Pharyngula

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 8, 2009 2:05 PM

Hey, it's "take-out Jesus."

And why not carry Jesus wherever you go? It's your own personal Jesus, then.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Joe | July 8, 2009 2:09 PM

Yay! Lets do this. Perhaps you could wash this one down with maple syrup instead of trashing it?

Posted by: Jeff J | July 8, 2009 2:13 PM

For the first time ever... *wince* I'm on Harper's side.

I just threw up a little bit onto my keyboard.

Posted by: Berner | July 8, 2009 2:14 PM

I really do dislike Harper and his entire shitty cabinet but come on. How is this even newsworthy. IT'S FLOUR AND WATER!

Posted by: toth | July 8, 2009 2:18 PM

Crackers are serious business!

Posted by: QrazyQat | July 8, 2009 2:18 PM

Asked about it later, Harper said he was just saving it for later: "Christ, it's what's for dinner".

Posted by: 386sx | July 8, 2009 2:20 PM

OMG, what a travesty. (Yawn.)

Actually, he (fundie that he is) proabably thinks the popeo is the anti-christ. (Yawn.)

Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | July 8, 2009 2:22 PM

Off topic; here is some Bachman info which may or may not be true.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/8/751200/-Bachmanns-Gangster-Accusation-Should-Invite-Media-Scrutiny-of-Her-Lawless-Associates

Posted by: tsg | July 8, 2009 2:27 PM

Reposting what I wrote about this in another thread (with some modifications)...

From the article:

Neil MacCarthy, a spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Toronto, explained that Harper should not have accepted the communion given that he isn't Roman Catholic.

"In the Roman Catholic faith we say that Roman Catholics are the only ones who should present themselves for communion because we believe that are actually consuming the body and blood of Jesus Christ," he told the Toronto Star.

MacCarthy said he is sure Harper meant no disrespect but should have politely declined by crossing his arms over his chest. "We encourage those who are non-Catholic ... to present themselves for a blessing (instead)," he said.

I'm calling this out right now because it's the entire fucking point behind Crackergate: a Roman Catholic is telling a Protestant how he should behave because of what the Roman Catholics believe. The PM was offered a cracker and should have declined it because Roman Catholics think it is wrong for him to accept it. This, in no uncertain terms, is expecting others to follow your religious rules while not extending the same courtesy.

Fuck you Neil MacCarthy. And fuck anyone who's upset by this.

Posted by: 386sx | July 8, 2009 2:36 PM

MacCarthy said he is sure Harper meant no disrespect but should have politely declined by crossing his arms over his chest. "We encourage those who are non-Catholic ... to present themselves for a blessing (instead)," he said.

Yeah right, he didn't even want to be in your stupid church in the first place, you sanctimonious idiot.

Posted by: tsg | July 8, 2009 2:45 PM

Reposting what I wrote about this in another thread...

From the article:

MacCarthy said he is sure Harper meant no disrespect but...

Lingustics rule #427: Everything before the "but" is bullshit.

"We know he meant no offense, but we're offended anyway."

Posted by: 386sx | July 8, 2009 2:49 PM

You can't even say no thanks to a bleepin blarney cracker, for cryin out loud.

You have to go through a whole "fold your arms and look like an idiot" ritual. They have a ritual for everything, I guess. Including making people look like idiots for just saying no to a stupid frakkin cracker.

Posted by: Hard of Hearing | July 8, 2009 2:49 PM

It's consecrated flour and HOLY water. So double there.

Flour and water can make you constipated? Who knew?

And how can water have holes in it anyway?

Posted by: tsg | July 8, 2009 2:54 PM

If I was Harper, I'd start foaming at the mouth about how offensive it is to me that the priest offered me the cracker in the first place (because it disrespects my beliefs) but chose not to make a scene at a funeral.

Posted by: Theo Bromine | July 8, 2009 3:05 PM

It pains me to say it, but I'm with Harper on this one. It's inexcusable for the priest dispensing wafers to give one to someone he knew was not a Catholic. Harper, as a member of a schismatic sect, is not responsible for his inadvertent blasphemy.

http://thinkingforfree.blogspot.com/2009/07/crackergate-in-canada.html

Posted by: Pixelfish | July 8, 2009 3:08 PM

No fan of Harper's but this news story is overblown. As usual.

Posted by: Ferdzy | July 8, 2009 3:15 PM

Some of the better comments I've seen on this topic are here:

http://farnwide.blogspot.com/2009/07/damaging-damage-control.html

Posted by: Newfie | July 8, 2009 3:17 PM

One of Harper's ideas is to eliminate public funding, giving the Conservative Party a huge advantage when it comes to fundraising, vis-à-vis churches and big business. I hope this story gets more traction.

from the Globe and Mail:

"Whenever the election does come, Harper has one plan in mind for afterward: the elimination of public funding to political parties. A punishing blow to his opponents. Sure, the idea caused a showdown last autumn, the adviser said. 'But in retrospect, we should have stuck to our guns. It was strategically smart. It's still strategically smart. We're going to run again on it. And we're going to do it, if we win the next election. It's coming.'"

Posted by: Tulse | July 8, 2009 3:19 PM

Someone needs to give the poor guy a break.

Speaking as a Canadian, no, they really don't.

Here's just the latest outrage from his prairie fundy wackaloon government: Minister fired for giving tourism money to Toronto gay pride event.

Posted by: J. A. Baker | July 8, 2009 3:25 PM

You guys are forgetting one thing: Stephen Harper is a Conservative™ (both in terms of party name and ideology). That means that ANYTHING he does is a-okay in Bill Dono-spew's eyes.

Posted by: AlanWCan | July 8, 2009 3:25 PM

Stephen harper: I put him in a nice parfait"

*I live in Canada. The reason we don't like him is because he's Bush Lite.

Posted by: Interrobang | July 8, 2009 3:33 PM

ROFLMAO at work, even! Thanks, PZ, it's apparently my lucky day! A story which makes both Stephen Harper and the Catholic church look like the stupid asses they are -- wow, what a twofer. Can we throw Mike Harris into the mix and go for the hat trick?

Posted by: John Swindle | July 8, 2009 3:40 PM

Bush lite? I wouldn't like him either. But still, the Catholics who are so steamed about this are essentially upset about protocol. How many of them would know how to behave at a funeral held in a mosque or a synagogue or a protestant church? And would they care enough to find out? People seem to love to feel offended.

Posted by: Tim H | July 8, 2009 3:52 PM

Harper is a turd. One of his ministers, Stockwell Day, is a young earth creationist. Harper has given Canada the dubious distinction of being one of the worst offender when it comes to greenhouse gases and environmental degradation. Now he's stolen a cracker.

Posted by: Fred Nurke | July 8, 2009 3:54 PM

Sorry Bishop, but if you invite people to your party, you have to expect them to eat the hors d'oeuvres.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 8, 2009 3:56 PM

#17:

I'm calling this out right now because it's the entire fucking point behind Crackergate: a Roman Catholic is telling a Protestant how he should behave because of what the Roman Catholics believe. The PM was offered a cracker and should have declined it because Roman Catholics think it is wrong for him to accept it. This, in no uncertain terms, is expecting others to follow your religious rules while not extending the same courtesy.

I beg to disagree. When you're at someone else's party, you follow their rules, unless there's a damn good reason not to. That's just courtesy, and I'll give the churches that much right over their own affairs (the fact that Catholic reaction to the Brent Webster affair was so over-the-top is a separate issue). I've been to Mass, both as a Protestant and a tipping-into-atheism unbeliever, and I didn't take Communion. Now whether Harper's faux pas is a result of his own ignorance/arrogance, priestly incompetence or a combination thereof, the fact remains that the Church has the right to forbid (though it may be difficult to enforce) non-Catholics from taking their Communion.

Now, if the Church or its apologists start requiring that *secular* penalties should be applied to Harper (though I can't imagine what, under Canadian law), then you'd have a point. (Which is what they tried to do in the Brent Webster case, and is the reason why I support PZ's actions at the time; ie. a political statement to the effect that church rules stop at the church door, and no one else is obliged to pay them any mind).

Posted by: Mena | July 8, 2009 3:58 PM

If only that kid in Florida was a head of state...
The video really did make me LOL. I have no idea why, other than the absurdity of the source of the "anger" (better known as "self righteous indignation") and some of the stuff that I read here.
What is it about Canadians and Catholicism? When my mother, my husband, and I were in Rome, my mother really wanted to go to the Vatican. I ended up taking her alone (she's handicapped) because my husband wanted to sleep in. This was right after Jean Chretien tried to blow off the pope. Now Harper. ;^)

Posted by: Victor | July 8, 2009 4:03 PM

Really, from the footage, it does not look like Harper actually got in line to receive the wafer. It looks like the priest went to him. In that case, it would have been the priest giving the wafer in a nondiscriminatory way rather than Harper taking it in a nondiscriminatory way. True, he should have put up a fuss and refused it, but I've gotten in trouble for politely refusing things given to me. It just isn't done. Particularity in a public ceremony. I would have done the same.

Posted by: Jon H | July 8, 2009 4:11 PM

If he goes back for another, he can get some cheese and make a sammich.

Posted by: Carlie | July 8, 2009 4:18 PM

I'm with those who say the Catholic church can't complain, since a priest handed it to him. If he had rejected it, they would still be complaining about a scene. This is one area that (some) Protestants do it better - they pass a platter full of crackers around after explaining who SHOULD and who SHOULDN'T take one (which differs from church to church) and let each person make up their own mind on whether to grab one or not.

Posted by: Ema | July 8, 2009 4:27 PM

Hahahahaha
Oh PZ, you jumped all over this and I'm happy because of it -- I was going to send you a link to this very article, that's been gracing the front of thestar.com for half the day now. Yeah, apparently there's nothing better to report on in the T-dot...

Posted by: Aquaria | July 8, 2009 4:28 PM

When you're at someone else's party, you follow their rules, unless there's a damn good reason not to.

A good, er, host doesn't assume every guest knows the rules, and doesn't present situations that might confuse or make a guest feel unnecessarily uncomfortable.

Posted by: tsg | July 8, 2009 4:39 PM

I beg to disagree.

Here we go...

When you're at someone else's party,

Argument by analogy. Let's not gloss over some important facts here. It was a funeral that would essentially have been political suicide for him to skip, especially for it being in a Catholic church, and his "desecration" was not deliberate. This wasn't a party at a friend's house where he got drunk, made a pass at the host's wife, and pissed on the rug.

you follow their rules, unless there's a damn good reason not to.

These rules are silly and arbitrary. That's reason enough.

the fact remains that the Church has the right to forbid (though it may be difficult to enforce) non-Catholics from taking their Communion.

I agree. But if they are not going to take even the remotest steps to enforce that policy, it's their own problem when a non-Catholic gets a hold of one.

Let's also not forget that the entire source of the "offense" is not valuing this cracker as highly as they do, or at least treating it as if you do. It's asking for special deference to a belief that others do not hold. If they were reasonable, they wouldn't care what a non-Catholic did with one of their crackers. If the Archdiocese has said, "Harper is not Catholic, so it really doesn't matter" it would be an entirely different story. But they didn't. They said Roman Catholics believe such and such, so a Protestant should have done this and that.

Posted by: Charles James | July 8, 2009 4:48 PM

I guess that headhog Benny over there in vatican land will get upset over this, and to top it off, the news from real people - scientists - in England who have been able to develop human male sperm in the lab. Will he justify the use of lab condoms to stop the use of this?
Meanwhile our fundamental christian prime minister has pulled a "Myers" (I pull them everyday). He belongs to a weird church in Ottawa where women are right there on the bottom rung of the ladder. And these people walk the same streets? Keep your head up!

Posted by: eNeMeE | July 8, 2009 5:23 PM

you'd really think [Catholics would] strive for consistency.

Oh, stop. You're killin' me!

Posted by: squareone | July 8, 2009 5:25 PM

Did someone from the congregation assault him afterwards?

Posted by: blacksheep | July 8, 2009 5:36 PM

Christ - the other white meat.

Posted by: tariqata | July 8, 2009 6:26 PM

I found it hysterical how many comments the Toronto Star article generated about this "story". Way more than on, say, this story, about a woman who has been detained in Kenya, which I'd say represents a serious concern about how the current government treats our citizens.

While on the one hand, it really shouldn't be an issue - aside from anything else, I'd say it represented a general failure all around (after all, it's pretty well known that Harper is an evangelical Christian; did the priest handing out the wafers simply not recognize the PM?), no one (except the cracker!) was hurt, and I've got a much, much bigger problem with the hints that the social conservatives in the CPC are crawling out of hiding.

On the other hand, it's so satisfying to see his handlers scrambling on this one.

I draw the line at attending either events held at Pentacostal churches though.

I hear that Pentecostal churches won't let you in, at least for weddings, if you aren't a member (or at least, that was the experience of a friend whose mother and stepfather were married in one; she had to watch through the window).

Posted by: Priya Lynn | July 8, 2009 6:43 PM

Q: What's 12 inches long and hangs between George Bush's legs?

A: Stephen Harper's tie

Posted by: Felix | July 8, 2009 6:52 PM

Just found this. A Fox host asserts that Finns and Swedes have 'pure genes' and therefore a study about Alzheimer rates doesn't apply to the US where people don't marry other species.
Something like that.

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001908/

Posted by: M. Brazeau | July 8, 2009 7:22 PM

He just wanted a snack for later, one that would stay fresh. Jesus saves, after all.

Posted by: Cath@VWXYNot? | July 8, 2009 7:36 PM

STEPHEN Harper, not Steven. Or, as he's known in my house, "that smug piggy-eyed git".

I only mention this because I think it's important for search engines to find the correct spelling for pages that say things like "Stephen Harper is a fucking arsehole".

Posted by: ckitching | July 8, 2009 7:43 PM

Tulse, can you honestly tell me that if you had no knowledge about the complexities of this Catholic doctrine that you wouldn't have acted in nearly the same manor as Stephen Harper did? I can say with certainty that I would've done nearly the same thing, and would've done so out of respect for those who hold those beliefs sacred. The fact this "blasphemy" is by its very nature completely undiscoverable isn't his fault. Maybe he should've refused. Maybe his advisers should have briefed him on it. Maybe he wasn't expecting to be handed one. I don't know, but I can't fault him for any of this.

There are plenty of things we can criticize Stephen Harper for. Failing to honour a cracker isn't one of them.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 8, 2009 7:55 PM

At the CathoLeague site, neither the "Latest News Releases" page nor Bill Donohue's "Chatterbox" page so far addresses this latest vicious assault on the naked body of Our Lord™.

(Of course, they haven't been updated since 7/7 & 6/26 respectively.)

Can't you hear the wafer calling out, "Oh Bill, why hast thou forsaken me?!?"

Posted by: Canuck | July 8, 2009 8:48 PM

I was going to notify you of this earlier in the day, but got busy. He's going to get off easy, because he's a fundy, while you got death threats. Even the wingnuts have a double standard.

Posted by: amphiox | July 8, 2009 9:08 PM

If, and only if, this incident leads to Harper and his party losing the next election, then something worthwhile will have come of it.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 8, 2009 9:52 PM

I'm surprised that no one has noted the fair bit of sleight of hand that Harper pulls off.

He had some papers in his hand as he lines up and gets closer to the priest. He is holding the papers in his left hand. He accepts the cracker in his right hand at chest level or slightly lower. Just before the priest moves to block the view, Harper's right hand, without rising higher than chest level, disappears behind the sheaf of paper in the vicinity of his jacket's right hand pocket. By the time the priest has moved from line of sight, Harper's right hand is holding the papers along with his left and he is shuffling away, looking at his feet in a clear posture of self consciousness. He knows he's just screwed up something sacred but he's just not sure how.

It was a pretty smooth move, especially if it was ad-libbed.

Posted by: articulett | July 8, 2009 10:37 PM

I propose that we gather up pocketed Eucharists and use them in a backgammon game against unconsecrated wafers. Then we can see whether the Jesus infused crackers give the player an advantage over his unblessed opponent.

Posted by: Tulse | July 8, 2009 10:45 PM

Tulse, can you honestly tell me that if you had no knowledge about the complexities of this Catholic doctrine that you wouldn't have acted in nearly the same manor as Stephen Harper did?

Stephen Harper isn't just some schmoe, he's the frickin' Prime Minister of Canada, the head of government of a country where nearly half the population is Catholic. He has no doubt attended Masses before. I would indeed expect the person who is represents my country to the rest of world, and therefore who should be schooled in not embarrassing it, would know that non-Catholics don't take communion. What if he did this on a diplomatic trip to the Vatican?

And the doctrine isn't that complex -- non-Catholics don't take communion. I'm sure that the leader of a party of rabid social conservatives, most of whom are fundy Protestants, would know that even without being the head of government, since most of his party probably thinks the Papists are the devil anyway.

It is an inexcusable faux pas for a head of government (although par for the course for this government).

Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 8, 2009 11:17 PM

And how can water have holes in it anyway?

Posted by: Kemist | July 8, 2009 11:29 PM

STEPHEN Harper, not Steven. Or, as he's known in my house, "that smug piggy-eyed git".

I call him Squarepants Harper since a memorable skit where he appeared as Spongebob, that you've probably not seen if you're not from Quebec.

The resemblance, when putting him in the little pants, was pretty uncanny.

I especially dislike him for his way of non-addressing the medical isotopes/Chalk River reactor issue (he put an empty-headed bimbo in charge of it).

So, everybody, if you're wondering why you can't have the technetium or iodine-135 for the test you need, you know who you can blame.

Posted by: JThompson | July 9, 2009 1:33 AM

@Tulse:

What if he did this on a diplomatic trip to the Vatican?

The only reasons I'm not going to defend Harper are A: I'm from the U.S. not Canada. and B: I have no doubt whatsoever that had someone inadvertently violated one of his sillyass religious rituals, he and everyone that looks like him would've gone flat out batshit.
Let the nutjobs tear one another to pieces. Encourage it, if you can.

I wish Bush had pulled something like this when he were president. Just to watch the Catholic League and the Protestant groups froth at the mouth and call one another satanists. Plus the headline "Bush Defiles Jesus: Claims it was Accident" would've been worth it.

Posted by: James Johnson | July 9, 2009 2:09 AM

An expert at professional cracker disposal?

Bring it out here, to Oregon in the Siskiyou Mountains. We have plenty of crackers here (almost as many in the deep south). One more won't change matters. Much.

Posted by: Alf | July 9, 2009 6:44 AM

What part of his meat is the cracker supposed to be? Is it like a salami (blend of all parts including...ugh) or, is it a slice (cross section?) of....gag?

Posted by: Richard Eis | July 9, 2009 7:12 AM

Lucky it wasn't in Ireland. Thats a 25 grand fine right there.

Posted by: ??? | July 9, 2009 7:47 AM

the head of government of a country where nearly half the population is Catholic

In the 2001 census, 43.2% of respondents did indeed choose "Roman Catholic" as their religion, which I guess fits a rather liberal defintion of "nearly half". However, the actual question was:

What is this person's religion? Indicate a specific denomination or religion even if this person is not currently a practising member of that group.

For example, Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, United Church, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Coptic Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Jewish, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, etc."

There's no indication of how much of the 43.2% falls into the "not currently practising" group.

Posted by: Tom | July 9, 2009 10:52 AM

If you are going to go to a Catholic Church then you should spend a few minutes and look up their rules. It's not that complicated. If you aren't receiving communion then don't go up to the altar. It's really not that complicated. If I was going to a Wiccan ceremony then I would make sure that I didn't do anything that offended Wiccans. If I don't like following their rules then I stay away. If I'm walking down the street and do something to offend a Wiccan then it's their problem, not mine. If I'm invited to a friend's house I don't put my feet on their furniture. But I do whatever I want in my house. (Well, as long as my wife says I can.)

Posted by: BK | July 9, 2009 1:07 PM

Not all churches have the person consume the cracker, bread, whatever, in front of the priest. Some take it back to their seat and all consume it at once there. There are so many differences between churches, that it's a bit silly to expect one to memorize the rules to every one of them. I was raised Catholic and have even had some "oopses" in other Catholic churches. One, instead of shaking hands, as the sign of peace, exchanged kisses. My immediate reaction was GAAACCCKKKKK!!!!! and I refused to turn to anyone. I got a couple of wide-eyed stares of "what's wrong with her?" It was Sunday, I was away from home, so I had just attended some random Catholic church not expecting there to be much difference. I've also been to a Catholic church where each person gave communion to the one next to them. The bulk of the churches are the same, but there's enough that are different to confuse people.

Besides, what are they doing with a camera in church anyway?? That seems pretty disrespectful to me. Playing "popularity contest" at a funeral is pretty pathetic.

Posted by: kk | July 9, 2009 10:23 PM

PZ Myers,

Thank you for helping us advance Conservative agenda.
You obssession with religion tells me that when you were a little boy, you might have been sexually abused at the church. What bothers me is the fact that you did not turn against sexual deviants that abused you but you turned against the place where that sexual abuse took place. It seems to me that you still blame the fact that you become sexual pervert on the church and religion in general.

If you keep on going like this and keep presenting yourself as a man of science and use your clout as a scientist in order to abuse little boys than next generation of little faggots will blame it on science and they will hate science same way you hate religion today.

Where does it lead us?? Do you knoow???

Posted by: MEG | July 13, 2009 3:53 PM

Mr. Harper has displayed a remarkable lack of talent in choosing his staff/advisers. In the same week, he chastised the Leader of the Opposition for remarks made by someone else (based on a staff briefing), and made rather rude comments about the social habits of Italian politicians. I suspect he thinks because he is "born again," he can do no wrong.

For those who care, there really is a proper way (ie, church custom) for disposing of Communion wafers.