are a few of those Opus Dei monks like in The DaVinci Code. Have a special ops group go to this bozo's home and rescue Jesus.

I love this - 'go to this bozo's home and rescue Jesus!' Maybe the church can provide its own squad - instead of SWAT they can be SWATCH: Special Weapons And Tactics for CHrist.

At the moment I'm trying to work out exactly what's fascinating (in a theatre of the grotesque kind of way) me more - that, if the Host is really Jesus incarnate, he/it can't do something about it (maybe attract a spare lighting bolt or two); or that such supposedly Christian principles such as forgiveness and turning the other cheek are falling by the wayside in favour of violent reprisals.

Posted by: kubenzi | July 9, 2008 12:51 AM

Did anyone call Poe's?

If so,+1

Posted by: tim Rowledge | July 9, 2008 12:53 AM

"Why am I not surprised to learn this is happening in Florida?
We should sell that embarrassing hunk of real estate. It has proven itself to be more trouble than it's worth."
Don't worry. A few feet of sea level rise and it is a problem that will solve itself.

Posted by: CarrieP | July 9, 2008 12:58 AM

Hey PZ,

I do appreciate that you are using the correct terminology with the word choice of "cracker." If you'd used bread, biscuit, or crouton, those all have leavening agents in them, and crackers are unleavened.

Posted by: alec | July 9, 2008 1:03 AM

If the church's current position on sex ed is any indication, they still haven't learned that stupid misconceptions are the inevitable result of deliberately keeping people in the dark.

I can't tell you how depressing it was as a lapsee to come to terms with the fact that JP2 was a charming and well-loved dogmatic jackass; that he had essentially reshaped what was once a bustling, reforming Church in his own violently conservative image; and that the death of JP1 basically meant the end of the trend of modernization beginning with Vatican II.

When the discussion of who would be the next Pope came up, there were a lot of high hopes that it'd be a cardinal from Africa or southeast Asia - Sin or Arinze, specifically - and that somehow, the single largest ethical actor on Earth would be forced to come to terms with crisis after crisis that had cropped up and come to a head under its watch.

And then the Pope's hideous German camerlango was swept into office on the backs of a conclave half-appointed by his successor - the man who lead the Church's despicable efforts to cover up child sex abuse, the man who had taken the blame for the increasingly evil reversals on modernization JP2 couldn't be marred with; and every year of his horrible life has been another year the world's largest former of opinions has blundered back into the Middle Ages.

The militant insistence that the beliefs are wrong and that is that ignores the shades of gray at work among the believers, and it ignores the force for good that people with benevolent convictions - however irrational - can be. I wouldn't be a Catholic even under the best of circumstances, but the amount of potential the Vatican lost in the last decade will make historians break down and weep.

In the long run, Benedict XVI and the other horrible old men who rule the Catholic Church will be quiet and reasonable about this, because they have nothing to lose from some kid pulling a stupid prank, because a $40,000 school religious program wouldn't matter to them even if it had any chance of being at stake; the Church hierarchy has written off America as a loss by now anyway, and are these days more concerned with making sure future conservative Catholics in Europe have a firm ground on which to base hostility to Muslims.

It's fucking depressing, but most things are.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 9, 2008 1:04 AM

Any god who is able to be kidnapped and held for ransom (ideological or otherwise) is a pretty piss-poor excuse for a god in my opinion.

Posted by: Damian | July 9, 2008 1:07 AM

From "Religion and Respect" by Simon Blackburn, and also a chapter in "Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations On Atheism And The Secular Life".

"[...] why should I "respect" belief systems that I do not share? I would not be expected to respect the beliefs of flat earthers or those of the people who believed that the Hale-Bopp comet was a recycling facility for dead Californians, and killed themselves in order to join it. Had my host stood up and asked me to toast the Hale-Bopp hopefuls, or to break bread or some such in token of fellowship with them, I would have been just as embarrassed and indeed angry. I lament and regret the holding of such beliefs, and I deplore the features of humanity that make them so common. I wish people were different. And as far as toasting some particular subset of humanity goes, I also wish people were not keen on separating themselves from others, keen on difference and symbols of tribalism. I don't warm to badges of allegiance, flags, ostentatious signs of apartness, because I do not think they are good for the world. I am glad that the word "race" has lost most of its reputation recently, and I would rather like the word "culture", as it occurs in phrases like "cultural diversity" to follow it. More moderately, we might keep it, but also keep a beady eye on it. When people do things differently, sometimes it is fine, but sometimes it is not. This is especially so with overt signs of religious affiliation. By all means be apart, if you wish, but don't expect me to jump up and down with joy.

'Respect', of course is a tricky term. I may respect your gardening by just letting you get on with it. Or, I may respect it by admiring it and regarding it as a superior way to garden. The word seems to span a spectrum from simply not interfering, passing by on the other side, through admiration, right up to reverence and deference. This makes it uniquely well-placed for ideological purposes. People may start out by insisting on respect in the minimal sense, and in a generally liberal world they may not find it too difficult to obtain it. But then what we might call respect creep sets in, where the request for minimal toleration turns into a demand for more substantial respect, such as fellowfeeling, or esteem, and finally deference and reverence. In the limit, unless you let me take over your mind and your life, you are not showing proper respect for my religious or ideological convictions.

We can respect, in the minimal sense of tolerating, those who hold false beliefs. We can pass by on the other side. We need not be concerned to change them, and in a liberal society we do not seek to suppress them or silence them. But once we are convinced that a belief is false, or even just that it is irrational, we cannot respect in any thicker sense those who hold it--not on account of their holding it. We may respect them for all sorts of other qualities, but not that one. We would prefer them to change their minds. Or, if it is to our advantage that they have false beliefs, as in a game of poker, and we am poised to profit from them, we may be wickedly pleased that they are taken in. But that is not a symptom of special substantial respect, but quite the reverse. It is one up to us, and one down to them.

People sometimes say they respect the 'sincerity' of those who display passionate conviction, even when what they are convinced about is visibly false. Tony Blair is regularly given credit for his sincerity, at least by the right-wing media, as he remains the only person in the world to believe in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But surely we ought to find passion and conviction in such a case dangerous and lamentable. The tendency of mind that they indicate is the vice of weakness, not the virtue of strength. Far from being a sign of sincerity, passionate conviction in these shadowy regions is a sign of weakness, of a secretly known infirmity of representational confidence. If we sympathize with the doughty Victorian W. K. Clifford, we will see it as a sign of something worse: a dereliction of cognitive duty, or a crime against the ethics of belief, and hence, eventually, a crime against humanity.

Sincerity is different from passion and conviction, since it is possible, and often appropriate, to be sincerely undecided. Here I like a remark of David Hume, who was perplexed by the frequent juxtaposition, in classical times, of bawdy or irreverent attitudes to the Gods with apparently contradictory tendencies to show real respect for the Gods, and especially real horror at impiety:

Men dare not avow, even to their own hearts, the doubts which they entertain on such subjects: They make a merit of implicit faith; and disguise to themselves their real infidelity, by the strongest asseverations and most positive bigotry. But nature is to hard for all their endeavours, and suffers not the obscure, glimmering light, afforded in those shadowy regions, to equal the strong impressions, made by common sense and by experience. The usual course of men's conduct belies their words, and shows, that their assent in these matters is some unaccountable operation of the mind between disbelief and conviction, but approaching much nearer to the former than to the latter.

Phrases like 'equal concern and respect' trip off the tongue. But in any more than the most minimal sense of 'deserving equal protection of the law' or equal toleration, there are, quite properly, gradations of respect. We respect skill, ability, judgement, and experience. The opinion of someone who has demonstrated these qualities is more important to us than the opinion of a newcomer, or someone who is foolish and wild in his reasonings. We defer to some people more than we defer to others, and this deference is a measure of respect.

Equally, we respect some believers with whom we disagree more than others. The quality of mind that got someone to believe something with which, all the same, we do not agree, may itself be more or less admirable. Sometimes, we can easily see how someone careful and honest and cautious fell into error. The illusion to which they have succumbed may have been very tempting; perhaps we can see how we ourselves would have been taken in had something fortunate not happened. In this case, we suppose, the defect of their judgment is minimal. They may maintain a reputation for general trustworthiness. At the other end of the scale we can barely see how somebody could be so deluded at all, and we begin to think that they must be of infirm or unsound mind.

Whence, then the demand for respect, the demand that even if you are not with us, you must admire us, or salute us, or smilingly stand aside for us? And why do many people go along with it?"

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 9, 2008 1:12 AM

It's a cracker period. Yes some people who are a bit touched consider it more than just a cracker. He taunting them with it was dickish. The response to said taunt was even more dickish and is migrating to criminal.

Get over it.

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 9, 2008 1:19 AM

#342, Patricia, strumpetry, flouncing, wait-- why is the rum gone?

Posted by: Mikey M | July 9, 2008 1:21 AM

Don't compound the sacrilege with CheezWhiz; the only approved topping is Cheeses of Nazareth®.

Posted by: alec | July 9, 2008 1:22 AM

It's a cracker period. Yes some people who are a bit touched consider it more than just a cracker. He taunting them with it was dickish. The response to said taunt was even more dickish and is migrating to criminal.

And we're agreed. Was that so hard?

I could respect him plenty well if he had constructed some kind of coherent protest to the university policy, which is either a violation of SOCAS or at least a pretty unfortunate use of money. But swiping a Jeez-It has nothing to do with that, and is in fact far enough from it it kind of seems like a justification after the fact.

And nobody here, except the occasional Christer troll, would actually disagree with the statement that what the clergy, Donohue, FOX, and the various Catholic and other Christian nutters have done to the poor kid is unjustifiable.

For my part, all I'm saying is that just because he's been persecuted doesn't make him a martyr.

Posted by: Patricia | July 9, 2008 1:23 AM

Good night sweethearts! Us middle-aged strumpets have to buzz off to bed to sleep now & then.
But while I'm dozing I'll be thinking of a cunning plan to infiltrate the church...hee hee, the turnips don't stand a chance!

Posted by: azqaz | July 9, 2008 1:28 AM

OK. I read the first 4 or 5 entries, and then skipped to the "add your $.02 worth section.

First off, if no one has mentioned it, and I bet several have, they taste like solidified paste. Nasty as hell. Well, in a judeochristian sort of way.

Also, doesn't the catholic catechist preach that your sins are between you, the priest, and god? With the emphasis on the priest? "Want to tell on me for banging kids? Well, the I'm sending you're ass to hell!"

My wife actually followed this nonsense until our youngest child was thrown out of religious classes because he was autistic, and apparently that is some kind of sin. Whoops! I then found out why my mother was a religion teacher for all the time I was in religious instruction. They don't seem to ban the aspergerish children of the teachers. Damn, my wife should have known that! Your children can be different as long as you suck ass and teach class.

Posted by: mw | July 9, 2008 1:35 AM

Nobody has mentioned the peasants in the Middle Ages who used to swipe the holy crackers and then feed it to their horse, believing this would prevent the horse from being stolen.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 1:39 AM

I have a Communion wafer from my first Communion over a decade ago. I would be honored if PZ would desecrate it!

Posted by: shane | July 9, 2008 1:44 AM

Not to mention the ultimate sacrilege... anyone here aware of a game called Soggy Sao?

Posted by: alec | July 9, 2008 1:48 AM

mw, do stolen crackers retain their power. The hangin', drawin' and quarterin' would be enough to put me off horse thievin'.

Aw, shit! This horse's been confirmed! All that capital crime for nothing.

Posted by: shane | July 9, 2008 1:52 AM

I'm going to go to mass, I'm going to take the eucharist... right out of the building.

No way dude. I'm not going to risk the baby jesus bring the full wrath of his impotence down on me.

Posted by: shonny | July 9, 2008 1:58 AM

In some countries they still have some common sense left.
During Norway's national day, 17 May two godfuckers used loud-speakers to send out their message.
They are each now fined about $1200 equivalent plus $150 for court costs for doing that. One of the gf'ers was American.

Article here: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2528637.ece

Let's hope we'll see more like this, the opposite of the shite that's going on in Sydney!

Posted by: wazza | July 9, 2008 2:01 AM

Actually, the vicar at the anglican school I went to for my first two years of high school used to give us communion crackers to snack on during religious studies...

so what's the big deal?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 9, 2008 2:03 AM

so what's the big deal?

That question was asked back at #2, and answered at #16.

Posted by: Kel | July 9, 2008 2:34 AM

Shane wrote, #369

Not to mention the ultimate sacrilege... anyone here aware of a game called Soggy Sao?

On that notion of the taking the body of christ back, what will happen with the wafer now? It's been over a week, it's been on somebody else's mouth. How are they going to properly dispose of it? Surely it must be eaten because discarding it would have to be a much greater sin than someone simply taking it out of the church.

Posted by: defaithed | July 9, 2008 2:42 AM

Incredible story. Just unbelievable.

I fear that I may have desecrated the Body of Christ myself years ago, when, in humorous sitcom fashion, I found myself unwittingly pushed to the head of a Communion line while playing tourist in a church.

Not just any church. Notre bloody Dame in Paris.

That mildly amusing story is recounted at http://www.defaithed.com/blog/defaithed/2008/07/oops_moment_did_i_desecrate_body_of_christ .

That aside, I've really enjoyed people's intelligent comments in this thread, calling for the religionists to adopt a minimal semblance of human sense about this matter. The only "crime" this kid committed is a harmless act that some people disliked, but is completely within his right to commit. And that, people, is no crime at all.

As defenders of liberty are constantly forced to point out, nobody has a "right" to not be offended by others. Young wafer-taking student, and everyone else like you, I implore: Keep on offending!

Posted by: Justin | July 9, 2008 2:44 AM

This is fucked up.

Posted by: revulo | July 9, 2008 2:46 AM

Oh man. I have to laugh to keep myself from crying.

Posted by: silentsanta | July 9, 2008 3:02 AM

PZ, I would like to send you a cracker from a far off corner of the globe. However, last time I entered a local Catholic mass, I was actually taken aback by the kindness of those there. While I strongly disagree with them, these Catholics, at least, seemed sincere, and I am somewhat hesitant to betray their trust.
It would be an interesting experiment if you were to restrict your cracker-acquisition challenge to only those who had been mistreated or hurt by the Church. I suspect you'd still get a staggeringly large number of crackers.

Posted by: themadlolscientist | July 9, 2008 3:04 AM

Hell, I know I got skillz, but I've never made a man actually dissolve in my mouth before.

Awwwwwwwwwww, MAJeff, what a fantasy that conjures up. Let's just say this XX is thinking some XXX thoughts right now, and leave it at that..........

Posted by: Cujo359 | July 9, 2008 3:06 AM

Colugo @38 - What occurred to me when I read this was - isn't worshipping icons one of the things the Ten Commandments forbid?

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Posted by: Quiet Desperation | July 9, 2008 3:11 AM

Just use a Ritz Cracker. Everything goes good with a Ritz, including religious hysteria. :-)

Posted by: AlanWCan | July 9, 2008 3:14 AM

"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."

Posted by: BobC | July 9, 2008 3:16 AM

Catholics like their Body of Christ in their bread wafers, which is pretty bloody insane, but don't they at least accept evolution? Apparently not all of them do. I just found this blog that belongs to a Catholic. He has an article called "Evolution: The Great Fairy Tale".

Maybe some biologist here would like to explain to this Catholic why evolution is not a great fairy tale. Here's his blog: http://tinyurl.com/5jenra

Posted by: AlanWCan | July 9, 2008 3:17 AM

hey PZ, yuo can get them here: http://www.churchpartner.com/store/customer/cat-490.html
Item# Item List
Price 1-4 5+ Quantity
CP7-118WH Small 1-1/8" (1000/box) $17.95 $9.99 $8.99
CP7-138WH Small 1-3/8" (1000/box) $24.58 $13.79 $12.79
CP7-234WH Large 2¾" (50/box) $5.25 $3.39 $3.39
ART-RW70 1-1/8" Artistic Wafers (250/container) $6.50 $5.25 $5.00
CP7-9WH Large 9" wafers (25/box) $45.95 $33.15 $33.15

Posted by: Jyri | July 9, 2008 3:21 AM

Would you accept consecrated wafers from the lutheran church. I can try to have that arranged.

Posted by: Logicel | July 9, 2008 3:37 AM

Catholics are jerks, aholes, and pathetic, guilt-ridden dipshits. Catholicism is rabid. PERIOD. Its veneer of rationalism fools no one. It is a dangerous religion. And the worst offenders are the most reasonable Catholics, who by their labeling themselves Catholics are giving respectability to insane beliefs.

PZ, if you do wind up having a few extra crackers, send some to Damien Hirst, and he can squirt a dollop of shit on them and preserve them in formaldehyde.

Posted by: Sophist FCD | July 9, 2008 3:46 AM

And the worst offenders are the most reasonable Catholics, who by their labeling themselves Catholics are giving respectability to insane beliefs.

Really? What about the ones who enable rape and sexual abuse, or tell their flock in Africa that condoms don't work at all and are actually dangerous to their health?

Because I'd be inclined to put them a bit higher up the list.

Posted by: Alec | July 9, 2008 4:03 AM

Really? What about the ones who enable rape and sexual abuse, or tell their flock in Africa that condoms don't work at all and are actually dangerous to their health?

Well, obviously, they're lower on the list - after all, it's bound to lead to fewer Catholics in the world.

See, this is what I meant about the Death Cookie-grade pabulum. You wanna call me a concern troll for considering a standard-issue Anglo-American hatred mainly aimed at immigrants repugnant, knock yourself out. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not willing to leave your stupid bigotries behind when you leave the loving embrace of Christianity, don't bother bringing them into the big tent of humanism - we don't need any more fucking baggage, thank you.

Posted by: Zetetic | July 9, 2008 4:17 AM

Sheesh, these people are a lot more uptight than the Catholics in Quebec. Or so I hear. I'm neither a Catholic nor Quebecois. However, we had a great art exhibit at our university a few years ago. An artist from Quebec had made an installation piece out of hundreds of communion wafers. I had the opportunity to ask her about it, and she told me that in Quebec the nuns and priests used to sell, (or give out, I'm not sure which, but I'm leaning toward sell because, well, this is the church we're talking about), leftover bits of the Eucharist after services. And apparently the idea took off and they started selling bags of communion wafers in grocery stores!

Now, Catholics are supposed to believe that the Eucharist literally becomes flesh and blood, so the idea of mass-producing (no pun intended) and selling bits of the flesh of their God seems horrifying, even to me. But, I suppose that the wafers sold in stores are unconsecrated. Still... it's disturbing.

This artist told me that people usually smear peanut butter or cheese on their communion snacks. I always imagine people munching on them during Sunday night hockey games. Mind-boggling weirdness.

I just Googled for a picture or something to prove this anecdote has some truth to it and found this one. I'm not sure where it's from, so I can't verify the authenticity. http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1114/527226230_4e1b3950b1.jpg

Oh, excellent - here's an article on it: http://www.dailygrail.com/node/2453

Posted by: SSiE | July 9, 2008 4:21 AM

My humble attempt to put all this in perspective: http://subtleshift.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Vaal | July 9, 2008 4:32 AM

Religion, it's a cracker!

What are they worried about, as it is eating the body of Christ, in other words cannibalism, shouldn't it just be regarded as a take-away? :)

Perhaps McDonald's could start a trade in it for the credulous. Christ and chips please, with extra mayonnaise. Hold on the wine.

Posted by: BobC | July 9, 2008 4:41 AM

'Body Of Christ' Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student

"She came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand," Cook said, adding she wouldn't immediately take her hands off him despite several requests.

"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."

Even though I was unfortunately in a Catholic grammar school kindergarten thru 8th grade, and didn't escape from that crazy religion until age 18, I had no idea how totally insane the Catholics are. Do they really need to retrieve the worthless tasteless piece of bread? It seems like they're proud of their insanity. They're so insane they don't even realize they have become a laughing-stock.

Posted by: joeyess@mac.com | July 9, 2008 4:53 AM

I just ordered 1000 of the little bastards. I'm going to send them to P.Z. right after I consecrate them myself.

What? I just as qualified as the next dude!

P.Z., their on the way. You'll get the entire 1000 and do with them what you please. Maybe some spray-cheese and a little chablis?

Posted by: joeyess | July 9, 2008 5:00 AM

The body of Christ compels you to get a little bit of brie. And of course you'll have heard about the new low-fat communion wafers: "I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus®!".

Sweet jesus on cracker, thank you. I haven't laughed that hard in a month.

Posted by: Meeee | July 9, 2008 5:06 AM

We know how to take them out now. Spread the word.

*crazy morse code tapping*

Seriously though, we now have a decent response to any catholic tomfoolery. Push some crazy anti-science crap in schools, or try to get church and state united, and we'll kidnap your damn crackers.

WHO HAS THE UPPER HAND NOW, EH?! MUAHAHAHAHAHA.

Posted by: bad Jim | July 9, 2008 5:09 AM

I think I'm going to have to instruct my browser not to accept any sacred cookies.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 9, 2008 5:27 AM

This goes well beyond the TBS. I'm quite certain silentsanta would authorize torture in these circumstances. - SC

Surely silentsanta would readily agree to be tortured under these circumstances - "We're gonna carry on waterboarding him until you return the cracker, punk!"

Posted by: Brian W. | July 9, 2008 5:35 AM

A lot of people seem to be claiming that he somehow stole the cracker. He didn't, it was handed to him.

Posted by: SC | July 9, 2008 5:43 AM

OK, this is the funniest thing I've seen all day, and you guys just missed in it comment #414:

http://subtleshift.blogspot.com/2008/07/run-cookie-monster-run-for-your-life.html

Puts the whole sad mess in some humorous perspective.

Posted by: Big Dave | July 9, 2008 6:04 AM

Quite happy to score some wafer. However, what are the magic incantations to say when I go up for it during a Mass?

I've not hada chance to go through all 426 comments, but will review them later, so if it's been posted, could someone direct me to it please?

Ta.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 9, 2008 6:21 AM

Heck, not only have I on multiple occasions not eaten the eucharist when it was given to me, but... I think that I even once feed it to my dog. - Diagoras

Well, aren't you going to feel silly when you're down in hell, and your dog, as a bona fido Catholic, is looking down at you from heaven?

Posted by: True Bob | July 9, 2008 6:30 AM

I recall reading a memoir (Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys) where the author recalls the eucharist. Holding the cracker in his mouth as long as possible, imagining it IS cheeses in there, slowly melting.

Whhaddaya expect from a bunch of brain-eaten cannibals.

Posted by: Pandora Neurospora | July 9, 2008 6:34 AM

Have these people never thought that the cracker being the body of christ just *may* be a metaphor and not something literal?

Of course not! Because religion and fundamentalism breeds a literal belief in a book written thousands of years ago which is not really relevant anymore.

Posted by: CrypticLife | July 9, 2008 6:45 AM

Ahh, this is the sort of thing I love about religion -- they're so crazy.

Posted by: silentsanta | July 9, 2008 6:52 AM

NickGotts @428

This goes well beyond the TBS. I'm quite certain silentsanta would authorize torture in these circumstances. - SC

Surely silentsanta would readily agree to be tortured under these circumstances - "We're gonna carry on waterboarding him until you return the cracker, punk!"

Nick, you've totally mischaracterized my argument again. I propose that we offer to trade places with the cracker. The Catholic Church, which is obviously equivalent to collateral damage, can then interrogate us as to our knowledge of the UDHR, which, if given sincerely and honestly, could avert even the worst axioms of all ethical theories.

Posted by: Out of no where | July 9, 2008 6:55 AM

String and Quantum theory is just apologetics for not understanding how something works.

Belief is belief, respect it, you don't have to agree with it.

Posted by: Vaal | July 9, 2008 6:57 AM

"Belief is belief, respect it, you don't have to agree with it."

Don't be crackers!

Posted by: True Bob | July 9, 2008 7:07 AM

The Vatican could've sent the Special Clergy after him.

Go to list of characters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy,_the_Daughter_of_the_Devil

Posted by: Claudia | July 9, 2008 7:13 AM

How did they even know he had the cracker? Was he bragging about the cracker theft on his mobile and post the video on youtube? I didn't even realise cracker theft had bragging rights! This whole story is mental...

Posted by: ? | July 9, 2008 7:34 AM

What if you're allergic to flour, do they make a gluten-free Jesus?

Posted by: rarusvir | July 9, 2008 7:50 AM

Cook should tell them that God told him to do it. Can you imagine the confusion that would cause.

Posted by: Ricardo Silvestre | July 9, 2008 7:57 AM

Oh, uau. This is the ultimate E-Bay product. Seriously, if people are making lots o money with cheese sandwiches, imagine with the "real" body of Christ. Gold!

Posted by: Carlie | July 9, 2008 7:59 AM

What if you're allergic to flour, do they make a gluten-free Jesus?

Not for the traditional sects, and I remember a case of a little girl who had just that problem, and the priest would absolutely not allow her to use gluten-free wafers. Pretty heartbreaking, really; first they carefully taught the girl that she'd go to hell if she didn't do certain things, and then wouldn't allow her to do those things (or, rather, told her she ought to do them even though she would die for it).

Posted by: marc buhler | July 9, 2008 8:05 AM

In hope that I can get in before comments reach #500....

I took Communion (sp? is it derived from "communist"?) at a friend's wedding about 15 years ago as The Jesuit priest indicated that it was not unacceptable for me to do so. Why? Well, there were several of us in the wedding party and when it came time for this, one of the girls did not go to accept but none of the guys (apart from the groom) made a move - to keep the yin/yang balance I thought at least one of us had to so I stepped up. The priest knew I was not catholic and not even a believer but we had spoken the day before and he had told me "do whatever you feel is right on the day".

So I did.

My wife, lapsed from the Church at about the age of 8, would still say that what I did was wrong. (Don't remember the flavour of the flesh, but the blood was claret.)

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | July 9, 2008 8:13 AM

I love this concept of taking Jesus hostage. I can't get rid of the mental image of Jesus wandering round heaven with his little finger missing and swearing at Cook.

Posted by: shyster | July 9, 2008 8:16 AM

PZ, 99.99% of the time I am with you 100%.
I have to back off of this one. I don't care what these idiots believe. They have a rite to bow to any god they want. As a practicing Pastafarian (may you be touched, caressed and massaged by his noodly appendage) I would be very offended if someone pocketed one of the ceremonial, holy meatballs and made off with it for reasons unknown.
It doesn't matter that we think the wafer is silly and the reaction is absurd, common courtesy and decency should prevent one from entering a house of worship (any house of worship) for the purpose of ridiculing their rights, rites and holy snacks.
As much as I hate to do it, I have to agree with the altar boy abusers on this one.
Now, we need to discuss proportional punishment.

Posted by: clinteas | July 9, 2008 8:28 AM

shyster,No 466,

what exactly do you agree with the "altar boy abusers" on?
Oh,this,right :
//common courtesy and decency should prevent one from entering a house of worship (any house of worship) for the purpose of ridiculing their rights, rites and holy snacks.//
Ok,if there was irony here,I apologize,but if not,I disagree.

No,it should not prevent one from riduculing it,not if the house of worship is a means of brainwashing millions of gullible people and its robed rulers are a gang of ruthless pedophiles.Oh,and thats not even talking about the transmorphofixogression thing that turns a cracker into a bleeding zombie corpse if you hit it with a hammer.....

Posted by: Philip | July 9, 2008 8:33 AM

So what was Yahweh, the God formerly known as El, doing whilst his son was being kidnapped?

Did he smite young Mr Cook for being naughty in His sight?

Noooo, just like before on the cross, Jesus is left to get all the horror of being killed by suffocation by bag!

I don't know about you but I think God and Jesus have some family issues they haven't ironed out yet! :)

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | July 9, 2008 8:36 AM

I know most folks who've eaten the lil crackers think they're vile, but I noticed they are perfect for certain lightly flavored dips since they barely have a flavor themselves. I order them in bulk from the same folks that supply the church near me. Really, one must try them with a strawberry and red grape dip. Quite delicious.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 9, 2008 8:37 AM

"the college is now having armed university police officers standing guard during mass."

Are they indeed? Are they prepared to shoot someone for carrying off a cracker some dude gave them? This could get very interesting indeed.

Posted by: Sauceress | July 9, 2008 8:46 AM

Christophe Thill
"They can force you to swallow?"

I was wondering on this when I saw the thread earlier.
Is one required to kneel when accepting *Jesus* into their mouth?
Does the priest say:
"Please kneel,open your mouth and it's imperative that you swallow that which you are about to receive"?

Posted by: Spiv | July 9, 2008 8:51 AM

uhg. Sadly UCF is my alma mater. Of course we've all known for years that Dr. Hitt is a douche. Also, if anyone thinks a hearing by his "peers" is going to be anything reasoned, think again. The student government at UCF is as incestuous of a group of greek losers that ever got power.

Sadly, his best bet for such a thing is a hearing with administrators, and hope he gets actual instructors instead of clerks who have been avoiding administrator-student contact as much as possible.

and in trying to work out the motive: my guess is that he's just a college kid doing something because he felt like it. In the university life kids here kinda pride themselves on actually being human beings despite the administrative culture (which would happily bar-code its students with their credit card numbers to speed up the process of paying for classes they don't need). Most of it is just kids wearing pajamas to class, playing elevator pranks, or gluing bat-a-rangs to the walls to break up the monotony. But of course there are people who go farther- or lesser in the case of 'stealing' a cracker.

Posted by: Michelle | July 9, 2008 8:53 AM

Death threats? Now that doesn't sound very christian to me!

PS: Your crackers taste bad. At least add sprinkles on it.

Posted by: s1mplex | July 9, 2008 8:58 AM

First of all, thank you to everyone who has made this such a wonderful thread.

I've nothing to add, except to share with ya'll the product of someone else's brilliance. Enjoy:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/6/28/155542/080/4#c4

Please give credit to this person:
http://insultcomicdog.dailykos.com/

Posted by: windy, OM | July 9, 2008 8:58 AM

I have to back off of this one. I don't care what these idiots believe. They have a rite to bow to any god they want. As a practicing Pastafarian (may you be touched, caressed and massaged by his noodly appendage) I would be very offended if someone pocketed one of the ceremonial, holy meatballs and made off with it for reasons unknown.

Your taking offense would be stupid, too. If you hand out free meatballs, people can do what they want with them.

Posted by: Blondin | July 9, 2008 9:07 AM

I grew up in Winnipeg and attended a Ukrainian Catholic church (there are a lot of Ukrainians in Winnipeg). In that church they actually used real bread (in little cubes) and wine (just like Jesus said). None of those cheap fake RC styrofoam wafers for the Ukrainians. They get holy croutons and real wine! I always wondered why they never got in trouble for giving wine to minors.

Posted by: rebecca | July 9, 2008 9:12 AM

This is what fundamentalist fanatical religion is about! It would have been hilarious had it not been so utterly horrifying...

Posted by: Steve Caldwell | July 9, 2008 9:12 AM

It's worth checking out the origins of the phrase "hocus pocus."

Apparently, the magician's phrase comes from the Latin Mass when the priest says "hoc est corpus."

It was the magician's way of poking fun at the Catholic Church and it happened as early as 1694.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hocus_Pocus_(magic)

Posted by: Ryan | July 9, 2008 9:14 AM

I can get one but it's from a Baptist church, does that count?

Posted by: Snitzels | July 9, 2008 9:18 AM

Oh my... I had no idea these people got that upset about it. Whenever I go to church with my family (easter, xmas, etc) I generally just kick it under the pew after pretending to eat it. The thing tastes like crusty glue... I didn't know people got that heated over a freaking cracker...

Posted by: LordLeckie | July 9, 2008 9:19 AM

Been there done that, got cracker, crushed it it and spat on it during church, of course where no one could see me.

Posted by: Joe | July 9, 2008 9:20 AM

I'm still reading the comments, so someone may have raised this, but you can actually buy communion wafers in bulk from clerical supply houses, and I don't see what would stop you from asserting that one of them was consecrated. More interestingly, I don't see how the dingbats could prove that it *wasn't*.

Posted by: clinteas | July 9, 2008 9:30 AM

Ohhhh,no,not 499........

Posted by: Forti | July 9, 2008 9:36 AM

You know what I'm wondering about? Wafers are consecrated on every mass, but what happens to the leftovers? They're locked up in a tiny golden box but do they ever get used, if there's a consecration at EVERY mass?
Also, how come do they never run out during the communion? Did anyone ever see a priest go, "oops, that was the last one, and there's still a 100 people in the queue?' I don't think so.

Maybe they multiply by magic means, kinda like those loaves and fishes.

Posted by: Blondin | July 9, 2008 9:39 AM

It seems there's a chance this incident could spark a spate of copy-cat sacriligeous acts. In Canada we'd just call out the RCMP (Roman Catholic Mounted Police) but you don't have that option in Florida.

There's only one thing to do: kidnap this guy and produce a Youtube video of a bunch of hooded thugs hacking his head off. Then the Catholics will command the same level of fear... sorry, respect that Islam does.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 9, 2008 9:45 AM

Kseniya@505,
Well, have you ever seen it glowing in the presence of orcs? Eh? Eh? Havya?

Posted by: Blondin | July 9, 2008 9:46 AM

Was in Minnesota last weekend, if you really wanted one I could have gotten it, although I would want to exchange it for a peanut butter Baker's Square pie.

I'd hold out for 30 pieces of silver.

Posted by: clinteas | July 9, 2008 9:51 AM

Hey Nick Gotts my not friend,if you read this,are you the NG that was involved with that NetSpinner thing? I always wondered....

Posted by: Kseniya | July 9, 2008 9:53 AM

Yup. Nothing spells "God is beautiful" like great gouts of blood spurting from a pulsating cracker.

Posted by: Dahan | July 9, 2008 9:54 AM

What this person did is basically equivalent to flipping off the priest. Classy? Nope. Big deal? Not really, except that these people have made it so.
They literally cannot handle anyone not believing and acting like they do, to the point that some of them believe physical violence is justified. That is seriously screwed up.
Not showing the amount of respect to someone's beliefs that they wish you would, is not a hate crime.

Posted by: Blondin | July 9, 2008 9:56 AM

OT but I think the Catholic church should be required to provide a nutritional information sheet (upon request).

Does anybody know what % of your recommended daily dose of sodium is in the body of Christ?

Posted by: Lilly de Lure | July 9, 2008 9:59 AM

Kseniya said:

Yup. Nothing spells "God is beautiful" like great gouts of blood spurting from a pulsating cracker.

LOL! It's rather like those weeping statues - if the saints are all in heaven and life with God is all so wonderfull shouldn't they be a bit more, well, happy about it?

Also should a host that bleeds when pierced with a knife also do so in the mouths of communicants when bitten into?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2008 10:02 AM

Of course this is yet another example that gives the lie to those who criticise Dawkins et al for attacking a strawman of religion. Half the world's christians are Catholic, and a good number of those, but not all I will concede, will think that the wafer really does become the body of Christ, and the wine really does become the blood of Christ. Those of course are empirical claims, very easily tested. I am not aware of any tests being done, but I am confident that were they to be done the results would show that it is just a wafer and just wine. One wonders how Henry Gee would explain this away.

Posted by: Dahan | July 9, 2008 10:06 AM

@502,

Wow, that was just amazing!

I love how is starts out like all fairy-tales.

"Once upon a time, long ago in a land far away, there lived an evil man who was married to a beautiful princess... "

Posted by: Bryn | July 9, 2008 10:14 AM

Wow! 522 (523 now, or more) comments on a cracker! Personally, I prefer wasabrod and somebody pass me the cheese.

Posted by: stevogvsu | July 9, 2008 10:15 AM

They are made of fail and dumb.

Posted by: Kseniya | July 9, 2008 10:18 AM

It's rather like those weeping statues - if the saints are all in heaven and life with God is all so wonderfull shouldn't they be a bit more, well, happy about it?

Ah, but they're weeping for us, you see, because life in the old moral coil down here on earth is full of pain, misery, and sadness an' junk.

Also should a host that bleeds when pierced with a knife also do so in the mouths of communicants when bitten into?

Well no, y'see, cuz God (in His grace and in His omnibeautiful hyperbeautifulness) only pulls out those kinds of theatrics to shock'n'awe the infidels. To send a message, as it were. The weekly cracker-chomping is ok, cuz that's what's supposed to be done with the Host, and mouthful of spurting Jesus-blood just isn't what the average lamb is looking for on Sunday morning, y'know?

Hey, I'm pretty good at this religion-splainin' thing. It ain't so hard after all!

Posted by: clinteas | July 9, 2008 10:28 AM

Nick,
yeah ok I was re-reading "Climbing Mount Improbable" the other week and your name is mentioned there in the context of spider webs....

Kseniya,

as someone else about 3000 posts up has pointed out,if I was some omnipotent Dog Id be pretty inconvenienced by all them catholics on this one remote planet constantly praying to me to do the transfixomegaomnigrossoreversiongressiuon thing to those crackers,id be mighty annoyed after a while i reckon......

Posted by: Lord Zero | July 9, 2008 10:31 AM

This its insane, damnit, why usa its
so full of damned fucktards ?
We are on the 21 century!!, its just
a godamned piece of bread!!
This poor guy didint make a terrorist attack,
he didint kill anyone, just didint ate
a stupid cracker!!!
... why us is this way ?, why you didint stop
this madness ? im so fraightened. Those people
are insane, they would destroy my entire life if
i ever go there...

Posted by: shyster | July 9, 2008 10:36 AM

Sorry people, I must disagree.
I was raised in a society and a time when you addressed your elders as "sir" and "maam." You opened doors for women and the elderly and you did not make fun of the handicapped and their crutches.
These people are handicapped and this is a crutch.
What this young man did was, at best, rude, offensive and tacky.
I have to assume that most of the comments are coming from yankees. Yankees don't have a word for "tacky." I really believe they could use one.
#483, Pastafarianism came out of the closet with the insistence that if the Kansas schools were going to give credence and badly-cloaked respect for christianity dressed up as ID then they should be required to give equal respect to the true faith (may you be touched and massaged by his holy appendage). All true Pastafarians would be offended at the mistreatment of the Holy Snacks of any other faith.

Posted by: Bryn | July 9, 2008 10:40 AM

@ #517

Lilly de Lure said:

Also should a host that bleeds when pierced with a knife also do so in the mouths of communicants when bitten into?

Much like with a nervous boyfriend, you'd hear cries of, "No teeth! No teeth!!"; leaving you with an undissolvable wad of papier-mache material stuck to the roof of your mouth and pondering whether or not it's disrespectful to try and pry it loose with your tongue. Or so I was told.

And are there soy crackers for those of the congregation with a gluten allergy? Maybe we could all get together and start a cottage industry--"(W)hol(l)y organic, pure soy communion wafers for those who want the Healthy Body of Christ!"

Posted by: Michelle | July 9, 2008 10:44 AM

@Lord Zero: Let's not be a generalist. All countries have their insane people. Heck, even Canada has its creationist museum.

Posted by: SIgmund Freud | July 9, 2008 10:46 AM

Sometimes a cracker is just a cracker.

Posted by: Paul W. | July 9, 2008 10:49 AM

I'm a flaming atheist and an ex-Catholic who loathes Catholicism, but...

I have to argue the Catholic point of view on this one. I think they may have a case---even a legal case---against people who take communion, keep the wafer, and try to leave with it.

When you take communion, you're not just being given a wafer. You're expected to do something in particular with it.

It's sort of like being sold a drink in a bar in the U.S. You're not supposed to take it home and save it for later. If you try to walk out with the drink, they can make you hand it over, and if you insist on your right to walk out with the drink, they can take the drink away; if you refuse to leave without it, they can physically eject you. If they do so, that's not illegal battery; they have the right to bounce you if you don't play by their rules.

I wouldn't get all irate about how they gave him the cracker and then used (minor) physical force to get it back. They only gave him the cracker for a certain purpose---and definitely not certain other purposes. It's their ceremony, and their cracker, and they do have the right to insist that anyone participating to do it that way.

Of course in truth it's just a stupid and nasty-tasting cracker. But it's their cracker, and if they put a high value on it, they have a right not to simply "give it away" and let it go at that. It has value to them---however deluded they are about it---and they have a right to control the distribution of the "sacred" crackers they "manufacture" (sanctify).

If the Catholics were just handing out communion wafers freely like some Protestants hand out Bibles, that'd be different. To take communion under false pretenses, and knowingly keep the wafer against their rules is fraudulent, i.e., a form of stealing.

Of course it's all ridiculous---Jesus doesn't live in a cracker, and if he did, he could take care of himself. But the fact that we don't believe it does not require Catholics not to believe it or require them not to act on that belief. The wafer is very valuable property to them, and they have the right to withold it from anybody who won't take proper care of it.

Here's another analogy. Suppose a science denier pretended to be a real scientist and was handed some potentially dangerous biological samples, to examine (and then safely discard) in a biology lab. Suppose they tried to walk out with those samples, and the lab folks realized what was going on. The lab folks would have the right to refuse to let that person leave with those samples. If the denier denied that the samples were dangerous and claimed that they were "his" now, that wouldn't matter.

Likewise, Catholics can say anybody trying to walk out with a wafer is not competent to handle the wafer, and should either do what is allowed, under their supervision, or hand it over and leave without it. If they really think the "sample" (of Jesus) is dangerous, they're obligated to either make the person hand it over, or keep them from leaving with it, and call the cops. (What would you do if you were Lenski and Schlafly tried to walk out with samples from your lab?)

I am not a lawyer and don't know how this would really play out, but if you fraudulently obtain communion wafers and get caught doing it, I would not expect the law to be on your side.

Posted by: Pixelfish | July 9, 2008 10:50 AM

I'd be laughing if I wasn't banging my head against the desk. (Well, actually, I am laughing anyway.)

Similarly once about a third of Utah got up in arms because protesters in front of Temple Square (most of which are ALSO religious, but want to argue that their crazy idea is LESS crazy than Mormonism) had acquired a set of garments* and were waving them around. Apparently at least two guys tried to tackle the protester and get the garmies back. I think the Mormon guys were charged with attempted theft and they tried to counter with claims of blasphemy.

*Garments is how most Mormons refer to their sacred underwear. We also called 'em Gs or Garmies. I never had to wear them myself because I left the church before getting married or serving a mission, which are generally the occasions for first going to the temple as an adult.

Also, I have a pretty funny story about going to get some olive oil while cooking at my parents' place, and my mom diving in slow motion for the oil, screaming, "Noooooooo, it's consecrated!"

Posted by: tracieh | July 9, 2008 10:52 AM

Hey! I graduated UCF! Go Knights!!!

Posted by: Barry Duke | July 9, 2008 10:52 AM

They don't take these things so seriously in Quebec, so that's the place to buy the holy crackers, then abuse them to your heart's content.

Here is a report from the Daily Grail:

Is nothing sacred in Quebec any more? The answer may lie on the grocery-store shelves of the province, next to the chips, corn puffs, and salty party pretzels.

That's where shoppers can pick up an increasingly popular snack: communion wafers and sheets of communion bread. These paper-thin morsels made from flour and water hark back to Quebec's churchgoing days and the sacred rite of receiving holy communion.

But in today's secular Quebec, the wafers and bread are packaged like peanuts and popcorn - and sold as a distinctly profane snack.

"They melt in your mouth, and they're not fattening, so it's better than junk food," said Françoise Laporte, a white-haired grandmother of 71 who buys packages of Host Pieces at her local IGA in east-end Montreal. "I'm Catholic. This reminds us of mass."

See full report: http://www.dailygrail.com/node/2453

Posted by: Joss | July 9, 2008 10:56 AM

As a teen I suffered from both a hypercatholic family and anorexia nervosa and was pathetically afraid of the calories in them crackers. Forced to go to church, I'd pop that thing in my mouth, hold it there for the remaining ten minutes then surreptitiously spit it out in the parking lot and mush it up with my shoe...

TAKE THAT gOD OF ABRAHAM.

Posted by: Big Dave | July 9, 2008 10:57 AM

Well, for those that want to take a wafer and not stick out like a sore thumber, you must say "amen" on receiving it, and then bless yourself (which I guess emans make the sign of the cross).

Posted by: Jason Failes | July 9, 2008 11:04 AM

Paul W. @ 541: "It's sort of like being sold a drink in a bar in the U.S. You're not supposed to take it home and save it for later."

Analogy fail.

Besides the invalidity of arguments-by-analogy in general, unlike booze, bread products are allowed to be eaten freely on the streets.

I won't even address your biohazard analogy: It's just too silly.

Fact is, they gave him the cracker, and he didn't even try to leave with it, but wanted to show his friend before eating it, until the assaults on his person began.

They have no legal recourse for a cracker they freely gave.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2008 11:06 AM

How does a vegitarian Catholic take communion ? Either they do not really believe the wafer becomes the body of Christ, in which case they are rejecting a central tenet of Catholic theology or they think they are eating meat.

Posted by: andyo | July 9, 2008 11:11 AM

Tina #540

It's called Pascal's Wager. Look it up. It's one of the more famous (non)arguments for religulousness. Basically, you do have a lot to lose when you choose religion, and also there's the problem of which one to choose.

It's a pretty superficial "argument".

Posted by: dreikin | July 9, 2008 11:18 AM

Crap - that's MY university (until 2010, anyway). Despite what Hitt says though, I wouldn't really say there was too much importance to any Catholic churches we may or may not have here (honestly, I've been over most of the campus and wasn't even aware there was a church of ANY sort). I'd certainly take a few for you (it's not stealing since they pass them out to you) - if I knew where the darned thing was (and felt like going to school on a Sunday).

But, (both good and bad this) that's not all. We also have:
1) A preacher that tries to get people to attend his on campus services, by standing in front of the Student Union (although admittedly on days when there's all sorts of different people peddling their wares there)
2) Someone referred to as the Priest (and his wife) who stand in the "free speech areas" of the campus (basically, the grass - and there's a lot of it) yelling out about hellfire and stuff. Tends to insult the kids going by too (eg, as I hear it, girls wearing normal college clothes 'whores' or something like that). Normally attracts a fair crowd, but I'm not sure how many are just there laughing at him or provoking him..

Posted by: llewelly | July 9, 2008 11:20 AM

Here's another analogy. Suppose a science denier pretended to be a real scientist and was handed some potentially dangerous biological samples, to examine (and then safely discard) in a biology lab. Suppose they tried to walk out with those samples, and the lab folks realized what was going on.

Posted by: Michelle | July 9, 2008 11:22 AM

And about that Pascal's Wager thing... Here is a perfect moment to reflect and turn back on classical scripture.

Of course I mean South Park episodes scripts.

-----

Kyle: [rushes into the room] Mom! Dad! Am I gong to hell?

Sheila: Why? What did you do, Kyle?!

Kyle: Nothing. But the guys said if I don't confess my sins and eat crackers, I'm gonna go to hell.
Sheila: Oh noooo, that's just Catholics. Us Jews don't believe in hell.

Kyle: We don't? But what if we're wrong?

Sheila: Well..., Kyle..., they could be wrong, too.

Kyle: Yeah, but if they're wrong, no big deal. If we're wrong, we burn in hell.

Ike: Oh, no.

Gerald: Kyle, it's all about being a good person now! You see, Christians use hell as a way to scare people into believing what they believe. But to believe in something just because you're afraid of the consequenced if you dont believe in somethingis no reason to believe in something. Understand?

Ike: No-o-o.

Kyle: Well, you guys can do what you want! I'm going down to that church to confess my sins and eat crackers! And I'm taking Ike with me! [goes up to him and takes him away towards the front door. The book falls to the floor]

Posted by: nal | July 9, 2008 11:23 AM

It's a madhouse ... a madhouse!

Posted by: Michelle | July 9, 2008 11:26 AM

@SEF: I think that part's the best part.

"The host had a heart beat and the blood I believe was AB which matched up with the DNA from another Eucharistic Miracle that occured over 500 yrs before this time."

...soooo.... they had blood typing and DNA sampling 500 years ago uh? Sweet.

Posted by: Roger | July 9, 2008 11:32 AM

"How does a vegetarian Catholic take communion ? Either they do not really believe the wafer becomes the body of Christ, in which case they are rejecting a central tenet of Catholic theology or they think they are eating meat."

I suppose it would matter why a person is a vegetarian. If a person is a vegetarian because he/she cannot stand the thought of killing innocent animals for his/her consumption, then ingesting the Body of Christ would not fall into that category.

As for those who require a gluten-free diet, I am quite certain that the priest would allow one to receive the Host in the form of the Blood of Christ while forgoing receiving the Host in the form of the Body of Christ.

Posted by: andyo | July 9, 2008 11:37 AM

Shyster, #533 and #465,

Pastafarianism is and was a joke. It made a point, but it's a joke. They point out the ridiculousness of creationism by being overly ridiculous themselves. They are ridiculing the ridiculous. Would you really get offended if someone palmed your meatballs? Unless it's your real meatballs, who cares.

On the other hand, it'll probably be unsurprising if in a hundred years or so Pastafarianism became an actual religion.

Posted by: Raiko | July 9, 2008 11:50 AM

Have these people never thought that the cracker being the body of christ just *may* be a metaphor and not something literal?

Wouldn't this make an awesome headline: "Student Who Took Religious Metaphor Getting Death Threats"

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 9, 2008 11:58 AM

Is that a cracker in your pocket, or are you just happy to be kidnapping the transubstantiated flesh of Our Savior?

Posted by: True Bob | July 9, 2008 12:04 PM

Well I want to see the 2 material safety data sheets for these so-called wafers. One for pre-transmogrification cracker and one for post-substantiation cheesy-flesh.

Posted by: Chris | July 9, 2008 12:07 PM

Hmmmmmm...

As I understand it, Christ = God

And God is omnipresent - therefore *all* crackers, biscuits and other snack foods, along with everything else in the multiverse, are parts of his body - because he's everywhere so everywhere is him.

How does the Catholic magic cracker spell make God *more* omnipresent in their biscuit box than he is everywhere else? How do you kidnap an omnipresent being? Where would you take him?

Knew there was a reason I'm not a God botherer.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 9, 2008 12:10 PM

Communion Cheetos would be so much better.
Sacramental Tequila would give you more bang of the buck.

Posted by: Kseniya | July 9, 2008 12:14 PM

I have to assume that most of the comments are coming from yankees.

Must you?

Yankees don't have a word for "tacky."

Yes they do.

I really believe they could use one.

Fuck off.

Posted by: mandrake | July 9, 2008 12:17 PM

*This* is a hate crime? As opposed to -
oh, wait, I suppose the statute of limitations has expired on the Spanish Inquisition.

Posted by: True Bob | July 9, 2008 12:19 PM

Umm, does the word 'yankee' really mean anything anymore (not counting the community that believes the Civil War is not over and "Teh South Will Rise Agin")?

Posted by: KEvron | July 9, 2008 12:23 PM

you people think you're so clever. how would you like it if i were to eat a plate of spaghetti?! yeah, you didn't think about that, now did you....

KEvron

Posted by: mandrake | July 9, 2008 12:24 PM

Nothingsacred -
isn't "white cracker" redundant?

Posted by: Michael | July 9, 2008 12:28 PM

Maybe the kid was just trying to make a new cracker: GEEZ-IT brand holy crackers. For those late night redemption munchies.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2008 12:31 PM

"This definitely can be classified as a hate crime. It doesn't matter if it's a cracker, he's purposely disrespecting the religious community."

And ? Why is the religious community deserving of respect ?

And if you cannot see there is a difference between religious belief and skin colour you really do have problems. Here is a hint for you: One has choice over religious belief.

Posted by: H.H. | July 9, 2008 12:32 PM

anonymous, using a racial slur is not a hate crime either. You really should look up that word in a dictionary.

Posted by: Woobegone | July 9, 2008 12:32 PM

I see a problem with the He Kidnapped Jesus theory, let's look at it logically.

1. The Cracker is Jesus
2. Jesus is God
3. God is Omnipresent
4. Therefore, the Cracker is Omnipresent

In which case, when he stole it and put it into the ziploc bag, he didn't do anything because it was already there!

Posted by: mothwentbad | July 9, 2008 12:34 PM

EXPELLED: No Leftovers Allowed

Posted by: llewelly | July 9, 2008 12:36 PM

If a person is a vegetarian because he/she cannot stand the thought of killing innocent animals for his/her consumption, then ingesting the Body of Christ would not fall into that category.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2008 12:38 PM

To those who argue that Webster Cook was disrespectful of the Catholic church. Of course he was. That was whole point. Well done in spotting the bloody obvious. Next time you might want to let us know where bears shit.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 9, 2008 12:39 PM

It's not a hate crime.
That's just stupid.
Eating or not eating a
cracker is not a hate crime.

A crime has to be committed first.
Then it's determined to what degree
"hate" was the motivation of the crime.

Was cannibalism the crime? Trespassing? Theft?

Posted by: Eric Paulsen | July 9, 2008 12:41 PM

This is why the separation of church and state is so crucial to this country, we actually have people who want to bring physical harm to a person over a FUCKING EDIBLE CRACKER! Maybe this is what passes for rational thinking in countries where honor killings make sense or clitorectomies are performed to keep a womans sexuality from threatening her husband, but here in America we will LET you believe the cracker is your long lost uncle Saul if you want to - but you can't punch someone in the nose because he insults your cracker! That's what a CRAZY person does! You CAN'T threaten to kill a living human being over a perceived offense to a CRACKER - even if you think that cracker is GOD!

How is it even possible that everybody doesn't already know that?

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 9, 2008 12:43 PM

Only eat free range Jesus, you heathens!

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Steve_C | July 9, 2008 12:44 PM

Hey Jordan.

That's stupid too. Eating or not eating a cracker that is representative of a goofy belief is not the same as disrespecting a monument or a national treasure.

It's just not.

Too fucking bad.

Posted by: True Bob | July 9, 2008 12:48 PM

If keeping a cracker that was freely given to you is a hate crime, what then the punishment for all the god-botherers who sneer to atheists that they'll pray for you?

Sounds like the latter is practically genocide, compared to a lost but omnipresent crumb.

Posted by: Roger | July 9, 2008 12:49 PM

"" If a person is a vegetarian because he/she cannot stand the thought of killing innocent animals for his/her consumption, then ingesting the Body of Christ would not fall into that category."

"Not true. Christ was both innocent, by definition, and killed. And furthermore, he was killed so that Catholics could eat his flesh every week or so.""

The animals are not believed to have asked to be remembered by being eaten.

Posted by: MarshallDog | July 9, 2008 12:50 PM

I wonder if anyone else has a similar story than the one I have to tell... I come from a deeply Catholic city (Gloucester, MA... and no, they were not my babies) and used to attend mass every week for my mom's sake. At one mass there was a particularly large turnout for communion. It really seemed like people were pouring in off the streets and our priest apparently hadn't "prepared" enough