There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion.
Here's a story that will destroy your hopes for a reasonable humanity.
Webster Cook says he smuggled a Eucharist, a small bread wafer that to Catholics symbolic of the Body of Christ after a priest blesses it, out of mass, didn't eat it as he was supposed to do, but instead walked with it.
This isn't the stupid part yet. He walked off with a cracker that was put in his mouth, and people in the church fought with him to get it back. It is just a cracker!
Catholics worldwide became furious.
Would you believe this isn't hyperbole? People around the world are actually extremely angry about this — Webster Cook has been sent death threats over his cracker. Those are just kooks, you might say, but here is the considered, measured response of the local diocese:
"We don't know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was," said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. "However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it."
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."
Wait, what? Holding a cracker hostage is now a hate crime? The murder of Matthew Shephard was a hate crime. The murder of James Byrd Jr. was a hate crime. This is a goddamned cracker. Can you possibly diminish the abuse of real human beings any further?
Well, you could have a priest compare this event to a kidnapping.
"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."
Gonzalez said the Diocese is willing to meet with Cook and help him understand the importance of the Eucharist in hopes of him returning it. The Diocese is dispatching a nun to UCF's campus to oversee the next mass, protect the Eucharist and in hopes Cook will return it.
I like the idea of sending a scary nun to guard the ceremony at the next mass. But even better…let's send Webster Cook to hell!
Gonzalez said intentionally abusing the Eucharist is classified as a mortal sin in the Catholic church, the most severe possible. If it's not returned, the community of faith will have to ask for forgiveness.
"We have to make acts of reparation," Gonzalez said. "The whole community is going to turn to prayer. We'll ask the Lord for pardon, forgiveness, peace, not only for the whole community affected by it, but also for [Cook], we offer prayers for him as well."
Get some perspective, man. IT'S A CRACKER.
And of course, Bill Donohue is outraged (I know, Donohue is going to die of apoplexy someday when a gnat violates his oatmeal, so this isn't saying much).
For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage--regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance--is beyond hate speech. That is why the UCF administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion.
Oh, beyond hate speech. Where does this fit on the Shoah scale, Bill? It shouldn't even register, but here is Wild-Eyed Bill the Offended calling for the expulsion of a student…for not swallowing a cracker.
Would you believe that the mealy-mouthed president of the university, John Hitt, is avoiding defending his student is instead playing up the importance of the Catholic church to the university? Of course you would. That's what university presidents do. Bugger the students, keep the donors and the state reps happy.
Unfortunately, Webster Cook has now returned the cracker. Why?
Webster just wants all of this to go away. Especially now that he feels his life is in danger.
That's right. Crazy Christian fanatics right here in our own country have been threatening to kill a young man over a cracker. This is insane. These people are demented fuckwits. And Cook is not out of the fire yet — that Fox News story ends with an open incitement to cause him further misery.
University officials said, that as for right now, Webster Cook is not in trouble. If anyone or any group wants to file a formal complaint with the University through the student judicial system, they can. If that happens, Webster will go through a hearing either in front of an administrative panel or a panel of his peers.
Got that? 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.
I find this all utterly unbelievable. It's like Dark Age superstition and malice, all thriving with the endorsement of secular institutions here in 21st century America. It is a culture of deluded lunatics calling the shots and making human beings dance to their mythical bunkum.
So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address.
Just wait. Now there'll be a team of Jesuits assigned to rifle through my mail every day.
Comment thread closed due to excessive length, but you may continue here.
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.
From a facebook commentary:
MXcXaXl BXwXs
"Sadly this guy that kidnapped Our Lord didn't know what he was doing when he desecrated the body and kept it in an unclean plastic baggy. This story brings to mind one of my favorite Eucharistic Miracles. It occured in a muslim country I believe and it was around 50 years ago. A young Catholic wife who was married to a muslim man was an avid Catholic. One day her husband who hated her faith beat her and told her to bring the host home so he could show his buddies. She did just as he asked, took it in her mouth back to her pew and then put it into a plastic baggy. She took the host home and gave it to her husband. He plopped it on his poker table where his friends were sitting and after laughing and jeering at how Catholics thought this was the actual body of Christ he pulled out his pocket knife and stabbed the host.
No more than a second went by and all of the sudden blood started to gush out of the host. the husband checked under the table to make sure there wan't any trickery and by the time that he looked up, the blood was all over the table and it was gushing as if an artery had been severed. He called the police and when they arrived the host was still bleeding, the police checked the house because there was so much blood they thought there had to be a body. The Catholic CHurch was contacted and the host was rescued and placed in a clear chalice and taken to a church for observation. 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.
People think that the Catholic Eucharist is just a representation of God.. It isn't.. it is the Body of Christ and countless Miracles have occured. I have seen 3 of these and have touched one of them within a monstrance. God is beautiful.. I hope this young guy has a conversion from the experience."""
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.
My brother has Orcrist in his closet. I defy anyone to prove it isn't Orcrist.
Kseniya@505,
Well, have you ever seen it glowing in the presence of orcs? Eh? Eh? Havya?
@#502: What I worry the most about is why they sell the scraps in the grocery stores in the treat section. You know, these eucharist sheets with a lot of holes in 'em? Guess the remainder ain't holy.
I'd hold out for 30 pieces of silver.
Shyster said:
IANAL but I rather think it does, considering doing so would not risk causing physical injury to anyone (except possibly yourself if the previously mentioned burly security guards were around).
It might cause injury to feelings ofcourse but the whole point of the 1st amendment is that that's just too bad - freedom from offence is most definitely not in the Constitution!
Hey Nick Gotts my not friend,if you read this,are you the NG that was involved with that NetSpinner thing? I always wondered....
This one's for you, Wowbagger:
http://durash2.web.aplus.net/?p=88
Not a newspaper, but at least it covers the basics ).
T
Yup. Nothing spells "God is beautiful" like great gouts of blood spurting from a pulsating cracker.
Considering that the places that most people buy the wafers in the first place have atheist workers, this is much of a non-issue...
The wafers only have ceremonial value. They're just ordinary wafers that are "called" the body of Christ.
Seriously, I don't even think God approves of what they did to Webster.
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.
Alec at #410 helpfully frames what's really behind the discussion here, because every picture needs a frame:
Amazing. Without Alec's keen insight, we might have continuted talking about the actions of people driven by their insane beliefs, when really, all along, what we were really talking about was that all Catholics are a buncha furriners.
That's not concern trolling. That's psychotic.
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?
@ Lilly de Lure,sexiest nick on the interwebs:
//freedom from offence is most definitely not in the Constitution!//
You sometimes get the feeling it was tho,dont you !
Kseniya said:
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?
History will record this as the moment that religion finally jumped the shark, moved the island, flipped the pool, grabbed the cracker, whatever.
From this moment forth, it will be impossible to take religion seriously, or at least impossible to take seriously anyone who takes religion seriously.
The cracker has crumbled. It's over, people. Close your churches, stop lying to children, and give old people their life's savings back.
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.
clinteas@509
NetSpinner? Not on the WWW tool, if that's what you mean, but I did work for a while on computer models of spiders' web construction. My program was called Theseus, but I know a new one was built after I left, the name of which I don't recall.
@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... "
Have they ever tried waving the magic wand over say, 150lbs of crackers, and about 8 pints of wine?
Wow! 522 (523 now, or more) comments on a cracker! Personally, I prefer wasabrod and somebody pass me the cheese.
This guy's pretty easy to find on Facebook if anyone wants to send him a little message of support.
They are made of fail and dumb.
I always wanted to walk up to one of those priests handing out the wafers and ask "can I get some dark meat?"
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.
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!
thalarctos @ #33:
Brilliant.
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......
Ken Cope@514
I don't wholly agree - I think alex's comment (note: alex and Alex are different commenters here) was OTT, but does raise a real point: in attacking religion, atheists should be careful not to align with those who are interested in attacking ethnic minorities (except of course for atheists who are interested in attacking ethnic minorities - but I don't want to be associated with them). In Europe, this is relevant mostly (not only) when attacking Islam or Judaism. In the US, as I hadn't considered before, because of the large Hispanic-immigrant/Catholic overlap, it could be relevant in the case of Catholicism.
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...
Kseniya said:
You'd think that if that were so their energies would be better spent actually doing something about it rather than playing around with cheesy ceramics but hey, no-one's perfect right?
Eternal Hellfire fine - mouthful of blood once a week, too icky. OK, moving right along . .
You're doing a better job than my RE teacher that's for sure (you're also far more entertaining)!
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.
Also should a host that bleeds when pierced with a knife also do so in the mouths of communicants when bitten into?
Well, when I was being raised Catholic back in the '60's, I was taught that one did not chew the wafer. You were supposed to let it dissolve in your mouth (or at least until it was soft enough to just swallow whole).
@ #517
Lilly de Lure said:
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!"
All your cracker are belong to us
@Lord Zero: Let's not be a generalist. All countries have their insane people. Heck, even Canada has its creationist museum.
I think alex's comment (note: alex and Alex are different commenters here))
And Alec at #409 (and when I posted I thought it was #410; with PZ probably on troll patrol thread numbering is occasionally fluid) is neither Alex nor alex.
In the US, as I hadn't considered before, because of the large Hispanic-immigrant/Catholic overlap, it could be relevant in the case of Catholicism.
It had no relevance in this thread until Alec pulled the subject out of his ass to rationalize his case of the vapors. Next, hatred of immigrants because of their Catholicism is the sort of thing fundies do, and Alec just accused us all of using the topic of the thread to express our hatred of Catholics because they are immigrants. Doesn't anybody keep track of how many apostate former Catholics are posting on this thread?
Sometimes a cracker is just a cracker.
If what you believe is true, that it is just a cracker, that the Catholic Church is whack, that there is no God, then Catholics who still wish to follow the Church have nothing to lose. However, if what the Catholic Church says is true, if there is a God and a heaven and hell, well then, it seems to me you have everything to lose.
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.
So, I was wrong. There IS something that can make me set foot in a catholic church. Crackers ahoy!
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!"
Bryn said:
Ah, that would explain it! It's amazing the things they don't tell you about communion when you're a non-Catholic at a Catholic school.
The only problem there though surely is that rather than being knawed at you've got poor Jesus experiencing the delights of having his flesh slowly dissolved in his worshippers stomach acid but hell, one thing at a time.
Hey! I graduated UCF! Go Knights!!!
It's not a Cracker, it's a GEEZ-IT!!!
You can't eat just one!
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
Believing bread is the Body of Jesus is as crazy as believing in Heaven, the afterlife, the beforelife, the soul, the spirit, or that the Holy Bible is the Word of God, etc.
However, there are probably many more people on Earth, rightly or wrongly, who believe in one or more of these "crazy" notions, as well as numerous other "crazy" ideas I have not listed.
This is your humanity. This is your heritage.
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.
Tina said:
And if the real God happens to be Odin? or Zeus?
Seriously Tina, we've all heard Pascal's cowardly wager before, it doesn't get any more convincing with repetition.
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).
"It's substance is still a cracker. There is no such thing as essence, it's just an apologetic for why it's still a cracker."
Note that 'substance' used here is not the same thing that we would call 'matter.' What are things? According to Aristotelian philosophy, things are matter that has a particular form. The fundamental essence of a thing, according to Aristotle, can't be matter, as matter fails to be both seperable and individual. So for Aristotle the fundamental substance is form. Form, in this sense, doesn't simply mean shape. It means a metaphysical 'this is what it is' description of an object. In other words, Socrates remains Socrates year after year; even though his component matter changes and even though his appearance changes, he still remains Socrates. "Socrates" is the form, his essence. Following this line of thought, the idea of transubstantiation can be understood.
Of course, it's still just medieval philosophy with no empirical support, but it helps to know where they're coming from.
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.
However, if what the Catholic Church says is true, if there is a God and a heaven and hell, well then, it seems to me you have everything to lose. - Tina
Unless God is in the crackers, but really doesn't like being eaten, and will send you to hell for it, of course. Which seems fairly plausible.
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.
Gluten-free crackers have been discussed repeatedly in recent years. My recollection is that the official line from the Papacy is that if they don't contain wheat, they can't be sacred. Celiac disease is apparently another one of those things God made people with but doesn't approve of.
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".
Well, I guess that if you're allergic to Gluten, it's obviously because you gave in to the Devil!
Too bad for you, gluten heathens!!!!
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..
That definitely needs to feature on a MythBusters TV episode (and in Snopes online) just to let the religiotards know that they can't expect to fool everyone with their lies or get away with them unchallenged.
This analogy fails because said biological danger is scientifically demonstrable. In contrast, there is no demonstrable difference between a consecrated cracker and a non-consecrated cracker.
>> "We don't know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was," said
>>Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic
>>diocese.
>>"However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to
>>us this seems like this might be it."
That statement embodies everything that is wrong with 'hate crime' legislation. The US is just starting to embrace thoughtcrime, but in Canada, hate crime is all the rage.
In Canada, if I steal your car and you're a white, squid-loving man, well, I'll get some time to cool my jets as a guest of Her Majesty.
If I steal your car and you're a dark-skinned gay man, well, someone will probably argue that I took it because you're gay and a visible minority. That "hate" will add to my guilt and I'll get extra time as a guest of Her Majesty just for thinking a naughty thought.
So now, in the US, there's at least one person who likens stealing a cracker to a hate crime. Thinking like that has to be nipped in the bud before it's too late. Stealing a Catholic cracker is no worse than stealing anyone else's cracker. And when it comes to stealing from people, does the Catholic church really want anyone to take a good close look at them?
Every time I see the words "hate crime" I want to smack someone with a copy of "1984".
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]
Tina's attempt at a Pascal does lead to the hilarious image of Kookie-Kerumble, the Angry God of Biscuits, taking eternal vengeance on all those who mercilessly consumed His sacred avatar the wafer.
In the Afterlife, wafer eats you.
It's a madhouse ... a madhouse!
Since Catholics think the cracker is really Jesus's body, maybe one of them should take it and clone it, and bring him back!
Then he could tell them all how seriously they've fucked up his teachings.
@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.
This is your humanity. This is your heritage. - Roger
Depressing, isn't it? Fortunately, there are better sides to humanity.
"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.
And then there were these nuns, see, that developed a new low-fat communion wafer which they marketed to church under the name "I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus."
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.
In comment #399 I provided a link to a thread in a Catholic's blog called "Evolution: The Great Fairy Tale". I just checked and the entire article was deleted. Now this Catholic creationist has a new thread called "The Church and Evolution" where he says "The Church rejects all theories of evolution that do not reflect the revelations of God." I would suggest going there to leave a comment, but like most creationist cowards he reviews all comments before accepting them. Most likely a pro-evolution comment would never get published. Here it is:
http://johnpreiss.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/the-church-and-evolution/
Wouldn't this make an awesome headline: "Student Who Took Religious Metaphor Getting Death Threats"
This morning I discovered the image of a cracker in a piece of toast.
Is that a cracker in your pocket, or are you just happy to be kidnapping the transubstantiated flesh of Our Savior?
I used to think it was a sin to chew it! I would just wait till it got soggy enough to swallow, usually having to pry it off the roof of my mouth first... It was always so ackward.
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.
If I steal your car and you're a dark-skinned gay man, well, someone will probably argue that I took it because you're gay and a visible minority.
And they'd, you know, lose in court. Nobody reasonable would conclude that stealing a car constitutes a message crime against a visible or invisible minority, unlike, say, walking up to someone, calling them a "nigger faggot" and rearranging their face, which is the usual sort of hate crime MO. Do you actually live here, or are you just seeing Canadian politics through the lens of the US sociopolitical culture like Americans usually do?
Further, getting a hate crime rap is analogous to getting charged with first-degree murder instead of manslaughter. You have to have committed a crime in the first place, but you also have to have shown, you know, convincing legal evidence that you committed the crime because you're a sick bigoted fuck (or, in the case of murder, with malice aforethought). This is not exactly a new legal principle.
I'd really like to see how they could claim that a guy who sounds like he actually is Catholic was actually committing a "hate crime," since 1) he didn't commit a crime in the first place, and 2) he doesn't seem to have been motivated by anything other than cluelessness. And if cluelessness has suddenly become a crime, I think I'll see the vast majority of you in the pokey.
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.
I went to Catholic school for 8 years, where I was forced into first communion and taking communion once a week. I usually just palmed the cracker and threw it out later in the Schoolyard. 8 years of crackers, once a week. I had no idea anybody REALLY considers a cracker the body of their god. Now, Garlic bread I could see...but those wafers are nasty!
Communion Cheetos would be so much better.
Sacramental Tequila would give you more bang of the buck.
wow, the packaging for the individual wafers makes them look just like condoms!
Must you?
Yes they do.
Fuck off.
Urgh... As if I needed another reason to never show my face to another human again.
Expelled: No Cracker Stealing Allowed!
*This* is a hate crime? As opposed to -
oh, wait, I suppose the statute of limitations has expired on the Spanish Inquisition.
My boyfriend's response: "Wow, I guess it's true that the media only cares when white crackers are kidnapped."
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")?
Ah, the pleasant sound of transubstantiation:
"DING! Your Jesus is ready!"
(I've "ruined" more Catholics with that line...)
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
Nothing Sacred #586
We have a winner!
Nothingsacred -
isn't "white cracker" redundant?
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. How is taking a cracker from the church any different from using racial slurs? It's just a word? It's just a cracker? It's not just a cracker, it symbolizes the beliefs of the community and Cook is disrespecting that.
And, FYI, I am not at all religious.
Maybe the kid was just trying to make a new cracker: GEEZ-IT brand holy crackers. For those late night redemption munchies.
Tina, #540
If what you believe is true, that it is just a cracker, that the Catholic Church is whack, that there is no God, then Catholics who still wish to follow the Church have nothing to lose. However, if what the Catholic Church says is true, if there is a God and a heaven and hell, well then, it seems to me you have everything to lose.
On the other hand, it's *you* that's currently missing out on the possibility of a stripper factory and beer volcano in the afterlife and condemning yourself to an eternity of mind-numbing tedium in the Charades Pit by refusing to believe in the holy Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do you really want to take that chance? Dump Yahweh now!
"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.
This definitely can be classified as a hate crime.
I guess so, if you're a big enough idiot.
And, FYI, I am not at all religious.
And we should believe this because...?
anonymous, using a racial slur is not a hate crime either. You really should look up that word in a dictionary.
Shorter Stimpson (#40): "See what you made me do? If you hadn't mouthed off, honey, I wouldn't have had to hit you. Try not to make me mad next time, OK?"
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!
um...in every single way that I can think of. How is it like using racial slurs?
Are you Kenny?
(p.s. "using racial slurs" is not, reapeat not a crime, hateful or otherwise)
EXPELLED: No Leftovers Allowed
#592 - No community and no individual has a right to respect. If someone disrespects someone, or some group, that's fine by me, and it should be fine by the "victims" since, at the end of the day, sticks and stones. In fact I think the Catholics should be glad - free publicity. No such thing as bad. This will raise Church attendance figures and collection intake, no question.
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.
Maybe it's different because it's not a racial slur? Because it doesn't denigrate the innate characteristics of an ethnic or racial group? Because it's not a slur at all? Was his motive rooted in hate? Was it to communicate his hate for Catholicism and/or Catholics? Or was he just looking for an interesting souvenir?
It's more akin to stealing an apparently worthless artifact from a dig, a home, a church, a museum, without quite realizing that in the eyes of its caretakers, it's more than just an ordinary shard of pottery, stone, parchment, or wood.
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.
So being disrespectful is a crime now? He should be arrested and jailed for this? Are you really that out of touch with reality? Should I now be arrested and jailed for saying that to you? I freely admit to having no respect for you based on your idiotic comments.
How is it even remotely the same?
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?
If the Eucharist is just a cracker, then the US Constitution is just a piece of parchment, a military monument is just concrete and metal and your deceased relative's remains are just protein and charcoal.
I agree that the reaction is silly but so are the assumptions made here. We all assign a sacred value to things and it's human nature to get offended if people show disrespect for them. I bet most Americans would be offended if someone took a dump on the original Constitution or pissed all over the Vietnam Veteran's memorial.
Critiques of religion have their place in public discussion, but there is a line between considerate disagreement and rudeness. You are not going to convince a Catholic that their faith is wrong by offending them. Fundamentalist atheism is just as obnoxious as fundamentalist Christianity, IMO.
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?
#355 - Ken Cope - HA!!! Great video. Made my morning...but I will have to suspend Keira's license. Everyone knows, no True strumpet would waste rum! The hussy.
Only eat free range Jesus, you heathens!
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
If the Eucharist is just a cracker, then the US Constitution is just a piece of parchment, a military monument is just concrete and metal and your deceased relative's remains are just protein and charcoal.
I agree that the reaction is silly but so are the assumptions made here. We all assign a sacred value to things and it's human nature to get offended if people show disrespect for them. I bet most Americans would be offended if someone took a dump on the original Constitution or pissed all over the Vietnam Veteran's memorial.
Critiques of religion have their place in public discussion, but there is a line between considerate disagreement and rudeness. You are not going to convince a Catholic that their faith is wrong by offending them. Fundamentalist atheism is just as obnoxious as fundamentalist Christianity, IMO.
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.
GOing back to PZ's request to have consecrated crackers sent to him... Oh, that is wicked. I like it.
I have to wonder, what if you buy them on bulk (no sin or restriction there as they have not been consecrated), and you just smuggle them in to Catholic mass. THen you would have to sit as close as possible to the altar, just to ward of discussions about the radial sphere of influence of the transmogrification miracle. You would have a good stash of body of Christ.
Peanut butter jelly anyone?
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.
"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.
I suppose what he meant was that they compared the blood from the recent miracle to blood from the 500 yr old miracle (that they are apparently keeping somewhere) and the DNA matched. I don't believe a word of it, but it isn't quite as stupid as you make it out to be.
---
... this should be an episode of MythBusters...
You can not "bust" a "miracle" (at least not this kind of anectdotal miracle). Almost by definition a miracle is not repeatable. What would they do, take a host and stab it? When it doesn't bleed you haven't proven anything except that a miracle did not occur this time; you've not disproven the story.
"" 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.
And any god who allows himself to be irrevocably bound to anything at all, likewise.
If only he could have just vacated the cracker at will, this whole situation would never have arisen.
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 crackers for everyone.
Anyone who's gone to a Catholic mass has seen the ceremony involved... the priest gets the bread, blesses it, gets the wine, blesses it, washes his hands, makes everyone stands up, says a few prayers, everyone kneels, he says a long prayer, everyone stands, we all say the our father... it usually takes about 5-10 minutes, after which the bread is "transubstantiated" and becomes the flesh of Jesus. I don't know anyone who actually believes that, but we all knew that's what we were supposed to believe.
So, this was a particularly gung-ho priest, and when he saw that he had run out of consecrated (is that the right word?) bread, he raced backstage, brought out a new box of communion wafers and did the whole ceremony again TO HIMSELF. You could clearly read his lips and see he was saying all the prayers, and he went through the motions, bowing, holding up the plate at the end, and supposedly this worked to God's satisfaction and everyone remaining in line got their wafers. It was funny watching people stand in line waiting for communion for five minutes as the priest talked to himself on the altar.
Anyways, it was a weird experience for me, because until I saw that box I had no real concept of where the bread came from. It's quite odd for a naive young catholic to think that for all the ritual and tradition, and all that waiting I had to go through to receive first communion, I could walk into a store and buy my own box of communion wafers. And it got me wondering if there were different brand names, flavors, could you get them with pictures and stuff... I also started to wonder if this ceremony would "work" even if the priest were at home doing it in his kitchen. Could he concecrate his own food and eat Jesus whenever he wanted?
So, anyway, that's my story. I find it funny that the well-intentioned behavior of this priest cost me a big part of my religious naivety. I have since fully reformed and am a proud godless heathen now. But that story was funny even when I still believed in some of that tripe.
It is very hard to have any respect for an organisation that is openly homophobic and mysogonisitc, and would rather have millions die of AIDS than relax their teaching on the use of contraception.
Actually, if stealing a cracker is a hate crime then what do we call the Catholic treatment of gays, women and Africans ?
From one of my favorite episodes of Farscape, "Crackers Don't Matter":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7RzyMBtU-I
You are not going to convince a Catholic that their faith is wrong by offending them.
1) How do you know that?
2) Who says that's what Cook was trying to do?
3) What I'm mostly concerned about so far as religion is concerned, is preventing the religious imposing their views on me, and/or causing harm in the world, not converting them to atheism. Those goals may often require offending them - for example, in the case of Catholics, by calling the pope a liar and a mass-killer because of the false claims promoted by the hierarchy that condoms do not protect against Aids.
So if you put 2 crackers together with some nutella in the middle, and make a kind of backwards-colored oreo (Mmmmmm), is that equivalent of saying Jesus is a homosexual, with himself?
"Every time I see the words "hate crime" I want to smack someone with a copy of "1984"."
Your examples really are not terribly good at all. And I am going to have to disagree that "hate crime" is in any way shape or form anything remotely like the travails described in 1984. A hate crime is a very easy thing to classify: they are illegal actions someone of one group, who is otherwise law-abiding, commits against members of another social group simply because the victim is a member of the other group. This applies to race, sex, religion, etc.
That aside, this guy taking a wafer does not even remotely approach the hate crime litmus test. There is zero indication he did it to desecrate anything, and frankly if he wanted to commit a hate crime, he would have ripped the wafer dish out of the priest's hands and then perhaps run about the altar spray painting walls and otherwise defacing the entire place. That would've been a hate crime, or at the very least much more deserving of that sort of qualification. What he did in reality however, was not even close. He didn't help his case by saying he "smuggled" it out, but the case rests that he did nothing to desecrate anything, and even gave the thing back.
More proof my dropping religion is paying off in dividends. I don't have the precious life time to waste on getting upset over "smuggled" unleavened circles with the bread equivalent of golden calves etched into them.
The drink is usually in a glass owned by the bar. If not for that, and the fact that alcohol is a controlled substance (the bar will get in trouble if their drinks are drunk by minors outside), I don't see good reasons why you should be prevented from taking the drink home. Is it actually illegal to do that? You haven't even signed an EULA.
A better example might be something like a soup kitchen, where you are giving food away for free, and there might be an understanding that the food is eaten on the spot. But if someone does try to take his portion home, is that "theft"?
If stealing a holy cracker gives them fits
then what of the auction for the Mary of Grilled Cheese Sammich?
"We're crackers for Jesus." That's effin' brilliant.
From comment #502:
Does the Red Cross know about this corpuscle cornucopia? Why, it almost sounds too good to be true! Surely there must be a way to tap this resource of Holy Hemoglobin to prevent the near constant shortages of blood and save thousands of lives. And if this only happens when mean, evil, heretical brown people do it, just have a token Red Crescent volunteer around to do the poking.
Someone bring this to the Vatican's attention. Obviously it may take some rule bending or re-writing, but with the untold number of lives at stake, of course they'd be willing to change things around a bit.
Oh wait, we're talking a religion that would rather watch it's adherents suffer and die of AIDS by the thousands than allow (let alone encourage) them to use condoms.
toujoursdan,
"Fundamentalist atheism is just as obnoxious as fundamentalist Christianity, IMO."
Oh for fuck's sake. Would you please go look up the word "fundamentalist" please? No, wait, I'll help you:
Fundamentalist: A movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
How the fuck can you have a "fundamentalist atheist"? There's no basic set of principles for us to have. Being an atheist just means you don't believe that there's a god. I know you want to try to act like we atheists have some sort of 10 commandments of our own, so that your dogmatism doesn't look so bad, but it doesn't work that way. Fucking Christ you're an idiot.
So do they make eucharist crackers that are kosher or halal?
I bet most Americans would be offended if someone took a dump on the original Constitution or pissed all over the Vietnam Veteran's memorial.
The frantic grasping at analogies on this thread --to, y'know, actual crimes-- is a pretty good indicator of just how epicly stupid the outrage over this is.
The original constitution is a unique historical object. Urinating in public is an actual violation of the law.
Fundamentalist atheism is just as obnoxious as fundamentalist Christianity, IMO.
Uh huh. And using a meaningless term of abuse like "fundamentalist atheism" is how we know YO is worth shit.
It's only an idol if it's someone else's god being represented.
This makes me wonder if Catholics are somewhat... cannibals. Representing Jesus as a cracker seems... like cannibalism. And then going after a guy for not eating the cracker and taking it out of the church- maybe he was thinking about Jesus' feelings. No one wants to get eaten.
Religious groups are crazy.
Oh please.... Let the ending to this be a film on YouTube with Webseter feeding this cracker to his dog!!
From the Catholic League:
July 7, 2008
To protest student fees for religious services at the University of Central Florida (UCF), a student walked out of a campus Mass on June 29 with the Eucharist. Webster Cook, a student senator, finally returned the Host this past weekend.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue offered the following remarks today:
"For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage--regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance--is beyond hate speech. That is why the UCF administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion."
My comments: I was raised Cathlolic. My mother was a Catholic convert. You are taught to believe that you are receiving the body and blood of Christ when you take communion. There were strict rules for giving, taking, and swallowing the Eucharist. No chewing! No dropping it on the floor! (We didn't get wine as children. It was the 1950's!)
What Mr. Cook did would be seen as sacriligious by staunch Cathlolics. That said, it seems they are overreacting to the point of being humorless, but this has been the way of "true believers" throughout the centuries.
An interesting note: I watched a program called "The History of Wine" which said that in ancient Greece, the god Dionysus was said to exist within you once you drank some wine. Perhaps this is where the Catholic church got the idea to call the wafer (PZ, wafer; not cracker) and wine the body and blood of Christ.
Actually the mass is seen as a reinactment of the last supper with Jesus as the main entree.
If I do attend a mass, I prefer it when they have real wine. None of this cheap and tasteless grape juice! Of course, all you Lutherans and former Lutherans are probably shocked that a few hundred people would share the same cup.
You will bow down and worship The One True Cracker!
Once again proving that Catholics are the biggest morons on the planet.
Catholic Priest: Hey, you! Kneel down before me, put this cracker in your mouth, and pretend you are eating a dead person!
Catholic Doofus: Har, har, duh, okay!
"I like the idea of sending a scary nun to guard the ceremony at the next mass"
Bet she had a pair of nunchucks!
"Much better to pour an ounce of pure capsaicin into the altar wine."
Mmmmm... tequila infused with ancho chiles... uhhh...
I haven't read through the whole thread yet, but I just wanted to note that I wouldn't exactly describe it as a cracker. Crackers are tasty; this is more like eating a small, circular piece of paper.
It is not what is real to us that is important to these cultist, it is what they believe is real. An intentional whack of a hornets nest usually has a bad outcome even if it it done in jest.
** hocus pocus dominocus **
the stock-in-trade magicians' formula is an old parody on 'here is god's body' said at the elevation of the host.
if you can believe the dogma of transubstantiation; then you can believe anything.
the RC's view on abortion, stem cell research are on par with papal infallibility and the bodily assumption of mary.
That is, one irrationality is a good as another. Only widespread xian prejudice keeps them alive.
two members of the supreme court are right-wing RCs. how many media anchors, congressmen and senators follow suit?
millions still believe in late hellenistic magical texts and incantations -- 400 hundred years after Bruno was burned at the stake for holding that there were "many worlds" -- other planets outside the solar system.
bipolar2
"Webster Cook, a student senator, finally returned the Host this past weekend."
Webster, Webster, Webster. You should have sent it FedEx to PZ for safekeeping!
Sophist FCD, #151: 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.
Well, I can see how it's similar to flag burning -- in fact, these Catholic twits do remind me of the super-patriot twits.
But blackface? Seriously? You really think that poking harmless fun of an established and respected religious group is the same thing as engaging in an act that is traditionally associated with mocking a minority group that is still persecuted and despised?
Just stfu, you prissy little pedant. Do you think he (or any of the rest of us) didn't know that you prefer to refer to your imaginary dead buddy who you like to eat, in the form you like to eat him best, as a fucking "wafer"? Calling it a goddamn cracker is the fucking point.
Shit like this does bring out the "lackwit" in "god-bothering lackwit," doesn't it?
Paul W. @#541,
I see, so the correct protocol is to ask the priest, or one of his deputy cracker waiters, for a doggy-bag?
:o)
Yup. Another moment in religious weirdness. These crackers are flimsy things, and not that hard to get. I remember seeing them lying around in a Lutheran Church I went to. This is the stuff that gets stuffed in a closet somewhere, along with the candles, and robes.
And they are fragile. They are flimsy crackers. Who has ever gotten a package of crackers that didn't have at least one broken cracker in it? It is not like these aren't shipped around by people who put the same care into it as the postal service, or a company that fills market shelves. And it is not like these are kept on special pillows, in a climate controlled room, until their unveiling at mass. It is a machine processed goody, whic does not taste all that good.
Or is it different with Catholics? Is the ceremony the key? Is the prayer and place magically making the cracker more holy?
Do Catholics have a bit of Cthulhu or Dungeons & Dragons to them? Is this all a Summoning spell, actually drawing Jesus Christ into the crackers? Well, I guess they have those Banishing spells. And some seem to think they have Healing spells.
Crackers? A flimsy, dry, bland, mass produced cracker.
Crackers!
By the way I am sure you could order a package of them online.
that tastes like cheeses!
"...You are not going to convince a Catholic that their faith is wrong by offending them. Fundamentalist atheism is just as obnoxious as fundamentalist Christianity, IMO."
Your comment would have made more sense had this guy not received death threats over what he did, which amounts to almost nothing, and which is something that many children have probably done out of sheer curiosity. The fact is the people who've expressed outrage over this are on the whole acting like the fundamentalist Muslims in the ME, decrying every little thing as the greatest outrage worthy of punishment up to and including death. Defacing? Desecration? The guy returned it, and even if he hadn't, there was no indication he intended to publicly do anything offensive to it. The examples you gave are markedly different in a number of ways. There aren't millions of military monuments or founding documents handed out every Sunday morning. Those items you mentioned also mark major moments in human history and societal progress. Nobody is asking that allowing someone to relieve himself on religious monumnets or symbols is OK, and if this guy had done anything major to deface property or hurt others, we wouldn't even be doscussing this; the guy would be a criminal at that point and no discussion would be necessary. PZ wouldn't have even posted it. But this is an entire community getting their underpants jumbled over quite a little. Do they throw a fit when someone who's sinned takes the Eucharist (when by tradition they're not supposed to)? Do they throw a fit when a child, having received his first Communion, attempts to peel the partly masticated wafer off the roof of his mouth with his finger, or nibbles on it? My confident guess is no. Why? Because I did that, and I didn't get expelled, I didn't get death threats, and I didn't get excommunicated. There is simply no malicious intent on the part of the accused party here, and that's the crux of the issue.
In the end you are in effect asking that we appease these groups and their heavy-handed rhetoric and intentions simply because we don't get their customs, and it's their party and they can cry if they want to. Well, sorry. As a former Catholic, these people have their heads up their collective asses, and frankly I think they deserve to have any tax benefits afforded them removed post haste. This guy also does not deserve one shred of the retributive actions they are are suggesting. The Catholic community in this case is recommending wholesale punishment and advocating openly for a compelte departure from what they claim to practice, i.e. Jesus' supposedly divine love. They are acting like the Ammerican Taliban that they are, and have proven themselves little different than the other Christian groups in this country that throw around undeserved authority like a mace whenever they feel they are not being sufficiently knelt to. I have seen similar, though rather more mild, expressions from members of my own family; this is not some detached phenomenon that rears its head publicly every couple months.
And cut the "fundamentalist atheist" crap. It's logically wrong, unoriginal, and frankly patronizing.
I just had an idea. I presume ebay will let you sell crackers. What about selling extra special crackers that have been blessed until they turned into something else?
Do the faithful allow these extra special crackers to be desecrated? Or do they purchase them at a modest premium over what non-special crackers cost?
Does it matters who does the blessing? Maybe PZ isn't as good at blessing as some random priest, but are you sure? Doesn't Pascal's wager have to weigh the infinite cost of being wrong that a blessing by PZ isn't as good as that of a priest against the finite cost of buying a cracker blessed by PZ?
What if a cracker company hired someone to bless their crackers at the factory? Would Catholics have to buy them so there were not desecrated?
There's a program at many schools called Flat Stanley, by which they take him (a flat cardboard cutout of a person) around to many places and take pictures of him in those various locales. The advantage of him being flat means you can mail him to your relatives and have them take pics, too.
So, PZ, why not do this with Flat Jesus? I'd love to see Flat Jesus visiting various landmarks around the world.
1) Y'all Yankees don't understand Florida talk: down here a "cracker" is a person (a fairly low-status one, but still you're not allowed to kidnap them).
2) The biblical verses in which Jay Cee declares that eating bread and drinking wine are equivalent to devouring his own flesh and blood are often cited as proof that the Gospels are fiction, written by outsiders with no grasp of contemporary Jewish culture. We're talking about people to whom it was a major transgression to sit at the same table with others who didn't follow strict dietary rules: among those who took their religion seriously, any suggestion of even symbolic cannibalism would have turned the Last Supper into an instant neighborhood-wide call-out-the-centurions riot.
3) If they've alerted the ninja nuns (nunjas?), why bother with stationing mere armed police officers in the nave? In event of a copy-cat blasphemy, the cops would only get in the way of the sacred shuriken.
The Above From Doug's Link: Jesus is now Gluten Free! Personally, I'm waiting for the "No Yolks" Jesus as egg yolk bothers me at times.
Oh for fuck's sake. Would you please go look up the word "fundamentalist" please? No, wait, I'll help you:
Fundamentalist: A movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Exactly.
Being an atheist just means you don't believe that there's a god.
Which is a principle, is it not?
I know you want to try to act like we atheists have some sort of 10 commandments of our own
No. That doesn't matter. As long as we are using definitions:
"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from."
You have an ideology. As you said above: "There is no god". There is no room for disagreement, evidently.
so that your dogmatism doesn't look so bad, but it doesn't work that way.
Anyone who dissents from the principle that religion is bad by having religious beliefs is treated exactly the same as fundamentalist Christians do to everyone else.
Fucking Christ you're an idiot.
Look at the way you are treating someone who expresses disagreement with YOUR principles. You called me an idiot. There is no legitimate room for another point of view.
You guys are mirror images of each other. Congratulations.
It's not a "disagreement." It's one person getting annoyed with the lies and deliberate conflating of another.
Atheism is not, nor ever has been, a religion. Just like science isn't a religion. Or mathematics is not a religion.
And when assholes play that game, they're showing that they're assholes. And, at times, people who are being mocked and distorted by the "it's all religion" crowd do get pissed.
Because of the insanely bad behavior of the theist and their sophomoric, illogical arguments.
toujoursdan, #608: If the Eucharist is just a cracker, then the US Constitution is just a piece of parchment, a military monument is just concrete and metal and your deceased relative's remains are just protein and charcoal.
And if Webster Cook tried to take a dump on the original body of Christ or piss on the alter in the church, you would have a point. But since he didn't I can't for the life of me figure out how you think you're making a valid analogy.
To everyone trying to figure out what constitutes a hate crime, it's essentially a thought crime. The whole idea of a hate crime is ridiculous. Somehow assaulting someone because of their race/religion/etc is worse then a "regular" assault. It defies logic. A crime is a crime. To somehow say a crime is worse based on what you were thinking at the time is insanity, and frankly is equivalent to the whole religious idea of god punishing you for your thoughts. In this situation, since the person in question did not commit an actual crime, a "hate crime" is invented on the spot in a laughable attempt to appease religious nutjobs who think a cracker deserves more rights than a human being.
Why?
i won't call you an idiot, toujoursdan, but i will point out that having principles does not make one a fundamentalist, else we wouldn't have the two different words.
KEvron
Look at the way you are treating someone who expresses disagreement with YOUR principles. You called me an idiot. There is no legitimate room for another point of view.
Try making your point of view known without sounding like an idiot.
Now, these Catholics who are getting their holy panties (oops, sorry, that's Mormons) in a wad over this "hate crime" (oh, please) must have about had their heads explode after the ACT UP demonstration at St. Patrick's -- where one of the members crumbled the cracker right there during mass. Now that's a protest!
When I started reading this post this morning, the headline read "IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!"
Now it says, "IT'S A FRACKIN' CRACKER!"
(and there's not even an explanation from our esteemed, ah, host, as to how the wine-curdling blasphemy came to be replaced by such a bland euphemism.)
Behold the miracle of Transubstantiation, ye sinners!
PS: Are there bonus points for whoever posts comment # 666? Make it a good 'un!
It's not a "disagreement." It's one person getting annoyed with the lies and deliberate conflating of another.
What lies did I tell? And really, expressing another p.o.v. here makes it okay to be called names? Good grief. At least the fundy Christians pretend to love you.
All I said was that everyone holds certain objects as sacred. Whether they are a monument or something distributed to adherents is irrelevant.
Atheism is not, nor ever has been, a religion. Just like science isn't a religion. Or mathematics is not a religion.
Atheism is an ideology. Math and science, which are provable, are not.
There are fundamentalist ideologies, like "free market fundamentalism", for example.
"it's all religion" crowd do get pissed.
Please show me where I called atheism a religion. I called it an ideology in my post above.
Wow. The behaviours are really no different.
To somehow say a crime is worse based on what you were thinking at the time is insanity
Aaron, you might want to check out the difference between murder and manslaughter some day. Betcha'll find something surprising!
"Wow. The behaviours are really no different."
watch where you point that thing.
KEvron
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/07/09/wafer/
first!
KEvron
So what's wrong with being poster #666?
i won't call you an idiot, toujoursdan, but i will point out that having principles does not make one a fundamentalist, else we wouldn't have the two different words.
KEvron
It's one thing to have principles. It's quite another to allow no room for questioning or dissent of these principles by others. The level of hostility here is as bad as I receive on the right-wing blogs.
I come here because I often think the fundamentalist religious types get what they deserve. I am a liberal social democrat and hate the religious right as much as everyone else here. But the ad hominems confirm that this side is every bit as closed minded as the other.
missed it by that much....
KEvron
GODDAMN --> FRACKIN?
WTF?!?!?!?
missed it by that much....
KEvron
@ Grumpy #34: Ha! God-blessed. Good one.
But the ad hominems confirm that this side is every bit as closed minded as the other.
Right, because the comments of one or two commenters is necessarily representative of "this side."
Physician, heal thyself (to quote a certain famous cracker).
toujoursdan,
""Being an atheist just means you don't believe that there's a god."
Which is a principle, is it not?"
Is not believing in the tooth fairy a principle?
A favorite tactic of theists is to label atheism as an ideology or "religion" in a vein attempt to assert that theism and atheism are equally dogmatic. This is simply not the case. An atheist is open to evidence that there is a god, but there just isn't a shred. A theist will continue to believe what they want to regardless of the evidence at hand, and no amount of evidence will change their mind. That's what it means to be dogmatic. Show me concrete proof of a god and I will examine that evidence. If I find it to be satisfactory, I will accept your idea. That's what we call "thinking".
Is not believing in Zeus or Baal or Mythras a dogma?
In case you don't know the answer to this question, it's a no.
Atheism is not a religion, a dogma, or even a worldview. Just like not being a plumber is a profession.
"What do you do for a living?"
"Oh, I'm not a plumber."
I'm a reformed Catholic that ended up as a Biochemist.
I'm thinking it would be a nice to use god to help my evolution research by making a mobile out of church wafers to hang over my bench while I refine knowledge of modern evolutionary mechanisms.
"But the ad hominems confirm that this side is every bit as closed minded as the other."
i did ask that you watch where you point that thing. without death threat, i might add....
KEvron
I confess: I was able to post comment #666 only because I sold my soul to Satan. (What a sucker he is!)
I am also qualified to be a creation science researcher. But, then, who isn't?
UCF sucks in pretty much every imaginable way.
Glenn,
I think maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough. I understand that intent has a lot to do with the severity of a crime. However if I intend to kill my neighbor because he's a jerk, or if I intend to kill him because he's black are equally heinous. I don't see how one is worse than the other. In either case I didn't like my neighbor and I killed him.
A favorite tactic of theists is to label atheism as an ideology or "religion" in a vein attempt to assert that theism and atheism are equally dogmatic.
They certainly can be equally as dogmatic. Science and Math are testable and verifiable. Atheism is not. It is not a religion but is an ideology.
This is simply not the case. An atheist is open to evidence that there is a god, but there just isn't a shred.
No, not all atheists are open to evidence that there is a god.
It's one thing to say "I am open to evident of a god, but haven't found any" and other to say "Anyone who believes in a god using criteria I don't agree with is an delusional idiot". The latter is dogmatic.
Right, because the comments of one or two commenters is necessarily representative of "this side."
But this line of argument is used for the other side here all the time.
If it's a "cracker" it isn't a very good one. Unless they changed the recipe from when I was a boy in parochial school, it's an un-crisp pressed grain and yeast wafer that melts in your mouth (but apparently not in your hands). "Host Toasties" they're not.
Let's see, a guy flaunts a ritual that Catholics regard as holy and he gets the predictable reaction. Here's a clue folks, it's easy pickings to find ways to piss off people with firmly held religious beliefs (or even ideologies - witness flag burning reactionaries). Are you really indignant that an antagonistic act gets the predictable reaction?
Do you defend offensive behavior using symbols on all fronts? "It's only an X of burning gasoline!" "It's only a loop of rope tied with a robust sliding knot."
What the?!?!?!?! They send him death threats because he took the cracker home? Now that's so very Christian. "yeah, let's kill him... he kidnapped our god!"
Stupid!
One of the world's largest religious organizations is acting like this over a piece of cracker! More reason to become an atheist!
"In either case I didn't like my neighbor and I killed him."<?i>
whoever you finally decide to kill, please don't kill webster cook, as some are threatening to do. it was just a cracker. wafer thin....
KEvron
The URL still has the original version though.
toujoursdan said:
Well, I suppose, just as you might not play chess, or collect stamps, or even, and here's the killer, believe in Allah, Zeus, or Thor. Are you a dogmatic a-thorist, toujoursdan? In my experience they can be the worst fundies of the lot.
Of course non-belief is a principle, but the only thing that you can derive from it is that a person doesn't believe in any God. That doesn't even rule out other forms of supernatural agent.
toujoursdan said:
This is bollocks of the first order. The only belief is that there probably isn't a God. And you will find few atheists who will say that there certainly isn't one. And of course there is room for disagreement. If I wasn't so charitable, I might do as you have and unfairly read more in to your words than you probably meant, thereby concluding that you were being purposefully mischievous.
And if the only dogma that you can pin me down on is that I don't believe in God, that is far, far less than virtually any other belief that I can think of. So, would I be right in thinking that you would approve, given that we atheists are clearly so free from dogma, toujoursdan? Or did you not intend to follow your own logic to its final conclusion?
A favorite tactic of theists is to label atheism as an ideology or "religion" in a vein attempt to assert that theism and atheism are equally dogmatic.
This reminds me of the fundamentalist Christian dogma that theirs isn't a religion but a relationship. I guess people can bend words any way they want but an ideology is simply an unprovable set of beliefs. One can't prove there is no god any more than one can prove there is a god.
I wasn't pretending to make a tight, explicit argument. I was giving an example that contradict the simple model of legal possession transfer many people here seem to assume.
There are a bunch of subtle legal issues here.
It is not true that there's a simple binary legal distinction between being "given" something and being completely free to do whatever you want with it. Context matters.
Sometimes there's an implicit agreement with constraints on what you can do with something you're "given."
A communion wafer is not simply given away. It is given to somebody for a specific implied purpose in the context of a specific religious ritual. It is assigned a certain value.
The fact that it's all bullshit and the constraints on what you can do with it are silly doesn't change that.
It's their house, and their rules. If you aren't going to play by their rules, you shouldn't be there.
The law recognizes values beyond simple monetary ones, and beyond whether a particular object "is food." A communion wafer isn't just food---it's a communion wafer---and one of the things you're expected to respect if you participate in the ritual is that a communion wafer is way, way more than a wafer.
The wafer has a whole lot of "sentimental value," and something that goes beyond sentimental value. Believers think that consecrating the wafer is the important part, and its food aspect is secondary, so it has a lot of sentimental value. But way beyond that, they (wrongly) think that the consecration does something much more than attach a sentimental value. They think its essence is transubstantiated into a much more important essence, with real consequences for how it must be handled.
The fact that that's not demonstrably true is pretty much irrelevant. Even the fact that it's demonstrably false by any rational standard is irrelevant.
The first amendment freedom of religion allows you to believe things that are false, and even to believe things that are demonstrably false. (I think that religious beliefs are generally demonstrably false.)
The right to free exercise includes the right to believe demonstrably false stuff, and up to a point, it includes the right to act on those demonstrably false beliefs.
Catholics don't have the right to tell you what to do with a random piece of bread in your house. They do have the right to tell you what not to do with their communion wafers in their "house." (Even if it's just the temporary use of a space they've gotten permission to use.)
Of course it's silly in the utterly obvious way---communion wafers don't really have magic powers, and Jesus won't really suffer a whit no matter what you do with them. But freedom of religion is includes the right to believe and even act on utterly silly beliefs. In the context of a religious ceremony, that includes the right to require that other participants act like they believe the silly stuff, too.
I don't have the legal right to march into a Mass and start vocally disagreeing with the priest.
I do think I deserve that right, in an important sense. I was subjected to thousands of hours of their bullshit growing up, and I think I deserve a chance to talk back and express my disagreement---say, to make a hundred Catholics listen to my well-thought-out opinions for a few hours. But I don't think I could find any court that would agree with me about that.
Instead, if I did that, I'd likely get busted for something amounting to inhibiting those Catholics' right to free association and free exercise of their religon---for making it harder to practice Catholicism.
Disrupting a Mass by refusing to play by Catholic rules is the same sort of thing. Legally, it doesn't matter that the non-Catholic is right and the Catholics are demonstrably wrong about transubstantiation.
Even if you don't get caught, with the ensuing hoo-ha disrupting the Mass, it's still dangerous territory. Accepting property that somebody else assigns great value to under false pretenses is fraud or something like it. Arguably fairly serious fraud. The fact that they value it very highly in a very stupid way doesn't mean that it isn't very valuable because they assign value in that way.
Courts do respect merely sentimental value. If you destroy someone else's property, or defraud them of it, what's relevant is not its value to you, but its value to them.
Courts respect religious values even more. Religion isn't mere sentiment; it's specially protected.
If you don't see that, consider corpses. Some people stupidly believe in the resurrection of the body, and think it's important to be buried rather than cremated.
A funeral director who agrees to bury a body may be right that "it's just rotting meat and bones," but is still obligated to bury the body. (And not to fuck it in the meantime.)
Yes, it's all silly, but if people didn't abide by the rules for handling bodies, it would erect a substantial barrier to the free practice of religion. Corpse-valuing religious folks would have to go to extra effort and pay extra money to ensure that very trustworthy, corpse-valuing people handled their bodies after they died.
There is no court that would agree with the argument that corpses aren't really valuable in that way (and the "owner" is dead anyway), so you can fuck them if you feel like it. And under the first amendment, they can't agree with such arguments, no matter how objectively correct they are. It is explicitly not the courts' job to decide whether claims like that are true.
Likewise, no court is going to agree that a communion wafer used in a Catholic mass is just food, and that the priest just gave it away.
The first amendment guarantees religious people the right to act stupidly, and even to require that other people act utterly stupidly, in certain contexts that they control.
"In either case I didn't like my neighbor and I killed him."
well, youyr neighbor had it coming, one reason or the other. but, please, don't kill webster cook, as some xtian fundies are threanting to do. it was just a cracker. wafer thin....
KEvron
The title was changed because, as you may have noticed, it has become one of the 'most popular' articles on Sb, which means the title and link appears on everyone's blog here...and some complained that a shouted "GODDAMN" in their right sidebar was obnoxious.
Some people are just so touchy.
There are plenty of atheist happy to discuss and debate.
The trouble for many here, I imagine, continues to be, like with dealing with creationism, that you get the same tired arguments thrown at you, like Pascal's Wager. It wears one down. So when someone wants to throw out that smewthing is holy, sacred, or the Truth, it won't be taken as face value.
Merriam Webster:
Fundamentalist - "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"
Atheist - "one who believes that there is no deity"
How can one be a FUNDAMENTALIST atheist? We don't think there are gods. Now, there is some variance between "no change in hell" and "eh, maybe, but I am not holding my breathe". But when religious people do come on and expect there scripture to be lauded, or myths taken seriously, they are talking to the wrong audience.
No, not all atheists are open to evidence that there is a god.
Try us. Or, if you admit that there is none, what the fuck is your point? There is none on offer, so how can I be "open to it"?
It's one thing to say "I am open to evident of a god, but haven't found any" and other to say "Anyone who believes in a god using criteria I don't agree with is an delusional idiot". The latter is dogmatic.
If the supposed criteria are delusional and idiotic, then it's just calling a spade a spade.
Maybe he was trying to set the baby jeebus/cracker free so he/it wouldn't get eaten.
For some reason this makes me think of the Garden Gnome Liberation Front. Someone ought to set up a Host Liberation Front - save Jeebus from the cannibals !
Re: the bleeding-host yarns -
If the communion wafer itself already contains the blood of Christ, what's the wine for ? Hmmmmm.
AaronF, you're a shit-sucking liar. A hate crime is not a "thought crime." Your right-wing frames are not welcome here.
Outside of your paranoid fantasies, back here in reality, a hate crime is an assault committed for the intent of intimidation against a group of people.
So if you beat up the Mexican kid next door because he's got nicer shoes than you, you've just committed assault. If you beat him up in order to intimidate other Mexicans in the neighborhood, then that's a hate crime, because the results are different. In one scenario, the community understands your violent behavior is probably an isolated incident, and they can move on. But if you're threatening the community with the likelihood of further violence, creating an environment where certain people are robbed of their sense of security, then you are causing much larger detrimental effects, and you should be punished accordingly.
If the results are different, then the punishment may be different. That's all a hate crime is. You're contributing to a threatening environment for some of your fellow citizens, and that's taken into account during sentencing.
And don't even think about bitching that intent shouldn't influence sentencing. The law has always considered intent; that's the whole difference between murder and manslaughter.
Most likely, what's actually happening here is that patriarchal fuckheads (like Catholics) tend to despise hate crime laws, because it means when they assault gay people, they're more likely to get in trouble. So they're trying to undermine the whole idea of hate crimes, by dilution.
"Disrupting a Mass"
"the ensuing hoo-ha disrupting the Mass"
there was no disruption, and no hoo-ha.
that fish gets bigger with each telling. at this rate, it'll end being canonized....
KEvron
PZ, Here's what you should do if you get a consecrated biscuit:
Buy a box of unconsecrated biscuits then lay all the biscuits on a table with the consecrated biscuit mixed in and tell them if they can tell which one is consecrated, they can have it.
If they can't tell the difference they'll have to admit (yeah, right) that there IS no difference.
OK, let me get this straight - the wafer(cracker) is consecrated and is therefore transubstantiated into the flesh of Jesus? Any particular PART of Jesus? On the bright side, we can be sure it isn't the foreskin...
Ken Cope #348:
You two might be amused by this incident of someone who's obviously Neil B. skulking anonymously around on Sandwalk, shilling his misunderstood version of modal realism again.
Well, Aaron, first, you made your point clearly, I was just trying to point out that you were reasoning from clearly erroneous principles. Society does have an interest in why people do things and stopping them from doing things for certain reasons, and the law reflects that.
But as for your assertion that it doesn't matter whether you kill your neighbor because he's black, or because he's a jerk, my first response is, I'm guessing that you are not part of any minority that has been the object of campaigns of violence directed at them. If I'm wrong, I sincerely apologize. But let me just say that as a gay man, whenever there is violence against gay men for being gay -- which still goes on a LOT -- I feel threatened by that in a way that random violence does not cause. In any society we all have to live with the possibility of violence. But anti-gay attacks tell me and my fellow gays and lesbians that there are those who would single us out as a target.
Think for a moment about lynchings of blacks in the Jim Crow days. Do you really see no difference between the hanging of black men from the trees and random violence? Don't you see how the former was done precisely to -- and to a large extent did -- keep blacks in fear and oppression? (I won't violate Godwin's law by bringing up the even more heinous example.)
Well, it's that communal fear that, in part, hate crimes laws are meant to attack. It also, in my view, is a statement by the community that such oppression of minorities will not be tolerated.
toujoursdan,
How can you be so willfully obtuse? How can you not get this? Let's stay with the definitions then. Here's one for you. You claim atheism is an ideology, just like Christianity, etc. OK what is an ideology...
Ideology: A systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
Hmmm... Not believing in something. Is that really a systematic body of concepts? No.
Is atheism a manner or content of a thinking group? No again, unless you're willing to lower this threshold down to the point where you would say something like "All people who don't believe that George Bush is a woman have an ideology".
How about the last one? Is it a set of integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program? No, sorry, fails again.
So atheism isn't an ideology then. Can't be dogmatic then, or fundamentalist. Huh, seems rather obvious now doesn't it? Atheism has no teachings we can wish to return to, like religions. No grand dissertations and programs to try to cull from the holy writ of atheistic knowledge.
The fact that you don't seem to understand these differences is why I called you an fucking idiot and hold to it. Not because you disagree with me. Again, you're being willfully obtuse.
"You have an ideology. As you said above: "There is no god". There is no room for disagreement, evidently."
I don't believe there is a god. There is room for disagreement, however, the burden of proof (just like claiming George Bush is a woman) is on you. If I get a bit frustrated with people like yourself for making outrageous claims without proof, try to understand. It still doesn't make it "fundamentalist".
Hope that clears things up for you, but I doubt it. You don't seem to want to understand.
SteveW: The physical properties all remain the same, but the wafer's essence (it's "substance") changes. The wafer isn't a symbol of Jesus - it is Jesus. No metaphor or poetic imagination - physical transmutation to a piece of the divine
(and yet Catholics I know get upset when I point out that they practice ritualized cannibalism). As far as they're concerned, he stole a part of Jesus.
Here's the problem --- it's not just the problem of the idiocy of many religious beliefs, but the philosophical inanity that underpins it - the neo-Platonism (vulgar as it is) that distinguishes between "accident" and "essence".
For God's sake, when will people stop thinking like 3rd century BC barbarians? It's been f*ckin' 2500 years -- Socrates and Plato have the same relation to modern thought that shamans have to science --- they're at best early precursors, historical accidents of interest to historians of ideas.
What do you expect from people who actually follow such archaic trends? What other than the most incredible absurdities?
#313
yes I have and no they are not worse. Not at all, they dump a great deal of superstitious garbage overboard.
Jaded Skeptic, #689: Fundamentalist - "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"
Yes, a fundamentalist is one who believes that there is only one correct way to believe and interpret the basic principles. So an atheist who believes that the only true way to be an atheist is to believe that "there is no god" literally means there is no god would be a fundamentalist. I guess. Seems a bit silly to me, too. It sounds like toujoursdan is trying to escape from the embarrassment of a really poor analogy. Now, it's not for me to give unsolicited advice, but I think he should just admit he didn't really make his point well and move on.
Of course non-belief is a principle, but the only thing that you can derive from it is that a person doesn't believe in any God. That doesn't even rule out other forms of supernatural agent.
Ummmmm... you are missing the point. I have said it twice above but will repeat it again. It's one thing to have principles. It's quite another not to allow room for those who have different ones. The latter is what makes it "fundamentalism".
This is bollocks of the first order. The only belief is that there probably isn't a God. And you will find few atheists who will say that there certainly isn't one. And of course there is room for disagreement. If I wasn't so charitable, I might do as you have and unfairly read more in to your words than you probably meant, thereby concluding that you were being purposefully mischievous.
Again, you seem to be reading what you want to read, not what I have written. I DID express disagreement and people called me an idiot for doing so. So for some (not all) there is a fundamentalist atheism. As an Anglican theist, I am completely respectful of those who do not believe in a god as do many who attend church with me but there are Christian fundamentalists who don't.
I never called all atheists fundamentalist, but there is that element (ideology with no room for dissension).
And if the only dogma that you can pin me down on is that I don't believe in God, that is far, far less than virtually any other belief that I can think of.
How many dogmas does one need to cross the line? 1, 2, 10, 20?
So, would I be right in thinking that you would approve, given that we atheists are clearly so free from dogma, toujoursdan?
You just said you may have a dogma.
Or did you not intend to follow your own logic to its final conclusion?
Your counterarguments are a bit too incoherent for me to figure out what you are advocating.
I fucking love you PZ. Show that jesuscracker who's boss.
Unless you resort to a lot of handwaving apologetics, it's pretty plain that your god doesn't share your open-mindedness.
I can't say that I've ever seen a more justified use of the term "demented fuckwit".
Once upon a time when I a little kid, the teacher of the Catholic religious education class I was stuck in told us all that when she was little she stole a eucharist and tried to flush it down the toilet. In her version of the story it pissed off Yahweh so much that he turned all the water in the toilet into blood. 17 years later it enrages me that some loon was terrorizing a captive audience of 8 year-olds with tales of her vengeful imaginary god.
jimC: Regardless mainstream Protestantism is much more 'rational' and free from the superstious overkill presentin the RCC.
The problem is the asinine, archaic philosophy that underlies all of Christianity and Islam, and much of Judaism. The superstitions are just the frosting on the cake.
If anything, it's the superstitions that keep the entire system from it's most dangerous expressions -- just compare traditional Islam with the modern versions --- at least the saints and the baracka kept the most murderous elements under wraps; the relationship between Catholicism and Protestantism is analogous.
I DID express disagreement and people called me an idiot for doing so.
DID we? Or did we call you an idiot for behaving as an idiot would, confusing issues deliberately and throwing around meaningless terms of abuse? Unless you have some priveleged access to the motivations of others, you cannot claim to know for sure that you were called an idiot solely for the fact that you expressed disagreement. So cut it out.
toujoursdan, #702: As an Anglican theist, I am completely respectful of those who do not believe in a god as do many who attend church with me but there are Christian fundamentalists who don't.
Christian fundamentalists are those who insist there is only one way to be a true Christian. That is what fundamentalism means. If you were complaining that some atheists here are insisting that other atheists aren't true atheists because of some doctrinal difference, then you would be using the term appropriately.
In informal colloquial English it may also mean someone who tries to use state power to enforce compliance with her sectarian beliefs. If there were atheists here who are advocating using state power against you, then again you would be using the term appropriately.
If, on the other hand, you were using the term very loosely, then I don't think that a pedantic debate over meanings is going to get you very far.
KEvron,
Sorry, I didn't mean to exaggerate, and it's not very relevant to my point if I did.
My impression---perhaps mistaken---was that the to-do occurred before everybody had left the church. So while in this case it didn't disrupt the Mass proper, it did cause a scene of sorts. That's sufficient for my point.
Even less is sufficient for my point. If this sort of thing happens too much, it will cost the Catholics in terms of free exercise. They'll feel like they have to put more effort into "guarding" the "sacred" wafers, watching people to ensure that "the wrong people" don't get in and do things "the wrong way," etc.
That inhibits their free association and free exercise rights. Believing Catholics have a right to keep non-Catholics or anyone who won't play be the rules out, or to stop people who break the rules. If that does disrupt the mass---as I would expect it to sometimes---that additional cost is the disrupter's fault, not the fault of the enforcers of the Catholic rules.
It's very stupid if they care very much. But it's Constitutionally protected stupidity, so we should leave them and their crackers alone.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't loudly and frequently point out the ridiculousness of it all, protest outside of churches, and maybe symbolically desecrate non-consecrated wafers. But if we cross the line into subverting their right to free association, defrauding them of their consecrated wafers, and freaking them out with all that, we are screwing up---both politically and likely (I think) legally.
I must say that I have enjoyed this thread more than any other on Pharyngula. There was a time when I would have been weeping and praying the rosary over Jesus being desecrated in this way.
Now I don't give a shit and have been laughing my ass off. I do give a shit about the death threats against the kid, though. That's scary and pretty much on par with far right catholicism that advocates killing abortion providers.
I'm so glad I don't believe in that shit anymore and can go about my life without worrying about an angry sky fairy watching me.
"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?"
Is this a joke or are you serious? If you serious then the following is for you.
So my dog will be looking down at me from heaven; well then that must mean that he has a soul! LMAO you don't actually believe in Heaven, Hell, or souls do you? It's all made up for crying out loud!
We should start a competition of who can do the most blasphemous act to the eucharist.
One more recovering Catholic here, just chiming in to thank you for the funny lines appearing here and there along with the (reasonable) shock at what people believe and the logical taffy-pull by people trying to make this stunt a crime.
I'm sure we've all heard versions of the Bleeding Host tale; I got mine in second-grade First-Communion class and it involved a boy and a pocket handkerchief--no Muslims, as the big bad enemy then was Godless communism, and no baggies, because in 1957 nobody had heard of a "baggie." I suppose there were plastic bags around, but they were about as ubiquitous as, oh, color TVs maybe. If you stretched really hard you might make get around the lapse in plot continuity there, the way someone posited that maybe They had stored the miraculous Muslim-scaring blood away for 500 years. After getting it somehow off the scared Muslim's table and floor.
is it womanly of me to wonder who had to clean up the sacred mess?
It all sounds so familiar. Weird and twisted stories seem to be a favorite Catholic-school teaching method. 'Dja hear the one about the kid who stepped on a crack and really did break his mother's back?
I can't count 16 years of Catholic schooling as a total waste. I did have some good teachers, and I sure as hell learned politics.
Here, in case anyone doubts: my First Communion pic:
http://tinyurl.com/6bu658
Cut 'n' paste if necessary.
Diagoras, Nick is indeed joking. I believe the Almighty Dog would require more than having eaten the Holy Host as pwoof of your dog's Catholicism.
Grammar RWA,
Way to have a thoughtful intelligent conversation. You know nothing about me, so how would you know I'm a right-winger?
Grammar and Glenn,
Let's be clear here. I understand that intent is important when sentencing for crimes! I know the difference between murder and manslaughter, and I understand why that difference is important. What I am saying is, everyone should be equally protected under the law. There should be no special protections for particular groups. That's what a free and fair society is all about. Everyone should be treated equally and fairly.
I do see a difference between hanging a black man and random violence, Glenn. But should hanging a black man be considered more heinous then hanging a white man? I don't think so. I think committing violence against any person is equally wrong. You shouldn't be punished more for hurting a black or a hispanic over hurting a white or an asian. People aren't going to be seen equally until they are treated equally.
I know I'm not going to convince anyone here, and that's OK. You can continue to personally assault me if you wish. That's OK too. My point is you cannot and should not attempt to legislate how people should think. That's one of the negatives of living in a completely free society. People are *free* to think how they want. It's horrible that groups like the KKK exist in this country, however they are free to think that if they wish. It's unfortunate, but in a truly free society you have to take the good with the bad. People need to be encouraged to think and act kindly, not forced.
I think religion is dangerous and is the source of much hate in this country. However, I would never support legislation to ban religion altogether. And I think you probably wouldn't support that too.
Well, that's my point. Agree or disagree if you wish. But I don't think we need to resort to name calling.
toujoursdan,
One can't prove there is are no god fairies any more than one can prove there is are a god fairies.
So afairyism is an ideology? You've been asked this question before and not answered it. The thing is, theists want to claim a special privilege for their particular kind of wacko belief in the supernatural; that's the only ground for claiming that not sharing it is an ideology.
Diagoras,
I thought even if the rest of it could be taken seriously, the "bona fido" would be a dead giveaway.
toujoursdan said:
Someone calling you an idiot may well be perfectly reasonable. Just because you claim to be 'completely respectful', it does not mean that others have to accept your definition of respect and behave accordingly.
And if you want to mash all definitions to fit your own agenda, that's fine, but we will call you on it. Namecalling does not prevent disagreement. In fact, I would say that it is a pretty clear sign that you are being disagreed with. And therefore, engaging in namecalling does not make one a fundamentalist, either. If you wish to call it disrespectful, I doubt that anyone would disagree.
May I suggest that your own sensitivity is perhaps part of the problem here? This is a rowdy blog. I have no power, or desire for that matter, to contest that.
toujoursdan said:
Oh, come on, I have already shown that atheism contains no official dogma's, although I would admit that a person who steadfastly maintains that there is definitely no God, when the definition of said God is: a being that will purposefully hide all evidence of its existence, is probably behaving dogmatically. You will find no such people here, though.
The point that I was making was that if you are attempting to claim that an atheist necessarily holds to a dogma (a point I disagree with, as it essentially destroys the meaning of the word, as anyone who doesn't believe in something -- namely all people -- can be said to hold to a dogma), and that that is not a good thing, then atheism would tend to score highly compared to almost all other beliefs which contain far greater content.
toujoursdan said:
Why am I not surprised? If I may be so bold, is it possible that it is a consequence of your own ability to follow an argument, perhaps?
Oh and I'm a fundamentalist of not believing animals have cell walls
@Moses #651:
My son's allergic to gluten AND soy (and a whole bunch of other stuff), so I guess he's really SOL. No sweet, sweet Jesus love for him.
As a kid I always wondered why the priest got the big wafer but only gave me a small one.
I understand that intent is important when sentencing for crimes!
...
My point is you cannot and should not attempt to legislate how people should think.
Logic. Ur doin' it rong.
There should be no special protections for particular groups.
So, if a loan officer at a bank systematically denies loans to qualified African-Americans, that's just dandy, eh?
People aren't going to be seen equally until they are treated equally.
This is the kind of dishonest crap argument against affirmative action and civil rights legislation that leads people to assume that you are in the grips of a right wing ideology. The whole fucking point is that society is filled with individuals and institutions who will not treat people equally unless they are forced to do so.
They build up tolerance and need a bigger dose of Jesus H.
Perhaps the Catholic church will suspend Mr Cooks cracker privelidges. After all they did it to Rudy Giuliani:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04292008/news/regionalnews/giuliani_catches…
I'm a fundamentalist because I don't believe in unicorns.
kryptonic, maybe he had more sinnin' to clean up. Just sayin'.
Hey PZ @#104,
You are calling me a moron and you think that Cook was only being rude to a cracker?
I wonder how many wafers Kobayashi can eat in 12 minutes.
But people already pay extra to have corpses buried instead of cremated. And if you have paid for a burial, and the body is cremated instead, that's a breach of contract. People may consider this an especially bad breach of contract because of the religious aspect, but there's no automatic deference for beliefs in the handling of corpses (I bet many places won't allow Zoroastrian burial)
Again, your "likewise" is problematic. When you accept the wafer, do you also accept a contract to handle the wafer in a certain way?
Want to thank whoever coined 'Jeez-Its' up above; I was incredibly angry when I saw the original news article this morning and reading the comments here have helped me calm down a good deal.
Also, bonus points towards a no-prize to the commenter who posted the "Wow, I guess it's true that the media only cares when white crackers are kidnapped."
So is cheesy-flesh better if you soak it in sangre de cristo? If you only quaff the wine, are you a vampire and not a cannibal?
I'm going to reply to toujoursdan @ 652:
"Which is a principle, is it not?"
You are making a fallacious equation, that being the use of the word "principle". Atheists do not say there is no god on principle, they say it based on evidence. Principles do not have to be based on evidence to be taken as stances. Evidence, however, at the very least demands a stance, whether you are forced to take it or not. A racist stands on the principle that all other ethnic groups are inferior; he can stand on that principle, but that doesn't make him right. Further, even if we treat the idea of no god existing as a principle, what follows from that? Nothing other than "I do not believe a god or gods exist." by contrast, religions on the other hand make ethical determinations based on principles (few of which are substantively verified) across the board. Atheists make their determinations about the lack of a god or gods based on what the evidence says.
"No. That doesn't matter. As long as we are using definitions:
'Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.'
You have an ideology. As you said above: "There is no god". There is no room for disagreement, evidently."
There is no atheist dogma. Please define where it comes from. There is no book, no power structure, no governing bodies, no collections, no set of rules, no commandments, no places of worship, no government offices supporting the movement, no lingo, no nothing. The only "dogma" is that it has thus far not been proven that a god or gods exist. That's the extent of it. Can't make dogma out of that, can you?
"Anyone who dissents from the principle that religion is bad by having religious beliefs is treated exactly the same as fundamentalist Christians do to everyone else."
Um, no. He has not called for you expulsion from anything, harm to come to your person, government sanction to be used on you, or death to be acted upon you by another. You are not being treated "exactly the same". Perhaps in blog conversation it will feel that way, but then again you are not answering his questions substantively, and you are not reading language terribly well either. I'd converse with you in a more charitable fashion myself, as expletives aren't always, eh, efficient. But a lot of atheists here are sick and tired of the same pat answers we're supposed to accept from religious apologists, answers that make no sense, and are not based in evidence or reason. Most of what we get is some version of "a god or gods did it, stop asking so many questions", and endless dodging about probing questions that the religious apologists always fail to answer.
#693
Yes, there was no disruption. But when people get death threats, get threatened with explusion from a university, and have KEvrons whine about the matter, then hoo-ha has been demonstated.
You shouldn't be punished more for hurting a black or a hispanic over hurting a white or an asian.
Aaron, you do understand that hate crimes laws are not limited to attacks on minorities, right? That if someone kills a white person because they are white, that's a hate crime? No group gets special treatment.
Now, it just so happens that there's a lot more people killing minorities for being minorities than the reverse. And the special need for the law (as I said) is, in my view, to protect those minorities. But the laws are themselves neutral (as they should be).
BTW: I really don't think I disrespected you in what I said or called you names. If you feel otherwise then obviously I wrote poorly and I apologize. I do strongly disagree with your viewpoint, though.
You're going to end up digging ditches in one of my reading comprehension camps.
I didn't say you're a right-winger. I said you're a shit-sucking liar, and you are, for misrepresenting what hate-crime laws actually are. You want an apology for that? You want the discourse to be more respectable? You think you deserve better than name-calling? Then stop fucking lying.
I also said that your particular lie (hate crime = thought crime) is a right-wing frame. That's a fact. There's two ways you could end up repeating it. Either you're a right-winger, or you're unwittingly parroting their rhetoric. In the second scenario, you're actively working against your own interests, so you'd best learn about framing, and fast.
We all agree on that. When, for the sake of your rhetoric, you have to pretend that other people don't believe what they actually believe, and you're the only one who holds the common-sense position, you're building a straw man.
You are either the stupidest motherfucker I have met today, or an absolutely amoral liar. Which is it?
If a bunch of black men were to hang a white man for the purpose of intimidating white people, then that would be a hate crime. You're pretending that isn't true. Once this is kept in mind, all your insinuations of unequal punishments are obvious bullshit.
Straw man again, you liar. Nobody is doing that.
Hear that, my fellow faggots? Next time you're assaulted for being queer, you have to respond with kindness, or you'll never get any better treatment. Turn the other cheek!
Like most people, I'm normally averse to using lawyers to resolve conflicts, but I think this guy absolutely should sue the church and the university to send a clear message that this behavior should never be tolerated. Religiously fueled hatred--including threats of physical violence--have no place in schools, or anywhere else.
He was just responding to both of us, but I don't think he meant to imply that you've been as mean as I. You've been perfectly cordial, Glenn. And if I'd seen your original response before I started writing mine, I wouldn't have bothered. Your tone may well be more effective than mine.
He's still a liar, though, and I'm not sorry I said it.
And they'd, you know, lose in court. Nobody reasonable would conclude that stealing a car constitutes a message crime against a visible or invisible minority, unlike, say, walking up to someone, calling them a "nigger faggot" and rearranging their face, which is the usual sort of hate crime MO. Do you actually live here, or are you just seeing Canadian politics through the lens of the US sociopolitical culture like Americans usually do?
Did you mean, like the guy they just sent down here in Ottawa for throwing a gay man off a bridge? That was treated as a hate crime even though the perp had no prior knowledge that the victim was gay.
Yes, I was exaggerating a bit to make the point, but not lots and lots. The "hate crime" label seems to pop up any time a crime is committed by a white person against any minority. It doesn't always get anywhere, but it still comes up far too often.
I happen to think it is unreasonable to consider a crime greater simply because the perpetrator has some irrational dislike of the victim.
But in your specific example, why should calling someone "nigger faggot" and beating them up more of a crime than beating them up because it's Wednesday?
How can any one of you disbelieve transsubstantiation!? From this event it's bloody obvious that the church-goers have had their brains eaten by zoombie-Jesus nee wafer.
My point is you cannot and should not attempt to legislate how people should think.
Logic. Ur doin' it rong.
There should be no special protections for particular groups.
So, if a loan officer at a bank systematically denies loans to qualified African-Americans, that's just dandy, eh?
Way to miss the point. Explain to me how stating that everyone should be treated equally means that I think it's OK for people to be discriminated against. Get back to me when you want to some make sense.
People aren't going to be seen equally until they are treated equally.
This is the kind of dishonest crap argument against affirmative action and civil rights legislation that leads people to assume that you are in the grips of a right wing ideology. The whole fucking point is that society is filled with individuals and institutions who will not treat people equally unless they are forced to do so.
What's dishonest by thinking everyone should be treated equally? Can anyone here explain to me how supporting the idea that everyone should be treated equally (with no special protections for anyone) means I support discrimination? Equality and special protections are not compatible. Everyone deserves the equal rights. However providing special punishments for discriminating against one group over another is not a characteristic of equality and fairness.
must.resist.altarboy joke
oops
AaronF, #714: But should hanging a black man be considered more heinous then hanging a white man?
Well, the discussion is about hate crimes, and the question is about whether hanging a black man with the intent of terrorizing black people should carry stiffer penalties than hanging a particular man because he was cheating at poker.
Maybe you understand what the issue is, but your posts don't really give that impression.
Because hate crimes are not just to injury the party physically involved. They are also an intimidation of a segment of the population.
"Fag Bashing" doesn't just affect the individual who was beaten up.
Well of course the crackers have to be gluten-free. Glutteny is one of the seven deadly sins, right?
To Evolving Squid
"But in your specific example, why should calling someone "nigger faggot" and beating them up more of a crime than beating them up because it's Wednesday?"
Gotta back up GrammarRWA and Glenn's position here. In the case of the first beating, the intent of the beating is to intimidate the black and gay community (or both black and gay communities), it's not an isolated incident. The second example is merely an example of someone's particular derangement.
"I happen to think it is unreasonable to consider a crime greater simply because the perpetrator has some irrational dislike of the victim."
It is not the irrational dislike of the victim, it is the irrational dislike of an entire demographic, and the systematic attempt to sow fear in all members of that population.
As far as beating people up because it's Wednesday, I am all for it, although I just haven't had enough time lately to go to the dojo for some whup-and-be-whupped.
Way to miss the point. Explain to me how stating that everyone should be treated equally means that I think it's OK for people to be discriminated against. Get back to me when you want to some make sense.
Look, dumbass, we agree, in the abstract, that "everyone should be treated equally." The difference between us is, you fold your arms and say with conviction "everyone should be treated equally," and the matter is resolved as far as you are concerned, whereas, I am saying, given that everyone patently is not being treated equally, certain steps are necessary to advance society as a whole to that end. Moreover, you didn't simply state that "everybody should be treated equally," you said "There should be no special protections for particular groups."
If you would care to make some sense, explain to me how this would not eliminate equal-opportunity employment laws, for instance.
Protections for particular groups are how we attempt to mandate that all are in fact treated equally in a society where many simply don't want to treat everyone equally, and will not, unless there is some penalty for not doing so.
Rim shot
Motivation has always been a matter in determining the seriousness of a crime. Killing someone accidentally is a lesser crime than killing them with intent. In a similar way, if I assault someone because that particular person pissed me off by being a jerk, then I am not guilty of a hate crime. If I assault someone because they're black or gay or whatever and either solely or mainly because of this distinction, then I am guilty of a hate crime. It all comes down to motivation, which is a proper subject for legal consideration.
AaronF, hate crimes are essentially terrorism. If you don't believe in hate crimes, you can't believe in terrorists crimes either.
Useful link there, BDC (#746).
However, in the interest of musical pedantry, I feel it incumbent upon myself to point out that that is not, in fact, a recording of a rimshot sensu stricto. I believe it is instead a flam followed by a cymbal crash. However, IANARD.
Glenn,
No, not you but Grammar. You've been very pleasant.
In any case, my main objection is this:
If a white guy kills a hispanic guy because he thinks he's a jerk, or he slept with his wife, no hate crime.
However, if he kills him because he's hispanic, that's way worse and so therefore he deserves extra punishment.
So what we have is a special punishment for crimes against people based on who they are and whether or not you harbor ill feelings toward that particular group of people. In the scenario above, I don't think either case is worse then the other. At the end of the day, a man killed another man because he disliked him. Whatever the source of that dislike is, is irrelevant.
Rev. BigDumbChimp #740
I was an altarboy.
Once, the priest let me watch when he put his wafer in the tabernacle.
This just furthers my idea that Catholics have to start making terrorists attacks if they want something done. Comedy Central didn't think twice about showing Jesus pooping everywhere, but show 2 seconds of Muhammed on TV and OMG RELIGIOUS HATE CRIME!
JoJo, I think focusing only on motivation is counterproductive to helping people understand hate crime legislation.
If, in some parallel universe, those crimes classified as hate crimes really did not affect anyone in the community except the victim, then there would be at least a halfway decent argument that the laws are unfair, addressing only "thought crimes." This fantasy land is where AaronF and Evolving Squid live, apparently.
When you don't focus on the community-wide effects that hate crimes have, you run the risk of letting the right wing define the terms of the debate. If you let it really all come down to motivation, then they're winning the debate. We've got to focus on intent and effect.
AaronF, #750: Whatever the source of that dislike is, is irrelevant.
I for one think it is relevant when hispanic kids are afraid to play in the local playground, when a hispanic teenager is too afraid to go out to a movie in the evening, or when a hispanic is just plain nervous when she goes to bed about what may happen that night.
Taking into account the overall effects of an action also is a long legal tradition, just like taking into account intent.
mgroves @752:
Yes, of course, because the world absolutely needs more religiously motivated violence and terrorism.
Bwahaha I just talked to an aquaintance who is Southern Baptist YEC. The wafer theft brouhaha made him aware of the RCC belief in actual transubstantiation. His classic response? "Man, those Catholics believe in some fucked up shit!". He was completely oblivious to the irony. It's bad when the Southern Baptists claim to be more rational.
There will never be a civilized country in this world as long as religion is around to keep it medievil.
I hope this case goes to court. Then the entire country will see how ridiculous religious is.
Hate Crime is just another word for terrorism. Beating, torturing,then hanging a black man from a tree or a gay teen from a fence is just as much about the message to the "rest of them" as it is an attack on that individual. If their only crime is who they are, who they love, or how they look (for a few examples) then to attack them is to advance terrorism.
Again you lie, you scurrilous motherfucker.
What we have is a punishment for the separate crime of trying to intimidate the Hispanic community.
This has been pointed out to you multiple times now (693, 734, 741, 742) and you fail to even address the point. That can't just be stupidity.
You are clearly a dishonest player.
So there shouldn't be special laws regarding killing police officers, for example? Such crimes should be treated as simple murder for the purpose of charging and sentencing?
Ok.. Not going to read every comment. Too damn many. Just going to make one comment. If you ever wanted to make a poster expressing the stupidity of this BS, or if someone wanted to make a, "How Catholics are nuts", blog, I think what is needed is a 1950s style propaganda poster showing a communist or terrorist pointing a machine gun at a communion wafer. I am sure the appropriate title could be come up with for its caption too, but my brain is still trying to recover from the original article, so I can't think of anything that doesn't involve things like, stupid/insane/WTF/'its just a fracking cracker', none of which has quite the right "feel" to express the sort of paranoid stupidity in those old posters.
toujoursdan #702 wrote:
Damien at #717 said something like I wanted to say:
"Namecalling does not prevent disagreement. In fact, I would say that it is a pretty clear sign that you are being disagreed with."
Arguments and nay-saying (even when mean or rude) are not really attempts to squash or forbid dissent. On the contrary, they're requirements for all criticism and discussion, and an invitation to dissent. "I think you are wrong, and here is why I think you are wrong (you asshole)" assumes -- rather ironically -- an underlying respect for the other person, because, technically, it's an attempt to persuade them, as another rational person of roughly similar capacity, to change their minds. It only works from a common ground.
In other words, you're one of us because we are yelling at you, telling you you're wrong -- and waiting to hear what you have to say to THAT. Our turn, your turn, our turn, then yours. Till one side gives up, gets tired, or has to do something real in the Real World. Or says "ok, that's a fair point."
Being allowed room to express yourself doesn't mean your beliefs are off limits, sacred, or accepted. No, you've been given room to have your say in the debate. It seems to me that a "fundamentalist" requirement that everyone have the same mindset means that debate is NOT allowed. You're one of us, or else you're kicked, vanquished, shut down, shut up, and expelled -- politely or not. No turns. No arguments. No name-calling or insults. No disagreement. Only the sound of one hand clapping.
Frankly, I see nothing dogmatic in the inflexible insistence that atheists must NOT believe in God. That seems rather like the inflexible insistence that Christians MUST believe in Jesus (in some sense, at least), or that Expert Woolen-Mitten Knitters MUST know how to knit woolen mittens. It's definitional, not really a matter of force. Telling you why you ought to be an atheist, a Christian, or learn to knit woolen mittens isn't force either.
Good point, mgroves (#752). Maybe you should go make that point at a website where people are saying that showing Muhammad on TV is a hate crime.
I agree that there's a point of disanalogy in whether there's an explicit contract. I do think that religious beliefs would be considered highly in any damages awarded due to an unwanted creation of a body meant to be buried. The value of the body is determined by the beliefs on its owner and/or heirs, not the beliefs of the person it's entrusted to.
Likewise, I think that priests handing out communion wafers to apparent Catholics have a reasonable expectation that they can "entrust" something sacred to any participant in that "sacred" ritual. The transfer of physical possession in a sacred ritual doesn't mean that its value and proper treatment are solely up to the recipient.
(Keep in mind that Catholics think that the Host is a person, in a distributed form. It has rights too. That's stupid, of course, but that's what determines what's a reasonable expectation of what someone will do when "given" a "wafer" in Catholic communion. It's kind of like giving somebody a puppy; usually there's an implied agreement that you won't torture it, and if it appears that somebody is likely to torture it, it's reasonable to demand it back.)
I don't think that an explicit contract is necessary in this case. Pretty much everybody knows that it's a religious ritual and there's a special significance to the "Host," and even somebody ignorant of that can be expected to follow the rules once they're pointed out. If you're told to swallow the Host or give it back, you should---their house, their rules. You don't have to understand or agree with the logic of those rules, but you are still obliged to follow them.
Legally, I don't know. I am not a lawyer. But I think that pretty much everybody in this discussion knows that the Host is a Big Deal to Catholics, and that if told to swallow or surrender it, they "should" by the Catholic rules.
It's a touchy gray area because it's a religious thing. If Cook hadn't given the cracker back, I wouldn't be surprised if it had gone to court and a court ruled he had to give it back and that taking it in the first place was a violation of the civil rights of the Catholics.
Worse, if the courts didn't rule that, I wouldn't be surprised if we got a spate of laws classifying it that way, making it specifically illegal to do what he did---spelling out the assumed implicit polite agreement as legally an implied contract---and I wouldn't be surprised if the courts upheld such laws.
Again, IANAL and I would be interested in what a Church/State lawyer would say, but here's my reasoning:
Suppose we had a rash of such events, as a lot of people in this thread seem to want, and the Courts did not rule in favor of the Catholics' right to enforce their rules. Suppose they ruled that there's no law against it, and no reasonable expectation that people politely follow rules and directions if there's no law.
Catholics who (wrongly) believe the Host is a big deal and that such actions have grave consequences would feel forced to protect the Host from non-Catholic infiltrators, heretical Catholics who disagree, etc.
They might, for example, make everybody sign in and show ID before getting communion, to make the contract explicit and legally enforceable. They might station somebody there by the communion rail to watch each communicant (?) and ensure that they did put the wafer in their mouths and appear to swallow, and then make them open their mouths and show that they weren't holding it there.
That would be ridiculous, but given their constitutionally protected right to believe their nonsense, it would be a reasonable consequence of that unreasonable belief. We can't expect them to believe such crap and not act like they believe it.
That scenario would clearly create an extra hurdle for Catholics' exercise of their religion.
I would expect the Courts to see that, and say that no, it's not fair to put Catholics in that position---having to pollute their religious ceremonies with onerous enforcement tactics reminiscent of blowjob porn---and that it is more reasonable to expect people participating in Catholic rituals to abide by Catholic rules and directions.
Much of that applies to non-religious situations as well. If you go to a private party, the host can throw you out for failure to abide by their rules even if those rules are unreasonable. With few exceptions, attendance is a privilege, not a right. And I think that if you take something "given" under false pretenses, they can make you give it back before you leave.
That last part may be a gray area, but I would expect the courts to side with the Church. To a nonbeliever, it's just a free cracker, and a notoriously bad one at that. To a believer, it's the body of God and something they must protect from desecration. The court can't decide who's right on the point of fact, but can decide who has a more compelling interest, given that the fact cannot be established.
The only reason a nonbeliever has for being very attached to that particular free lousy cracker is to interfere with its intended function, and accepting that as a compelling interest would put an undue burden on the Church.
Wow, just wow...
There is a fun art idea in this... buy a bunch of wafers from the manufacturer and build a life-sized 'Corpus Christi' out of them. Maybe add some prominent bite marks / missing bits as homage to all the Catholics out there.
A companion piece which would be slightly less fun to make but pretty effective message wise... buy a whole lot of wafers, and eat only them (take vitamins and do it in runs of a few days at a time with a normal diet between), collecting your feces. You can guess what to do next ;)
Grammar RWA:
You act as if hate crimes are the only crimes that effect a community. All violent acts affect the entire community. If there is a rapist at large in the community, that makes women feel unsafe. If there are a rash of armed robberies in a community, that also affects many people. There are a lot of crimes that psychologically effect a community. As far as I'm concerned, a rapist or murderer at large has just as much negative impact on a community as a white supremacist who attacks hispanics (or more because they can attack anyone). I don't see how the white supremacist should deserve any extra punishment than a rapist or murderer who is indiscriminate.
If you hate people who drive Mustangs, and murder a Mustang owner, that terrorizes other Mustang owners. Is that a hate crime?
If a poor person murders a rich person because they hate rich people, is that a hate crime?
You can hate people for all sorts of reasons. I don't see as how hating someone for one reason should deserve any extra punishment than hating someone for another reason. It's an argument based on emotion rather than reason. Hate crimes legislation, while well intentioned, exists to make people feel good rather than to address and solve the problems of racism, sexism, and other kinds of prejudices.
This is so freak'n sad that this even made news! A college student holds a cracker hostage and gets death threats! As Newman (on Seinfeld) would say, "oh, the humanity!!!".
I do remember taking communion as a teenager and young adult and I distinctly remember the preacher making it a very scary event. He would literally have the young & naive (me at the time) scared shitless to eat the damn cracker. Because apparently, you are "accountable" for even the unknowable sin you've commited...oh, and if you aren't sincere enough in repentance you may STILL be struck down when the cracker hits your tongue!
I wasn't Catholic, I was Pentecostal. Same bullshit...but crazier.
It would get so freaking intense that people would be crying and wailing in repentance in line to get the cracker! And the line was so freaking long with over 700 people in the church, so by the time it was your turn you were a freaking nervous wreck!
Those were high stress times...I'm so glad it's over!
Grammar,
I agree with you that the effects of thought crimes are more important than distinguishing thought crimes from other crimes. However, there are large numbers of people, like AaronF, who think "hate crimes are thought crimes." The point is they're right but there's a major caveat.
The motivation for a crime is a thought process. Therefore, the motivational difference between murder and manslaughter means that murder is a thought crime. The rightists have it right. Hate crimes are thought crimes. However, thought crimes have been part of the Anglo-American legal system for centuries.
Once we show that the phrase "thought crime" is a meaningless objection, then we can discuss the effects of hate crimes.
mgroves@752
Have you noticed that this thread is about someone taking a cracker he'd been give out of a church, and some Catholics are yelling "religious hate crime"? No? then you're an idiot. Yes? Then you're an idiot and a bigot.
You want an example or a hate crime?
Well, I'll give you an example from #571: "Pastafarianism is and was a joke. It made a point, but it's a joke."
" Would you really get offended if someone palmed your meatballs? Unless it's your real meatballs, who cares."
I care #571.
It is my rite to care and who the hell are you to call my faith a joke? If I were to worship a god who became a man so that he could die for our sins and rise from the dead -- now that would be a joke.
The FSM is a living, breathing plate of holy pasta. May he smack you with his angel hair and blind you with his pesto. Can I get a ramen?
mgroves @752:
You said it, brother, because everyone knows that there have never been any Catholic terrorist groups.
Scuttering gobshite!
Wow, toujoursdan must have been overclocking the old Tic Tac:
Fundamentalist atheism is just as obnoxious as fundamentalist Christianity, IMO.
Every time I encounter the facile equivalence, the slapstick and squirting flower gag that's supposed to leave us all rolling in the aisles as the punchline of a first post, I get out my popcorn in anticipation of some classic pratfalls and other time-wizened routines from students of Doctor Whiteface and The Guild of Fools and Joculators and College of Clowns, and toujoursdan doesn't disappoint.
In response to this rather helpful unpacking of the only thing that atheists agree about mostly (although it's as much of a subject for argument as any other): Being an atheist just means you don't believe that there's a god, toujoursdan tries to redefine atheists as hidebound fundamentalist ideologues with this one right out of the old call and response handbook:
Which is a principle, is it not?
Well, no, it is not; you must be thinking of theism, which begins with the premise that there is a god. The statement that there is no god is not similarly a premise, but a conclusion, as provisional and subject to revision upon the receipt of new and compelling evidence as any other parsimonious empirical description of nature.
I guess people can bend words any way they want but an ideology is simply an unprovable set of beliefs. One can't prove there is no god any more than one can prove there is a god.
Doesn't anybody ever point noobs to the FAQs anymore? "Science doesn't do proof." [pause beat beat beat] "Proof is for liquor and math."
A pun?
AaronF, #766: It's an argument based on emotion rather than reason.
That's pretty much what I think of your posts. It probably is true that at least one of us isn't reasoning properly.
I went to Catholic school for 9 years and have two communion stories:
* In the first grade after I received communion and returned to my pew, the host stuck to the roof of my mouth. I reached in with a finger to peel it off. A nearby nun grabbed me, and rushed me back to the sacristy to a special holy sink with holy water faucets. She washed my hands and had me gargle!
* In the eighth grade, the teacher told us a story of a man who ran out of the church with the host in his mouth, took it out, and stomped on it. It *bled* on the sidewalk!!!11eleven!
Lesson to be learned here, when you are kneeling before a priest, you better swallow what he gives you.
You know I never really thought about it but you're right. That is in no way a "rim shot"
According to Wikipedia (man, am I procrastinating), these percussive punctuations to humor are properly called a "sting".
Oh, so is really is just a cracker. Silly me, I thought the blessing at the end of mass was pax nobiscum, but apparently it is pax nabisco.
Anyway wanna buy any consecrated taco shells? They are a little past their use by date.
Ciao y'all
toujoursdan@702:
Im sorry, thats not evidence of atheist fundamentalism, that is evidence that youre on the Internet! Congratulations, your ISP works, now quit whinging.
Yes. If you want me to believe, show me a trailer and an official release date. FFS, they haven't even cast any-effing-one yet!
Windy OM at #696
...someone who's obviously Neil B. skulking anonymously around on Sandwalk, shilling his misunderstood version of modal realism again.
After the shellacking he was administered here, it's no wonder he doesn't want anybody to know he's Neil B.
cicely writes:
Respect for those people holding this belief is one thing. Respect for the irrational belief (which they are fully entitled to hold) or their hysterical over-reactions (which have the potential of causing harm to others), is a different thing altogether.
How can anyone in their right mind respect someone who holds such ridiculous beliefs? Especially if they claim that those ridiculous beliefs are what they build their life around?
Pointing and giggling makes sense but respect? Out of the question.
You're out of line, Dr. Myers.
The idea, in case you've forgotten, is to point out the illogical and irrational stupidity of the right-wing-nuts in the Catholic Church, NOT to try to out-do them and make us look bad as a consequence! My best friend on Earth is a Catholic, and I can assure you, he's as disgusted by these hysterics as anyone.
I'm having a rough enough time convincing my Catholic family that being an atheist doesn't make me a puppy-killer without YOU trying to attack the Church's own rituals.
And don't forget: attacking an organization's rituals in this way only strengthens their determination, because you're playing into their hands in terms of persecution. They thrive on that. Hammer them on how unchristian they are being by threatening this kid with death, and leave it at that.
Paul W:
But it doesn't legally have personal rights! If the question went to court, wouldn't you expect them to decide that the wafer isn't legally a person?
Torturing a puppy is illegal in any case. It's not at all clear that you can reasonably demand back a puppy that you have sold or given away, if the new owner does a legal thing you don't approve of. Usually an explicit contract is signed in such cases and even so, such contracts are not necessarily legally binding (like Microsoft's EULA arguably isn't in many countries).
Yes, Catholics can block Cook from their rites from now on, and hosts can ask you to leave for chewing with your mouth open or some such minor offense. In each case, enforcement of onerous rules falls on those who insist on the rules, not on society as a whole.
As long as they don't cast Jim Carey as Loki.
Loki, coolest mythical guy ever.
Ok, can I sell crackers on eBay and claim they are "Jesus in the flesh"?
If the standard is so low that a simple claim of authenticity is enough, then anything could be claimed (slippery slope).
Alternatively, if eBay rejects my claim, then we know that the Catholic Church standards are lower than that of an online consignment/auction house. Could I fight back in court if rejected? If not, then there is no case for the other side as well. Can a cracker be a victim of a crime? Can a food, uneaten, be subjected to "hate"?
What the hell is going on here?
Sigh......
I think Paul W. (at #764, etc.) has been doing a very good job arguing against Webster Cook's act by using the objectively neutral ideals of contract law, and more or less avoiding the whole concept of sacrilege or blasphemy -- and I think I more or less agree with him. Technically, the kid shouldn't have done it, and NOT because it hurts the poor feelings of the Catholics. You could agree that Cook was wrong to steal the wafer, and still think he could and should stand outside the church with picket signs and anti-theist tracts from FFRF and make the Papists wail and gnash their teeth. There's another principle involved, a more important one, having to do with basic duty and obligation in private situations.
This whole area of implied contract in religion vs. right to protest religion is an interesting one. I was just over at Dispatches From the Culture Wars reading about the Church of Scientology and the shit-fit they threw when their sacred, secret, top-tier tenets were going to be opened to public scrutiny in a court case. They were open, then shut -- but not quickly enough to avoid being caught and broadcast on the internet, where it was revealed that the Big, Deep, Dark SECRET KNOWLEGE available only to the highest enlightened initiates in Scientology is that our bodies are inhabited by thousands of alien souls, all banished to earth hundreds of millions of years ago by Xenu, the Galactic Overlord.
That defiant act of publication (against the law, btw) resulted in Scientology's exposure as a major piece of bullshit -- even as religions go. In a sense, I suspect that Cook's act of defiance -- while also wrong -- had a similar intention. Betray a trust in order to open something to the clear light of day and reason, so that it might be scrutinized in a forum not obscured or blinded by mystery and hoopla and sense of the sacred.
So yeah, Paul; he shouldn't have done it. Granted, and point taken. But, for me at least, it's still a bit like the rude and crude exposure of Scientology. There are some critical differences, but, when all is said and done, it's been made up by a science fiction writer, and it's just a frackin' goddamn cracker, too.
I could totally get you one. My mom is even a eucharistic minister (of course this doesn't actually help very much). The only problem is that i would have to go back to that church and that is completely not worth it.
An old, tired canard.
Each and every person is born an atheist. A culturally sanctioned delusion, different in many cultures, is poured into the head of the unsuspecting child.
Years later, one of them says exactly what you're saying. "You can't prove there is no god."
Dude, I, nor anyone else is required to prove god does not exist. It is wholly incumbent on you to prove that he/she/it does.
And you can't.
Ever.
Put on the proof.
So, put on proof or shut the fuck up with the sophomoric, no I'm too kind, kindergarten logic.
As for an ideology, you don't need religion or belief in superstition to have an ideology. Nor does an ideology have to be based on religion and calling an ideology a religion does not make it so (see wishful thinking).
Marxism is an ideology. Capitalism is an ideology. Science, through the "scientific method, is, in fact, an ideology. Post-Modernism is an ideology, as is Modernism. Economics is full of ideologies: "Fair Trade," "Mercantilism," "Classical," "Austrian," "Liazze-Faire (in multiple sub-genres)," etc.
None of these are religions. None of these force you to believe in the supernatural. About many of these, many people get quite impassioned. They may all suffer, to a greater or lesser extent, from various dogmatic characteristics.
There are many more ideologies than these. And your fallacious assertion that they can't be proven/shown to be true misses the mark. TO the point that your assertion is laughably niave.
As if you're throwing shit against the wall, hoping that with all the inanities spewn, something will stick and allow you to "win" an argument.
To the extent that he "shouldn't have done it", the appropriate punishment should be at most banishment from the Church. (If he so badly wants to stay in the Church that he's willing to accept some greater punishment in lieu of banishment, that's up to him -- but I don't think that any such deal has been offered.)
If the Church had reacted more calmly, perhaps sending a polite request to please return the sacred biscuit of Antioch, his action would have been more of a childish prank. To the extent that the Church's overreaction reveals the depth of their insane devotion to dogma, however, he has done us a great service and his potentially childish prank is very much redeemed.
PZ wrote:
I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare.
Actually, I'll agree with Paul Lundgren (#784) that I'd rather not see PZ pee on a consecrated wafer or whatever he's thinking of doing.
I think he's too old for that kind of thing. It's so angry-teenage athIEst with a hammer and a Bible. I prefer arguments that cut into the basic theology like a surgeon's scalpel.
I appreciate his effort too, but I don't think he has been entirely convincing. There are many such unstated informal contracts in society, but it's not clear that they are legally binding. If there's a convincing argument from contract law, let's hear it without recourse to completely different situations like torturing a puppy (illegal) or an undertaker cremating a corpse without permission (breach of contract?).
German atheists humbly support you, dear PZ.
http://hpd.de/node/4978
I just hope you won't get too many holy crackers. Maybe if more people took part in this cracker abuse thing...
Sven@773, as wit most comments of that nature, the answer is both yes and know.
Sastra, that was a well-written and thoughtful post, and I completely and utterly disagree with you. Cook did not do anything wrong. As soon as the priest handed him the wafer, it becamse Cook's possession, to eat, walk home with, or throw in the trash as he saw fit.
Paul Lundgren,
You're out of line, Dr. Myers.
Who the hell are you to decide this?
The idea, in case you've forgotten, is to point out the illogical and irrational stupidity of the right-wing-nuts in the Catholic Church, NOT to try to out-do them and make us look bad as a consequence!
No, I think we missed that memo. When did you write it? Oh, and by the way: who's "us"? Concern Trolls, Inc.?
My best friend on Earth is a Catholic, and I can assure you, he's as disgusted by these hysterics as anyone.
Well, either he believes in transsubstantiation and should be as outraged as these clowns are, or he does not and is a shitty Catholic.
I'm having a rough enough time convincing my Catholic family that being an atheist doesn't make me a puppy-killer without YOU trying to attack the Church's own rituals.
Ah. Friendly tip: nobody gives a shit.
And don't forget: attacking an organization's rituals in this way only strengthens their determination, because you're playing into their hands in terms of persecution.
Playing nice has gotten atheists SO far, right?
Ah yes, good old idolatry. In his book The Reason-Driven Life (in which he TEWTALY PWNZORZ Rick Warren and the whole Purpose-Driven Fundy Dementedist Zombie Army with his +666 Intelligence and Excellent Wit), Bob Price "The Bible Geek" refers to the Bible as "This Paper Idol."
It was so gratifying to hear him say publicly what I've been saying privately for decades..........
windy #794:
Hmm. What about "I'm the Pink Mitten Lady, and I'm giving out some free pink mitten wool to people who will make pink mittens out of it." "Thanks. Now I'm going to knit me some socks." "Then give it back." "No -- you gave it to me, and for free, so it's mine to do with as I will. There's nothing special about mittens."
?
Sastra writes nonsense:
That defiant act of publication (against the law, btw)
Ahem. The publication was in court records, by way of discovery -- not at all "against the law". And that's hardly all you don't know about Scientology.
I wouldn't expect the court to rule that the Host has rights or is more than just a wafer. I'd expect them to be as silent as possible on that subject. If forced,I'd expect them to say that they can't take such religious ideas as fact claims, so the host does not legally have personal rights.
I would expect them to say that within the context of a Catholic ritual, Catholics are allowed not only to believe that the Host is much more than a cracker, but to act accordingly. (Up to some reasonable point they'd mumble about and hope they never have to make clear.) In particular, Cook has no reasonable expectation that they won't lay hands on him if he refuses a direct order to swallow the thing or give it back---either to get it away from him, or to keep him there until the cops come and take it away from him. That amount of force is justified in dealing with an uncooperative guest.
In the politest, most neutral, value-free way possible, they'd say that maybe the Catholics are crazy about transubstantiation---the court can't decide---but if he didn't want to deal with people to act all crazy about a cracker, he shouldn't have gone to a party for crazy people, where the focal event is people acting all crazy about a cracker.
That would open up a big scary gray area of what exactly the Catholics could have gotten away with, trying to stop him, but I think they'd go at least far enough to find them of battery for grabbing him and trying to pry his fingers open.
(If I were the judge, I'd say that if they want to be excused for doing anything more than that---say, hitting him---they should have much better security, and make the rules and potential penalties much clearer ahead of time.)
Only up to a point. If telling somebody to put down the cracker and leave doesn't work, you can call the cops and use the courts.
And if protecting your own civil liberties is too difficult or expensive, because there's a pattern of people trying to violate your rights, you have the right to get the state to protect them for you.
So, for example, if infiltrators regularly crashed and disrupted my local atheist group, stealing our stuff that has merely sentimental value, I'd ask for police protection, and I wouldn't think I should have to pay for it.
If people defrauding Catholics out of communion wafers is criminal, as it arguably is on several grounds, they have the right to have the police enforce their rules, at no cost to them. The police are supposed to protect law abiders from lawbreakers, without fee.
I find it horrifying that crazy folks have the constitutional right to get the police to protect their crackers against the occasional filching, and to jail people who try to trick them out of a single cracker here or there, but in this case, I think that's the bottom line. Freedom of religion is the freedom to believe crazy stuff and to act crazy and demand that others do, too, in certain contexts---and it is the government's job to protect that bizarre freedom.
Are (were) you a member?
In my Shiny New Religion, the Holy Food is PEZ, and the presiding clergy can kick your ass if you chew it. I'm still working out some details, like what to call the presiding clergy; I've decided against "pederastics" and am presently leaning toward "PEZ dispensers." But it's all a work in progress. Tithing encouraged, all major credit cards accepted.
"If the Eucharist is just a cracker, then the US Constitution is just a piece of parchment, "
Yes, and if someone was handing out Xerox copies of the Constitution or bumperstickers of the American flag on the steps of the capitol to all comers, would someone really incur news coverage, threat of legal action, charges of hate speech and death threats if he let it touch the floor?
From #30:
"Uh ... this brings whole new meaning to 'biological ejaculations from a godless liberal' "
Since we are on the subject of the Catholic church, as a
lapsed Catholic, I still admire the religion of my upbringing for it's ability to laugh at itself (except for the few who do take it too seriously).
Go see the play "Nunsense" or "Late Nite Catechism" and the ones laughing the loudest are Catholics or lapsed Catholics.
"Late Nite Catechism" is a play in which Sister gives the audience a refresher course in their Catholic upbringing.
On of the questions she asks her audience is:
What is an ejaculation?
Then, after seeing this, I had to ask my very orthodox Catholic mother the same question. She answered (just like Sister) that an ejaculation is a short prayer.
Indeed, one of the definitions in Webster for ejaculation is: "b. A brief pious utterance or prayer."
Sister would probably like Paul Zachary. "Such a lovely biblical name," she would say.
by way of discovery
I misstated that. But the materials were entered into the court record, and thus publication by the LA Times and across the internet was not "against the law, btw":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishman_Affidavit
Jesus's body is rather bland. He should have smothered it in cream cheese with a cucumber garnish.
"Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family."
While I don't know what it would be like to have a loved one kidnapped, perhaps the parents of Edgardo Mortara could have enlightened the Catholics on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara
Paul W.
...and demand that others do, too, in certain contexts
I'm with ya, man. Right up to there. Could Pentacostals demand of me that I handle a viper or be excluded from the premises? If not, what are the limits of this putative right?
truth machine #800 wrote:
Okay; I thought that when records were "resealed" they weren't supposed to be made public.
And yeah, but I know more about Scientology than I like. New and disturbing levels of creepy (or, maybe, old levels not often seen today in weird combinations with the new.)
Let's say you have handed your guest a drink on the understanding that he toasts person X, he starts objecting loudly, you ask him to put down the drink and leave. He defiantly chugs it down instead and leaves. Has he "stolen" some of your booze?
Where is the "regular" "crashing" and "stealing" in the current situation? If a single person abuses one of the free handouts from your atheist meeting, is that a legal matter?
Hey, if you wanted to make it official, you could go to one of those buy-a-diploma places. For a few bucks they'll ordain you, 100% legal. My buddy's brother did exactly that, specifically so he could officiate at his own son's wedding a couple of months back. Damn, I wish I could have been a fly on the wall for that one!
PZ,
I am only sorry that I didn't see this sooner. Your blog is a breath of fresh air and funnnny. Your blogiters are each more riotous than the previous but the funniest of all are the church's outraged members, priests, practitioners whatever. It is absolutely and without doubt a dang small piece of white bread through and through ironed flat by nuns who have no other purpose in life than to provide these bits of material to priests who say magic words over them and shazam, there's the body o jesus.
transubstantiation spamsubstantiation, its a cracker first last and always.
I sincerely hope that Webster Cook substituted one that had not yet had the words spoken over it for the one that he swiped. If he didn't thats the move PZ should make.
To be serious for one moment we all should let the university know how we feel about doing anything to Webster short of giving him a medal. Punishment is not to be condoned. Maybe we have by writing these comments.
Jim Hurley
Person knits socks, Pink Mitten Lady decides not to give that person any more yarn, problem solved?
Okay; I thought that when records were "resealed" they weren't supposed to be made public.
They were published before being sealed.
windy #814:
NO! She is the Pink Mitten Lady and she specifically said the wool was for mittens! Not smelly socks.
Give it back. To be unraveled, if necessary. Hmph.
P.S. From http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/brinkema_rtc_washpost_1… :
Also, the Wikipedia article claims, quite erroneously, that "The U.S. Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Arnie Lerma had violated the Church's copyrights." but
My sister and I used to steal communion wafers from the sacristy and use them for teddy bear tea parties. My father never threatened us with eternal damnation, but did mandate that we take only the broken ones.
I think he was just happy that we hadn't got into the wine.
Sastra:
I agree. I hate taking the Catholics' side in saying they have the right to get the government to help them enforce crazy rules about a few crackers here and there.
My main reason for posting is that I think these cases are similar in that if I'm right, they are acts of civil disobedience. They're illegal.
Civil disobedience is serious shit. If you are not up for going to jail, don't do it. If you do it anyway, work really hard at not getting caught. And if you are caught, and don't want to go to jail, give up right away---give them back the cracker, play dumb, and hope they forgive you rather than prosecuting you for fraud and civil rights violations.
One difference between this and the Scientology thing is that revealing copyrighted scriptures is that for most people, the latter is an obviously Promethean act.
Most people don't like or trust Scientology, and don't think it's reasonable to have secret scriptures and protect the secrecy with copyright suits. Copyright law was never intended to protect religious cults that way.
Most people can see that while that may have been a legal use of copyright law, it was really a loophole, and breaking the law with respect to that was just refusing to follow an unjust law.
Most people can't see that about filching sacred objects. It is no secret that the Catholic church tells people that crackers turn into Jesus, or that it's an unfalsifiable claim. Stealing the crackers doesn't reveal any new information---it's just an attention-getting stunt, and it's theft or something like that.
Most people would see that as making us look very bad---being willing to resort to breaking the law for a cheap attention-getting stunt that gets attention by upsetting a lot of people.
I think we should stay on this side of that line---sure, be "militant" in the sense of honest and outspoken about our views, like the New Atheists, but not militant in the more literal sense of taking the law into our own hands. That is not usually a good move for an unpopular minority.
That said, I do think the Catholic Church has done plenty to deserve that sort of flagrant disrespect. If you teach people to worship crackers as God, you shouldn't be surprised if occasionally people steal them and play with them, and make fun of you.
On the whole, I think we should take the high road. We should ridicule their cracker fetish, but not crash their cracker-worship parties and steal their crackers.
If some of us do steal the crackers, the rest of us should make it clear that we don't approve of such actions... while nonethless finding it funny as hell that people care so much!
The analysis of religious scriptures, beliefs and organizations in terms of contract law and copyrights is just way off the mark. You shouldn't try to fit all objects into the same classes --- churches shouldn't have copyrights, and a religious ceremony is not a contractual situation.
A church isn't a business. It's a church -- the rules not only are different, but they should be very different. It makes even less sense to treat a church as a business as treating a university as a business (and the latter shouldn't hold patents, either).
This one size fits all world just sucks.
What exactly does Jesus taste like?
"...You can hate people for all sorts of reasons. I don't see as how hating someone for one reason should deserve any extra punishment than hating someone for another reason. It's an argument based on emotion rather than reason. Hate crimes legislation, while well intentioned, exists to make people feel good rather than to address and solve the problems of racism, sexism, and other kinds of prejudices."
There are huge differences you are missing. A serial murderer or rapist doesn't necessarily "hate" their victim in the way a white supremacist hates people of other ethnic groups. Serial offenders do what they do at random, for entirely different reasons. A white Supremacist on the other hand is conditioned by dogma to act against ethnic groups that are not his or her own, but are otherwise performing members of society. That is why white supremacists killing a Hispanics, or gangs dragging gays behind vehicles, are committing hate crimes. The motives are obvious and well-known, and they are entirely anti-social, as it is one group's member or members acting on those of another group. It has the potential for greater violence and unrest.
Serial offenders are quite the opposite, and may kill or rape for entirely capricious reasons other than hate. Hate could be behind their psychological machinima for acting, but the motives for commission of their crimes are obtuse enough that it can't be classified as a specific kind of hate. If a serial murderer goes on a spree and kills 34 long-haired brunette women before being caught, that could only technically be considered hate, if you stretched the definition a lot. But there's no mass organization to hate women with long brown hair; it would be an individual sort of thing. Hating ethnic groups, sexual groups, and/or religious groups is far more public, visible and common around the world, and as such can be classified as "hate" for a number of reasons: it's organized, it's taught, it's sanctioned (by illegitimate leadership), it's written down. It has to do with ethnic, sexual, religious, etc. lines that have historically been drawn in a less civilized time, and now that this is the 21st century, we'd prefer it not happen for a number of perfectly ethical reasons.
Hate crimes are different, whether the result of the committed act is the same as a less specific crime or not.
I was recently listening to Carl Sagan's last speech to CSICOP. Near the end of the speech he made some comments which may be relevant to the topic at hand.
http://libsyn.com/media/pointofinquiry/9-15-06.mp3
You can also get it via the "Point of Inquiry" podcast. The speech starts at 51:45. To see what I'm getting at, fast forward to 1:36:15. Please consider listening to the whole speech before deciding that you disagree with Sagan.
the Wikipedia article claims, quite erroneously
And now I've fixed it.
Julee@821,
The piece of cod that passeth understanding?
PaulW: it's theft or something like that
It's not theft -- not at all. It's blasphemy -- that's what pissing the Catholics off, not some "theft". He didn't steal a candle, or vandalize a window, but took something that was freely given to him --- and then broke the ritual.
That's the crux here --- this isn't like stealing documents from your boss, this is like what it is: saying "fuck Jesus", or using holy water to wash your car, or declaring yourself a prophet in a mosque.
It just sound silly trying to put this into a box in which it doesn't belong, just because we like one kind of box, and dislike another.
#821 What exactly does Jesus taste like?
Posted by: Julee | July 9, 2008 6:41 PM
I guess it depends on which end of the cracker you eat first. If it tastes like shit, flip it over.
:)
he shouldn't have done it
I see no basis in ethics for that claim. I think not only that he should have done it, but that he shouldn't have given the wafer back, and that more people should do it.
so, like, bacala?
Most people can't see that about filching sacred objects.
Stop the dishonesty; no one "filched" anything. Cook was given the wafer to put in his mouth. He did put it in his mouth. Failing to swallow it isn't theft.
The word you're looking for is "affect." Anyway, I don't think you're going to get out of reading comprehension camp alive. "Hate crimes intimidate communities" is not at all equivalent to "only hate crimes intimidate communities." I say the first and you claim I've said the second. Are you even capable of honest argumentation?
The majority of rapes are about exerting power over a victim who the rapist views as inferior, and are in fact an important component of the patriarchal culture that seeks to control women. I would like to see more prosecutions of rapes as hate crimes.
And when that indiscriminate murderer is put behind bars, the murder streak ends, and the community can rest again. It was an isolated case, not part of a wider system of oppression. The same does not apply to hate crimes. The threat persists even when one particular criminal is imprisoned. That's why these crimes are more damaging.
Look, if you're so fucking dense that you can't understand why a racially-motivated murder is worse than another, then imagine separating the hate crime into two crimes. Both murderers have taken a life, with all the suffering that entails for the victim's family, friends, etc. That's one crime each. The racist murderer has also made a threat against others in the victim's community, the same as if he had written letters to them saying "I'm going to kill you." Making those threats (like writing those letters) is also a crime, and a separate crime from the murder. The racially-motivated murderer has committed two crimes, and shall be punished for two crimes.
Should you completely miss the fucking point again, and insist that both crimes are terrorizing a community, remember that just like manslaughter and murder, intent matters. There's a difference between a perp who is deliberately choosing to threaten certain people, and one whose crimes are incidentally threatening.
That doesn't explain why law enforcement groups endorse hate crime legislation though, like the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National District Attorneys Association.
Anyway, you aren't willing to argue this honestly, so I'm done wasting time on you. It's evident enough to the reader that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, and didn't care to be corrected. This isn't about the facts for you, it's about spreading your rhetoric.
You lied when you said that under hate crime legislation, "hanging a black man [is] considered more heinous then hanging a white man", and perps are "punished more for hurting a black or a hispanic over hurting a white or an asian". It was then pointed out to you that this was complete bullshit, back in posts 733 and 734. And you've done nothing to acknowledge the correction. You didn't know what you were talking about, and when you're corrected, you don't care; you just keep on running toward your shifting goalposts like you were never wrong (like a creationist).
Good question. I don't know.
Initially I was tempted to say that sure, they can demand that. If you don't want to be a part of a snake handling church, you can just leave.
On the other hand, snake-handling is so dangerous that courts might not say that. They might say that extolling the merits of snake handling is as far as you can go, and demanding that people either do it or leave is too close to blackmailing them into harming themselves.
I think that in general the courts say religions can require any merely crazy or stupid or modestly risky thing of members, in the name of freedom of religion, but really dangerous things may get special-cased.
I wouldn't expect the legal stuff to be entirely consistent or make a whole lot of sense when there's a strong conflict between a strong principle like freedom of religion and another strong principle like not physically harming people.
Again, I am not a lawyer, and don't know the relevant precedents. My closest thing to a legal qualification is that I was first to call the Ono v. Premise decision correctly, and got the court's rationale basically right.
I could be wrong about this one, and am just giving my current (mis?)understanding of the legal principles.
Paul L,
I can't speak for PZ, but perhaps you can allow for a little hyperbole or just plain old fashioned venting. That anyone in North America in the 21st century could believe the wafer actually transmogrified into flesh despite the fact that any lab in the USA could prove that false; and that modern Catholic adults would threaten this kid with violence and death because it wasn't a wafer anymore, would lead any rational person to threaten to demonstrate just how ridiculous this all is.
Not only did I underestimate the gullibility and stupidity of people, but I underestimated the power of cult programming of supposedly educated people on a massive scale.
Most Protestant Evangelicals, considered to be the least educated and most literal minded people found anywhere, accept communion as a symbolic act; the idea of the wafer becominging actual flesh once blessed- utterly inane. They would call you an out and out liar if you claimed it could bleed.
The Catholic woo of stigmata, bleeding statues, Saints and Madonnas appearing on tortillas and screendoors is lost on most Protestant Christians. If you are not raised Catholic ( or Anglican {Catholic Lite}), it all seems more superstitious and theatrically over-produced.
So give PZ a break. There's been a learning curve today, a sad, sad one at that.
You're trying to redefine "thought crime". Sorry, but you can't. It's always going to mean what George Orwell made it mean, and you simply don't have the power to change it. Orwell's thought crimes are crimes of thought alone. So when you say that you endorse these "thought crimes", all that people are going to hear is "I want to make it illegal to dislike other people."
You can't win this one, I'm afraid. Better to just let "thought crime" mean what it means, and point out that hate crimes have real-world effects beyond thought. Anyway, JoJo, I appreciate you sharing your perspective. Later!
your move, holy man.
What exactly does Jesus taste like?
Well Julie,
According to accounts from people who have sampled other humans, most probably like pork. But only if he has been properly cleaned and gutted first.
Both passive resistance and civil disobedience have long, respected histories of putting the spotlight on authoritarians, and their methods of control.
This incident of "kidnapping a wafer who is really god" is a good example, and is to be supported and encouraged!
Bringing contract law into the discussion is a complete red herring which completely misses the point.
In my X church you had to be 18 or older, and sign a waiver before taking up serpents. Women were exempt if they choose not to because of god's curse. The church here in Oregon didn't do it at all. I witnessed it in Kentucky.
Speaking in tongues can be done by anyone any age, it's from 16 Mark - I forget the verse.
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.
Well, at least we now have a word for "pompous ignoramus": shyster.
j: That anyone in North America in the 21st century could believe the wafer actually transmogrified into flesh despite the fact that any lab in the USA could prove that false; and that modern Catholic adults would threaten this kid with violence and death because it wasn't a wafer anymore, would lead any rational person to threaten to demonstrate just how ridiculous this all is.
That's just because you don't distinguish between "essence" and "accident". It all makes perfect rational sense, once you accept philosophical structures written by primitives who held slaves, thought women had fewer teeth than men, and had little daemons speaking to them.
Some very sophisticated, rational people still accept Iron age philosophical constructs.
What I find kind of ludicrous in this whole thing is that the congregation feels it needs to beg forgiveness. It's not their fault...
That said, I think Cook's actions were perhaps ill-advised in the context, but completely innocent. When the church folk tried to restrain him, they went too far, and I think his protest actions after the fact were completely understandable. Such are the dangers of an excessive devotion of a spiritual community to material things. And "bread golem" made me laugh so hard it hurt.
I would like to clarify a point already made though -- matzo is a cracker. (And I willingly eat them on a regular basis, which apparently marks me as a little strange to some Jewish people.) The Catholic host is sort of... well, let's just say the term "wafer" is appropriate by virtue of being rather nebulous. The closest thing I can think of is an edible, wheat-flavored version of the plastic foam used in take-out containers. If the parish you happen to attend is fortunate enough to use the whole-wheat version, they're actually quite tasty, but the texture remains rather alien.
#840
>>thought women had fewer teeth than men
The Bible says this? I've never heard this one before, because that would be a stake through the heart of Biblical infallibility.
Okay, the Transubstantiated Flesh of One Part of a Triparate God Who's Also a Zombie (risen from the dead) was screwing with my head and now you introduce Schrodinger's Cracker into the mix??!?
Is it just me, or does that dancing Jesus on a cracker look like the Geico caveman doing the disco routine?
Actually we do. It's "tacky."
"Some very sophisticated, rational people still accept Iron age philosophical constructs."
Yeah, Frog, I accept that most people I know still hold on to some culturally accepted form of irrational thinking, but it's like suddenly learning your witty and bright neighbors whom you've had in depth conversations with actually believe in the Easter Bunny, and are willing to kill you if they feel you are mocking them or trying to rationally dissuade them from their obviously aberrant beliefs.
I think that in general the courts say religions can require any merely crazy or stupid or modestly risky thing of members, in the name of freedom of religion, but really dangerous things may get special-cased.
Given the quality of it, perhaps you should just stop thinking. First, it is legislatures, not courts, that "say" what can and cannot be done. Second, such "requirements" are merely statements by church officials and are beyond the reach of the law. The law deals with acts; if church officials "require" something of a member by physically coercing them to do something, that is illegal. Or if the member, "required" or not, does something illegal ... that's illegal. The exceptions have nothing to do with religions "requiring" people to do things, but rather with religious rituals that are otherwise illegal -- like consuming peyote.
frog,
I don't think this is just blasphemy, which is why I'm worried about it. Blasphemy is protected speech, and I'm all for it.
If you steal a valuable object and desecrate it, that's something more than blasphemy, and it's crossing another line both morally and legally.
For reasons I've given above, I think this is a case of stealing a valued object, even if the object shouldn't have that value. (It's really just a cracker, but people value it much more for crazy reasons.)
Taking things by deception counts as stealing. If you're given something on a certain understanding of what you'll do with it, and know you wouldn't have been given that thing on any other understanding, and you knowingly take it in order to do something else with it, that's a form of theft.
Whether it's a legally binding, enforceable implicit contract is a complicated technical issue, but I'd say it is a form of theft.
To many people, that makes a big difference. It's a bigger deal than plain old blasphemy to people who honestly believe in sacred objects, crackers that are God, etc. And many Catholics do.
Some of those people may just be posturing, and not really believe in the cracker God who gets upset when you steal parts of him. They may just be using this as an excuse to get especially upset about the blasphemy. But I think others are sincerely freaked out by the taking of an object that they believe embodies God, and doing anything with it except What The Priest Says To Do.
The really ridiculous thing is that some of these people really believe the cracker is a helpless piece of God, who puts himself at our mercy in that way, and they think it's been taken against its will. Still, they have a point when they say it's not just blasphemy.
J: Yeah, Frog, I accept that most people I know still hold on to some culturally accepted form of irrational thinking, but it's like suddenly learning your witty and bright neighbors whom you've had in depth conversations with actually believe in the Easter Bunny, and are willing to kill you if they feel you are mocking them or trying to rationally dissuade them from their obviously aberrant beliefs.
There's a bit more to the point than that. Even if they didn't believe in the Easter Bunny, they'd still believe in Easter Bunny-like beliefs. It's not the superstition per-se, it's the underlying ideas about language and meaning that lead to the superstition.
That's not an empirical problem, that's a philosophical problem. They have a derangement of reason itself.
If we only had a time machine and could go back to kill Socrates and his entire school. Heraclitus would have been fine; consider the difference between Buddhist superstitions and Christian/Muslim ones. The latter are a bit less amenable to empirical attack (not that the Buddhist ones don't have their own problems).
PaulW: Some of those people may just be posturing, and not really believe in the cracker God who gets upset when you steal parts of him. They may just be using this as an excuse to get especially upset about the blasphemy. But I think others are sincerely freaked out by the taking of an object that they believe embodies God, and doing anything with it except What The Priest Says To Do.
It's not blasphemy (seriously) to those who don't believe in the magic cracker; it's blasphemy to those who do believe.
What you're arguing is treating blasphemy as a legal concept. If I were to give you a cracker on the understanding that you were to eat it, and you just pocketed it, what legal institution in the world would prosecute you on charges of thievery? At most, the cops would laugh at you, the prosecution attorney would call the mental professionals in, and the courts would charge you a fine for frivolous law suits.
It's because it's blasphemy that this whole rigamarole ensues; it's not the thievery, or the taking on false pretenses, since the secular legal system only prosecutes for the taking of secularly valuable goods.
You want the state (and the rest of us) to respect a religious principle, not a secular principle. You want us to play the role of the inquisition.
"J the Islamophobe" is me, not the J already present in this thread. To save confusion, I'll simply stop posting altogether.
NObody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
When my boyfriend lived with 4 other guys in college, they ordered a case of communion wafers from someplace online to see what they were. He said they tasted pretty bad alone, but were okay with salsa. I guess they had them sitting out to munch on for a couple months until they were all gone.
I'm so proud of him.
I can't believe the amount of concern trolling around here. Paul W. is the only one making even a little sense, but I can't understand why he and others seem to think the church should have, or do have, such wonderfully extensive rights, when they take no effort to outline or enforce their own rules up front. If they want police to help enforce their rules, they need to make sure everbody knows those rules, BEFORE handing out the goodies.
The fact that Catholics are batshit crazy does not give them the right to break laws, period. They conducted a ceremony open to the public, and gave away free crackers without apparent stipulation. Once given, it does not belong to the church, and they have absolutely fucking ZERO rights to it. By touching the young man as he tried to leave, they committed assault. Period. If I was Cook, I not only would not give back the cracker, I would consider legal action against the shitbag crazy fuckers. Even 86'ed drunks in a bar full of bouncers are told to leave before anyone lays hands on them, but I guess that's too much to expect from Christers. The only leg they have to stand on is trespassing, which would only apply if Cook had refused to leave or tries to come back without permission.
If I take a free food sample in the Costco parking lot and give it to my dog, can the demo operator accuse me of stealing, and then waste public resources to have me prosecuted for misusing chicken sausage samples? Hell, no! If a religious nut offers me a tract, and I take it and rip it up, am I stealing or somehow violating someone's rights?
It is up to the church to enforce their house rules until a crime is committed, just like everyone else in the country.
By touching the guy and trying to steal back the wafer, the loonies are the only ones who committed any crime. Too bad none of THEM are risking an ass-kicking, or any consequences at all, by having done so.
Oh, yeah...it's religion. They can commit assault over a cracker and it's no big deal, while Webster Smith can be assaulted, harrassed, and maybe expelled for taking a freely given piece of dough, and he should just shut up and deal with those totally reasonable consequences.
Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ on a stick, what a bunch of crap.
Cyberguy #837 wrote:
It may not be a perfect fit, but I do think Paul W. has a point that the original right or wrong of this matter does seem to rest at least in part on the idea of breaking a commitment. The 'contract law' reference wasn't just to actual business contracts with money and sales. There are all sorts of contractual agreements.
Go back again to my rather silly example of the Pink Mitten Lady and her announcement that she's giving out free pink yarn (!) to anyone who agrees to knit some pink mittens with it.
If someone takes the yarn and then makes it clear to all and sundry (and Pink Mitten Lady) that oh no, they're not going to use it for the purpose she gave it to them for, not at all -- they're going to knit something she hates -- then does the whole value of mittens vs. socks argument really come into it? She wants the yarn back now.
What's fair? I say give the yarn back.
To bring this case into Paul W.'s point in #819, defiantly using the free wool, given in good faith, to make socks instead of mittens doesn't reveal any new information. It's an act of civil disobedience done to display flagrant disrespect. You pretended to be one thing, and turned out to be another, only so you could cause a ruckus and make a lot of people upset and then laugh at them.
Sort of like being an internet troll, in real life.
Bottom line, I still agree with Paul W. While the over-reaction and threats of violence puts a whole new spin on it -- and may make the original incident moot -- at the very least Cook's actions were rude. If the Pink Mitten Lady has a moral right to only give out free pink wool to people who are going to make MITTENS and only mittens with it (and I think she does, poor thing), then I think she then has the right to complain when someone deceives her and breaks the implied happy relationship she anticipated. She can ask for it back, and Sock Guy should give it back.
Paul W. wrote:
I agree. And I also agree that, by throwing conniptions over the "kidnapping" and making big fusses over a frackin' cracker, the Catholic loonies are now playing right into our hands. If Cook was rude, then they're fucking LOONY and DANGEROUS.
And they started out as dotty little Pink Mitten Ladies.
Holy host! That's a hilarious story. I just linked to it from my blog SurvivalMachine.org ...I'm very tempted to go to mass this Sunday for the first time in years, just to swipe one of those cheap, ricey crackers.
I so have to disagree with this. While they don't report out as a business, they pretty much function as one. They provide a service* (a deluded one). They provide emotional comfort, a sense of community, occasionally actually do good, blah blah blah. In exchange, their customers give them ca$h money, because they perceive a value in these services*. They sell, someone buys. They create new customers. Only they don't pay taxes. Just like a well-connected business.
*wince
I know you're tiptoeing through a minefield, but I'm confused how this is "stealing". From the sound of things, Webster is a Catholic. I'd assume that he'd done confession and went up to take communion. The wafer was put in his mouth--it isn't as if he snagged one and ran out the door, nor, if he is in fact Catholic, was it a theft by deception. As other posters have pointed out, it isn't exactly the first time a communion wafer wasn't swallowed while in church. And, again as others have pointed out, it's not as if going out the door is any worse than it's ultimate exit from a human body (if you know what I mean).
Sorry, but there is no right to not be offended. There is no right to have other people respect their beliefs. To quote H.L. Mencken: "Even a supersticious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." (bolding added. Quote courtesy of "The Devil in Dover" by Lauri Lebo) Nor, I would add, do they have the right to send death threats to the person that offended them.
Crimes are prosecuted because someone who commits a crime is a threat to the society.
Hate crimes exist because someone who commits a hate crime is *more* of a threat to society.
Consider - someone murders because the person was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or they disliked the particular person. Or they're just crazy. Will they murder again? Maybe only under similar circumstances?
A person who murders someone because they are x is going to keep finding people who are x. They have shown that anyone who falls into group x, no matter how reasonable or harmless, is going to be in danger from them.
The reason intent matters is because it predicts future behavior - and no, that's not a thoughtcrime. Being prosecuted for thinking "I hate white people" would constitute "thoughtcrime." You can say "I hate white people and not be arrested. Now, if you kill a white guy while yelling "I hate white people!" wouldn't society be justified in thinking you're more likely to kill another one?
And to argue that a serial killer is just as dangerous, you're right. Serial killers are generally sociopaths, so the group they hate is *everybody.* Which is why we would treat one differently from the guy who shot the bank teller while stealing money.
I've thought of an amusing way to desecrate the cracker on video:
Crush it in a mortar and pestle, spit lots of saliva on it, crush it some more, and then dunk it in a solution of hydrochloric acid, about 1-2 pH, with some NaCl and KCl.
Emphasize that this physical and chemical transformation is exactly what the cracker undergoes when being eaten!
Science and sacrilege!
Sacrilicious!
Oh, f*%@ me, I didn't close the italics. Sorry.
I have to thank PZ Myers and this blog for sending so many readers to my blog today.
Some of the comments from this site's guests were so vile and disgusting it was sad to read and a shocking window into an atheist's world. But if I got just one soul today to say I am tired of this life of atheism with no final purpose, it was worth reading all those demonic posts. Just one conversion is all that I am hoping for and I might have you to thank PZ. I will let you know if I here anything. Keep them coming. My sincerest thanks.
I will close with the old joke about an atheist's funeral. "All dressed up and nowhere to go!" I think all will be very surprised on that day, and very remorseful.
God Bless!
Voice in the Crowd
Neil #853 wrote:
No, that's not right. Not just anyone can take Catholic communion. Even Catholics can't all take communion without following a lot of rules and regulations, including, of course, being Catholic. I really don't think Cook was under the impression that the consecrated host was similar to the free samples from Keebler given out to anyone at all in the Cosco parking lot. He had to pretend to be a good Catholic.
If it was food or pamphlets, I'd agree. But that analogy doesn't fit. It was free pink wool IF and ONLY IF you promised to make mittens.
A Voice in the Crowd wrote:
Oh yeah, you're going to convert a far greater number of atheists than this illustration of the mindboggling inanity of religious belief is going to inspire people to deconvert from theirs.
What a smugly vile individual you are. I'd never actually despised a group of people before I met your kind of Christian. (And considering I was raised Catholic, that's really saying something.)
If your morality is at all indicative of that of your god, I look forward to spending an eternity in hell with my sense of ethics, compassion, and mercy intact.
wow, it's like the ultimate concern troll!
But what a wonderfully subversive way to infect an entire community.
A douche bag in the crowd too.
The guy did a shitty thing and they overreacted, quite predictably given their beliefs. Nothing more to it. We don't actually have to hate them for believing their fairy story. Reading some of the comments here makes me much more sympathetic to the godbotherers. Yeah, you've figured out there's no god, but do you have to so fucking *smug* about it?
It was free pink wool IF and ONLY IF you promised to make mittens.
I'm afraid that's an incomplete analogy. This doesn't quite match the depth of inanity involved in the uproar over Cook's public refusal to turn a wafer into a bolus by subterfuge, but it might be something more along these lines: If you fail to make mittens but instead knit socks, goodnight kittens will steal a baby's breath, and it will be all your fault. Won't somebody think of the children? Expulsion and, if possible, imprisonment, are the appropriate remedies if, and only if, the State intervenes on our behalf before we get our pink mittens on the filthy baby-murdering sock-knitter.
Sastra, I saw your little Pink Mitten Lady (moonlighting crazy catlady?) story exactly opposite your intent. Yes, PML can ask for the yarn back, but rude dude has no obligation to do any such thing. PML learns a lesson about RD, but it's not like she demanded mittens in return before giving away the yarn (the yarn that was hers until she gave it away).
Per his/their OWN church's rule book Webster can confess his catechismic violation away, NEXT week, same Bat-time, same Bat-channel. It's not like he blasphemed the holy spirit, that puny pox-ridden hag of putrescent filth, that propagator of the worst inhuman deathporn, hideous profiter, gorging off the barren teat of the millions it abuses, fornicator and seducer of the weakest and most pitiful, slayer of innocent millions.
Additional point WRT church and sacrament. IIRC, excluding OT, isn't the building less important than the act? What if he saved it for a month and ate it out in the Big Wide World? Am I to understand that the Big Man only shows up at certain locations? Or can't witness the eventual outcome? Rather, didn't big sky pappy have to know the shenanigans afoot? If he didn't show up to STOP this horrific violation of his own body, who are these pious and humble christers to stand in judgement of Webster?
If you have a strong stomach, go to A Voice in the Crowd's website - it's as lame as the comments he made here. Hilariously, he has a posting policy: Comments that are not in line with the Roman Catholic Church's Magisterium will not be allowed - which probably explains why the responses are in single digits.
He provides a list of suggestions of how Webster Cook can atone for his misdeeds - without considering that perhaps Cook has decided that maybe (just maybe) he's already wasted enough of his life burdened by antique and ridiculous superstition, and doesn't give a crap what the greater catholic community thinks of him or what he did - i.e. how most of us do feel and how more people should.
Sastra, your analysis relies upon the assumption that the two parties, the giver and receiver, have a full understanding of the "contract". The question is to what extent did the giver convey the conditions of the gift to the reciever. Based upon the testimony of many (ex)catholics, I do not think it would be reasonable to think Cook was under the impression that his taking communion was wholly contingent upon his consumption of it. That it was expected, certainly, but required, no.
A Voice in the Crowd #861 wrote:
I don't think you understand atheism, or why we're atheists.
When you're trying to decide which church to join, you might very well look around to see which one has the nicest people. If the members are kind and helpful -- and if the sacred text is filled with wonderful hopes and inspiring promises, too -- then you might think to yourself "this is where God is."
If the church is filled with bitterness, rancor, and hatred, then you won't want to believe what they believe. You'll pick something else, because God is not there. It's up to you to "choose" what feels right.
But atheists consider all that irrelevant -- the same way you'd consider it nice, but ultimately irrelevant, if the Mormon Church down the street did more good works and had a better attitude and better dinners than your church. At some point, the theology has to come in.
Because it's about what's true. Not what's useful, or helpful, or therapeutic, or comforting, or inspiring, or nice.
Does God exist?
If someone thinks it through carefully and comes to the provisional conclusion that no, it's not likely, then every single commenter on Pharyngula could be spewing disgusting vile and that person will not be even slightly moved to convert to believing in God. They may get sick and tired of other atheists, sure -- but not of atheism itself.
It shouldn't work that way. The integrity is in the process.
Yeah cuz NOT eating a cracker is a shitty thing?
Fuck that. He was protesting money being wasted on religion. He's right. And his protest was a mild one.
Yeah we can be smug because the reaction is fucking goofy and stupid.
Dr. Zen my ass.
"The guy did a shitty thing,..."
Shitty? The guy walked away (or tried to) from the communion rail with a cracker intact in his hand instead of in fragments in his stomach. That's "shitty?"
Get a grip.
Every religion is based on "we're better because God says so" and you're calling atheists smug?
Dr Zen wrote:
Honestly? Because being meek and deferential about it isn't anywhere near as entertaining.
Oops - there shoulda been a /blockquote at the end of that first 'graf in # 878...
Mea culpa, to the max!
YO! Voice In The Crowd,
...AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON! You pious deluded windbag.
Ken Cope #869 wrote:
LOL! I love your more complete analogy -- but it doesn't show that the guy who secretly wanted to knit socks wasn't in the wrong originally; it only shows that the Pink Mitten Lady should have left well enough alone.
True Bob #870 wrote:
Well, if he had to deceive her in order to get the free wool, I think there is a moral obligation involved here. The "lesson" Pink Mitten Lady learns about Rude Dude is that he's not to be trusted. Plus, I guess, maybe why he's called Rude Dude.
D #872 wrote:
True. And I guess I just assumed from both the general Catholic outcry -- and the fact that Cook admitted he did what he did specifically as a protest -- that Cook wasn't just a Catholic who wasn't quite aware of the subtle contractual conditions of the gift. So I don't think that works.
"If God is everywhere, is He in the toilet?"
-Bart Simpson's Guide To Life
"Are you really indignant that an antagonistic act gets the predictable reaction?"
Could death threats and physical assault be considered to be "the predictable reaction"? 'Cause they make me indignant.
"Mea culpa, to the max!"
Gag me with a spoon!
In high school we watched a film called 'The Crucible'. It was all very Salem witch trials and featured a group of young women who covered their behinds by accusing other townfolk of consorting with the devil.
This is the same, but superimposed on the 21st century. We are in the 21st century, right? In a first world nation? Not in the 13th?
I wish they would do a DNA test on the thing and then say, "See... told you it was just a cracker."
If this thread reaches 1000 comments, will the 7th seal burst asunder, heralding the return of Jesus, who is called Christ, the Son of Man, the King of Kings, the Kid on the Cracker?
A Voice in the Crowd,
"I think all will be very surprised on that day, and very remorseful."
Well other people think that you'll have to come back as an ant for not learning anything in this life. Others think that you need to beware the galactic overlord Zenu (or whatever). Think any of us give a fuck what you think? No, not really. Not unless you've got something to back those thoughts up with. If you've got something to do so, post away.
That's kinda a theme around here. Pony up, Jesus boy. Show us why we should believe what you think. We wait with baited breath... just like dozens or hundreds of generations of us skeptics before us.
You want to make some converts? Go for it! What have you got?
That depends on the setup, and how clear the agreement was. Suppose, for example, you told the guest that it was one bottle was a precious drink you'd been saving for a particular toast, and was only to be used for that toast. (Maybe a bottle of rare wine you'd saved since your wedding day, for commemorating your 50th wedding anniversary, or something.)
If they understood that condition and took some of the wine, refused the toast, and chugged the drink and left, I'd say they cheated you out of your precious wine, and that's stealing. It might not be a legally enforceable implicit contract, but if you said "they stole my special wine I was saving for tonight's toast, and just drank it!" you would not be wrong.
Sanctified communion wafers are like that. They are for one purpose and no other, and people who take communion normally understand that condition.
(Even if they don't remember the exact rules, they know that they're not supposed to take the wafer for some "wrong" purposes, and that if you're told to swallow it or give it back, you should.)
I find it hard to believe that anybody thinks you're allowed to do whatever the hell you want with a communion wafer, once the priest hands it to you. Everybody knows that there are some things you're not supposed to do with it---like sticking it down your pants and wiping your ass with it---and one thing you are, namely swallow it with the appropriate kind of appreciative cannibalistic attitude.
Maybe I shouldn't have said "regularly." I was just trying to give a clear example of a situation where I'd expect the law to support my freedom of association and (ir)religious practice against interference by people who are not With The Program.
(But it does seem like some people in this thread want to make the wafer thing more than a one-shot deal.)
As for the "crashing," you're not supposed to take communion if you're not a Catholic, or are in a state of mortal sin, or are not doing it for the right sacred reasons. If you aren't qualified, clean, and willing to do it right, you are not supposed to the communion rail. You are implicitly not invited to the communion party. (Explicitly in the training, though it's not announced at each communion; you're just supposed to know and obey, because you're Catholic.)
Similarly, I think an atheist group has a right to bar theists, and if one or more theist(s) insisted on infiltrating and subverting its principles, that could indeed end up with the police and courts involved.
Maybe, depending on the value of the "free handout" and the conditions attached to handing it out.
If I give somebody a computer on the understanding it that they'll use it to edit our webpage and further the atheist cause, and they take it intending not to do that, but to run a Christian website, that's stealing.
Many people here seem to think that a communion wafer is just a cracker, and no more valuable than the usual kind of freebie, such as doughnut or a pamphlet or a key fob. They also seem to think that you just give the cracker away with no strings.
If there's anything I learned being brainwashed by Catholics for 12 years, it's that Catholics don't agree. (Or aren't supposed to, anyway.) The Host is a magical object you're entrusted with for a sacred purpose. You are not supposed to play with it, or discard it casually, or anything like that.
That's a major reason you're not supposed to take your first communion until you're old enough to understand your obligations, and have undergone communion training so that you do understand them. (First Communion is a special occasion.) The training is supposed to ensure that you know your obligations when you receive the Host, and can discharge your sacred duty. (For example, you're not supposed to take it if you haven't qualified for communion, and if you have a major unconfessed sin on your soul, you either go to confession again before Mass, or don't take communion.)
Catholics wouldn't require people to take communion training like that, and to tell them the things they can and can't do, if they didn't mean to create a relationship of obligation. The Host is not just a gift. It's part of a sacred deal. It is also not just for your benefit, to exploit if you feel like it or just save the cracker as a souvenir. It's also for God's benefit, and you're not supposed to undermine his purpose by failing to fulfill your end of the cannibal bargain.
The Host isn't a just a free cracker or a tract. It's a piece of The Living God---it's more valuable than a computer, and has a more narrowly-defined purpose that entails special obligations.
The fact that it's all nonsense is irrelevant as to whether it will hold up in court, given the First Amendment---what matters is the structure of the nonsense, not its truth or falsity. That structure includes a deal you're not supposed to renege on.
"But if I got just one soul today to say I am tired of this life of atheism with no final purpose, it was worth reading all those demonic posts."
I can't speak for every single person who has read this post or any of the comments, but the regulars here aren't rubes who would fall for your empty talk about "purpose", so don't bother hoping on our account.
Also, your church just freaked out and tormented a guy for not eating their wafer. Not exactly the best advertisement for converts.
Sastra,
It's not like anything passed between them except a few gestures, a sip of wine, and a coaster.
PML is standing on a platform, handing out skeins of pink yarn, to a crowd of passers-by.
PML: Yarn for mittens! Yarn for mittens! Free yarn for mittens!
Enter via queue, various people
Man 1: Thank you.
Woman 1: Thank you.
Man 2: Thanks you.
.
.
.
Rude Dude: Thanks. I'm gonna make socks! Woohoo!
PML: Give me that back!
RD: You gave it to me! It's mine!
PML: POLICE!
fin
Director's cut:
PML: POLICE!
Voices in Crowd, some holding yarn, some not:
"Give it back"
"Yeah, don't be a jerk"
"KILL HIM"
"Put him in prison!"
"prison's not good enough"
RD: "Okay, fine, sorry, here's your yarn back."
Voices:
"Don't you ever come back here"
"That's not good enough!"
fin
Paul W. at #887: regarding your story, if the person shat on my hospitality and abused my fine wine I would think he was an asshole and not invite him back. I might tell other people he was an asshole, but I do not see any other steps I could or should take. I certainly would not threaten to kill him or incite others to do him harm. OK, I might offer to kick his ass, but anger is an issue for me. If he crashes a future party, I will ask him to leave and/or call the cops for trespass, or return to the offer of an ass kicking. Said ass kicking would always be mutually agreed upon.
Cook apparently, and I say apparently because I am not sure, apparently abused the hospitality of the church. They have the right to ask him not to come back and to expel him if he returns, but not by violence. They have no more right to kick his ass than I would above. I really see nothing else here. To some people he may be an asshole, not to others, and to some he is a minor hero, but that is about it. No reason to "punish" him for paying less than strict attention to a religious viewpoint, i.e., that the "host" matters. I consider the whole thing foolish and I would not enter a church if they were serving Lobster Newburg, but that does not matter. He committed no crime, signed no contract, and since there is not such thing as sin, he did not even commit that. He did something many people do not like, and they have the right to complain about his actions and ban his reentry, period, full stop.
Oh, Voice in the Crud, bite me. My ass is consecrated.
Ciao
Paul W, wrote:
The problem with this is that, outside the boundaries of the Catholic church, it isn't.
They want to take the issue from the religious world (where it belongs) to the secular (where it doesn't) - and that's wrong. No-one is saying the Church - local or worldwide - can't take their own, internal action against him. From what I've read he's automatically excommunicated for what he did.
Claiming that anything apart from that should happen to him is ridiculous. Yes, you can argue that he did wrong by the church - but, because of that, the only body entitled to 'justice' is the church itsef, within its own structures.
And if he chooses to ignore that, then they have no right to do anything other than exclude him.
True Bob: I so have to disagree with this. While they don't report out as a business, they pretty much function as one. They provide a service* (a deluded one). They provide emotional comfort, a sense of community, occasionally actually do good, blah blah blah. In exchange, their customers give them ca$h money, because they perceive a value in these services*. They sell, someone buys. They create new customers. Only they don't pay taxes. Just like a well-connected business.
That doesn't make it a business. In practice, it supports a clique of connected brothers; but it's explicit purpose and structure is not to turn a profit, but to "save souls".
Don't confuse function (what it really does in the real world from our point of view) with what it's purpose is. That's like confusing the function of a trait with it's evolutionary "purpose". The human brains function is to make it a sucker for priests --- it's purpose, however, is most likely to kill furry critters.
These kind of pendantic distinctions are important to avoid fitting everything in one box, and then missing important elements of the structures you're looking at.
I think Sastra's interpretation is right. If the Rude Dude agreed to do what the Mitten Lady said---even if only implicitly by taking the yarn---it's at least technically theft (by deception) if he didn't intend to actually do it.
Whether that's legally theft is a different matter. In that trivial example, it may be theft but below the law's radar of what's legally theft. It may not be the crime of theft, not because it isn't theft, but because it's not serious enough for the law to bother to get involved. Or it may not be enforceably a crime, because it's too hard to prove the relevant states of mind beyond reasonable doubt.
The wafer case is at least very arguably different. The Catholics have a good, irrefutable case that the wafer is a very valuable object. (It'd be quite refutable in a rational world, but the Free Exercise clause prohibits the courts from acknowledging that.) They also have a good case, I think, that a Catholic receiving communion communicates an intent and an acceptance of an obligation. That's what Catholic communion is largely about.
They also have an extra argument that within any gray area, the court should come down on their side, because the failure to do so would not just cause random harms---it would systematically increase a barrier to the free exercise of their religion.
That's the biggest point of disanalogy between the wafer case and most of the other cases we've talked about, and I think it works in the Catholics' favor. Religious exercise gets extra weight under the First Amendement, where exercising a preference for pink mittens does not.
I hate to say this being an Atheist myself, but I think the church wins this one because they have diverted everyone's attention from their big issues-pedophile priests, homosexuality, etc.-and replaced them all with a concern for a fucking wafer.
Sorry to interrupt the substantive discussion - just want to say hey to JeffreyD. Haven't seen much of you here the past few days, and was worried. I would leave a comment on your blog, but I always get too emotional. Concerned about you, thinking of you, hoping you're feeling better soon.
PaulW: The fact that it's all nonsense is irrelevant as to whether it will hold up in court, given the First Amendment---what matters is the structure of the nonsense, not its truth or falsity. That structure includes a deal you're not supposed to renege on.
It does matter -- if you want to treat it as a matter of contract, or as a matter of free expression. Free expression is not a tort, but a tort does require "reasonable" understandings and a secular understanding. A court can not "decide" whether you've broken an agreement by being damned to hell or not -- all it can do is look at an agreement, and repair economic damages.
The church has taken no economic damage by this so-called breach --- therefore it has no legal recourse. At most, some Catholic can claim that he needed psychological counseling due to the so-called breach, but that Catholic is a third party to the contract, so he can't sue.
No one was robbed. No contract was broken. The only thing that happened was a desecration with no economic consequence. That's purely a first amendment issue -- all that happened was purely symbolic and non-economic, so the 1st amendment says the state can not take issue with these symbolic actions of either side.
You're argument is much better if you just stick to "Cook was rude by not returning the wafer right away."
Cook's apparent surprise at the reaction indicates to me that he didn't hold the same understand of the "contract".
On a slightly different note, mainly in response to Paul W., while expectations and such might be made explicit, it is quite often the case that they are also made implicitly null. An example would be a dress code a club has, but didn't enforce. Such a situation makes it more difficult to actually say someone violating the code actually is breaking an agreement if it is generally understood that the dress code isn't strictly required.
Frog,
'There's a bit more to the point than that. Even if they didn't believe in the Easter Bunny, they'd still believe in Easter Bunny-like beliefs."
You misunderstand. I accept that most people have religious beliefs and would have regardless of the specific ideology depending on cultural, familial and social pressures and expectations. That we (The US, Canada, much of Europe and Australia) are a huge melting pot that tends to make it difficult for specific religions to maintain strict adherance because they can no longer be isolationists.Yadda yadda. -But I digress...
The point I was making was that it's easy to assume that educated religiously observant people would come to realize that much of the liturgy is purely symbolic. That, in the 21st century, transubstantiation would be accepted with a knowing wink rather than Opus Dei-like zealous repudiation of physics and reality.
Religion is irrational, yes, and many mostly rational people are religious. It's finding out that they are beyond irrationality over aspects of their belief that is contrary to their own secularly held knowledge (math,geology, physics, chemistry, etc. and so called "common sense") that is frightening. Belief beyond commonly held beliefs that can be easily refuted. (I know, I know, those who refuse to see...)
It is obviously my lack of intimate knowledge of Catholic beliefs, even though I know many people who were raised as Catholics. My experience of being raised as Southern Baptist and then indoctrinized into the Charismatic Church is quite different (I am very familiar with Church of Christ, Assembly of God, and Pentacostal teachings...don't ask...) But, the more I know of Catholicism, the more alien and splintered it seems, and I thought they were more sane than the Evangelical Fundies. I realize I'm overgeneralizing a huge group of people but most of the Catholics I've heard weigh in on the subject are not very open minded over the transubstantiation thing.
Adding insult to injury, you do realize that most Evangelical Protestants do not consider Catholics to be Christians.
Many non-catholics will still hate Mr. Cook because he did something sacriligious and perhaps blasphemous, but many will have their fears re-affirmed - that Catholics are more superstitous than Protestants.(hah!) And I will laugh with a little atheistic schaden-freude evertime one of my Protestant friends mentions it to me.
Ooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
shut up.
Jebus what a waste of language that was. I easily can say, I think that concern trolls are worse than almost any kind of troll.
It takes a lot of smug self satisfaction to sound like you are dispensing grandmotherly love while a constant stream of hypocritical sewage spews from your mouth.
SC at #896, thank you for checking on me. Not at my best, have to pass on the Atlanta visit even though only a four hour drive, but will be better I am told.
SC, just sneak onto the blog and make a comment without reading. It is OK. (smile) BTW, much enjoyed your comments and those of many others on the Hitchens Under Torture thread.
Ciao, Bella SC
Owlmirror wins the thread! (and what a thread to win)
Sacrilicious, indeed.
BTW, much enjoyed your comments and those of many others on the Hitchens Under Torture thread.
Thanks. I noticed recently that ss is back at it, posting more nonsense about utilitarianism in medicine and its supposed relevance to torture. I've been avoiding it since I haven't been much in the mood, but I'll have to return there soon to set the boy straight.
Take good care of yourself, JeffreyD. You'll make it through.
This is outragously hilarious! Reminds me of the warning label I saw for Bibles!
http://4ynzvg.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pyZTT63GApn7RzHf8gD_Me7khQYV5IZsu…
I'm an atheist to the bone, but I had a full Catholic education, and I feel that some people here do not really understand what is happening.
I went to Catholic school, took Catechism lessons, and have an intensely religious family. My indoctrination period lasted from the time I could speak, until I attended a non-Catholic (though still Christian) middle-school.
It's hard to explain how ingrained this kind of stuff gets in your brain. I have vivid memories of priests telling us stories in retreats and such about people desecrating hosts, about inner torments of blasphemers, about the evils of masturbation, the unending suffering of hell and purgatory (which no longer exists). When I first started steering into my current state of mind, I had nightmares of Jesus crying and other sorts of crazy crap.
So just so everybody understands, the big deal about the wafer is only after it is consecrated. In birthday parties when I was a kid, they used to give as a treat bags of unconsecrated wafers. Put a bit of salsa and they're pretty damn tasty. Candy stores in Latin countries sell them filled with "Dulce de Leche"-type filling. Buying them doesn't really cause any offense.
The only way to get a consecrated host is to not eat it or to steal it from the sacristy, the only place where it can be kept after it is the "Body of Christ". In most countries outside the US, the wafer is placed directly in the mouth, the only people that can touch it are priests and ministers of communion, and nobody but the priest can touch the inside of the chalice where it is consecrated. It's all pretty weird.
I think that some people here should get acquainted with the customs of different religions before they start slashing at them. Read the Bible, for starters. I would say it's more entertaining than the Iliad and the Odyssey, and it is really interesting to understand what people take to be the "Word of God". Regardless of how inhumane, insane, and irrational the book is, it can be pretty compelling at times (except for Chronicles 1 and 2, they suck, no question). The Pentateuch books are quite a piece of work, and by far the most fascinating.
Anyways, I just came back from a trip to Jerusalem, and I'll say this: do not place your bets on people turning away from religion or become rational any time soon. I'm considering giving up on trying to make people see how crazy they are. It doesn't seem to work unless they have already made a jump on their own in the right direction.
What do you get when you cross a communion wafer with a hippo?
A two ton savior that sticks to the roof of your mouth.
No Offense Monkey Tuesday but I'm betting most of the atheists who post here have read the bible. That isn't really the best thing to do if you want to respect the religion. understand it maybe, respect it... no.
Monkey Tuesday,
I think you'll find that most of the posters here are aware of what the host is (if they weren't before they should be now), and what the act means to Catholics.
My problem is that the church wants to take the issue outside its own boundaries, which it has no right at all to do. He did wrong by the church; the church, then, may do whatever it likes to him - as long as what's done is within the church itself: excommunication, banning him from bingo night, claiming he's the antichrist, whatever. They shouldn't expect outside support for anything other than that.
As for the bible, well, I've read bits and pieces and honestly don't want to spend any more of my time on it. Not when there are far more interesting things to read.
"Read the Bible, for starters"
Better yet, I went to the Seminary. Didn't stay too long though. I'll even bet I've read the Bible many more times than you, Monkey boy.
I think that some people here should get acquainted with the customs of different religions before they start slashing at them. Read the Bible, for starters. I would say it's more entertaining than the Iliad and the Odyssey, and it is really interesting to understand what people take to be the "Word of God".
The "Word of God" generally turns out to be fairly stultifyingly mundane.
So, What makes you think you're the only apostate on this blog? The atheists who post here who never had religious beliefs inculcated by their parents are far outnumbered by the atheists who did. The fastest way to reject religion is to actually examine it, which is why in any dispute about religious beliefs and practices between a theist and an atheist, betting on the atheist is like betting on the house.
Paul.W,
Nope.
If you've given away the computer, then the best you can do is ask politely and hope that's what they do. The recipient is under no obligation to act on your expectations.
Your example isn't quite comparable though -- as stated, you're offering a valuable good in exchange for work done, so there's effectively a verbal contract to that effect; in which case the recipient could possibly be legally compelled to either run your website or return the PC.
However, I very much doubt they could be prevented from also running a Christian website at the same time (despite your objections).
A more comparable example would be the CueCat. This was a barcode scanner intended to scan codes out of magazine ads and take you to websites (and collect demographic data). In some cases they were given away, or even sent unsolicited to users. Most people didn't use their service, but instead found they could easily be altered for use as generic scanners (for CD library software etc). The company wasn't happy with this and tried to stop "unauthorized use", but they didn't have a leg to stand on -- they'd given the scanners away.
If you want to give something away and also compel certain behaviour, you'd better have a binding contract in place beforehand.
You maybe cover it in some pedophile priest "love juice" and see if that transubstantiates.
On the other hand, perhaps it's time for this story...
Some years after the altar boy gig, when I was already an atheist (and not quite "out", but no longer going to church), we had a power outage at my house. So, my sister dug up some candles, and gave me one. It turned out to be a votive candle. When my rabidly Catholic father discovered this, he went insane with rage, demanding I blow out the candle and bring it back to him now, now, NOW! He was always a hothead, but he was never quite so irrational as in that moment.
Correction: That should read "Or maybe" not "You maybe"
Monkey Tuesday,
Ken Cope wrote:
As the latter - a 'lifelong' atheist and not a deconvert - I can attest that this is true. While I consider my own biblical knowledge (mostly gained while attending, but not ever subscribing to, the teachings of the light-weight church attended by my mother) to be negligble, it's still better than that of many Christians I encounter - but it's a tiny drop in the well compared to the oceans of knowledge posessed by some of the posters here. I wish I knew half as much about anything as these guys know about the religion they don't subscribe to.
People come here making bold claims about knowing more about scripture than anyone here. They often go away very embarrassed.
Never pass up a chance to piss off an idiot.
If I have learned one thing from this thread then its this :
Im soooo going to be in Sydney for World Youth Day and get me some of them catholic ladies,all brought up in the tradition that its a sin not to swallow,YAY !!!!!
@ Wowbagger,No 892 :
Very fine point Sir,that is exactly what is wrong with Paul Ws and some of the earlier poster's line of argumentation,its about the attempt to apply their bronze age superstitions,that they have a right to hang on to,by all means,but that belong behind the walls of their churches, to the secular world and use them to cause this student grief now.
@ Paul Lundgren,about 2000 posts up :
I think how you get to your conclusion that PZ should not do mischief with jeebus crackers is not very convincing,you do have a point tho,and I feel similarly about it,in that it would only incense and give cheap ammunition to religulous simpletons and your average bigot out there.
I am really curious what the priests did with the cracker when they got it back. Can you reverse the transubwhatever process? Like, say the Latin backwards over it or something?
Here's what I am wondering. How is eating the body of Jesus less of a desecration than putting it in a protective plastic bag?
It is well known that Jebons have a time-reversal symmetry. Jack Chick proved it.
Monkey Tuesday,
The meaning of transubstantiation has been already established many times already.
I know most of you know the Vatican Rag video from youtube, but there's a better version (mp3 embedded in site check your volume before going there):
2, 4, 6, 8, time to transubstantiate!
PZ, I just thought of a great scam moneymaker for you. I know of a company in Minnesota that does custom blending/packaging of dry product foods of various sorts. Take your consecrated wafer, put it in a blender with a liter of water, serial dilute 100:1 about five times, and get them to blend it up in 10,000 pounds of pancake mix with 10 ml of the Jesus dilution in it. Package in 5 lb bags. Homeopathic Jesus Pancake Mix! A great gift for atheists or True Believers! It really is Jesus! Or not, depending on your belief system.
Of course, your belief system only has bearing on whether you believe or don't believe it is Jesus. Whether it is or isn't Jesus is a separate issue.
I haven't read thru all of the 921 comments so maybe somebody has already mentioned this. Today's Jesus and Mo cartoon talks about the stolen wafer.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/07/09/wafer/
it would only incense and give cheap ammunition to religulous simpletons and your average bigot out there.
What doesn't? This is just another form of the "appeaser" argument.
If you steal a valuable object and desecrate it, that's something more than blasphemy, and it's crossing another line both morally and legally.
Every time you refer to theft, you demonstrate that you're a blithering idiot. Not swallowing a wafer is not theft, legally or by your incredibly tortured moral reasoning that universalizes the Catholic Church's moral judgments.
"If a single person abuses one of the free handouts from your atheist meeting, is that a legal matter?"
Maybe, depending on the value of the "free handout" and the conditions attached to handing it out.
And here you demonstrate both that you are a blithering idiot and that you're intellectually dishonest beyond redemption. The only legal violation would be unpermitted copying. There were no scare quotes in what you quoted, and adding them is a chickenshit move. You had a choice between honest consideration of the point put to you or poisoning your well of credibility, and you chose the latter.
But I think others are sincerely freaked out by the taking of an object that they believe embodies God, and doing anything with it except What The Priest Says To Do.
That's their problem. There is no moral obligation to refrain from behavior just because some idiots freak out over it.
truth machine,
900 odd posts of mostly ridicule ,headshakes and laughter,which is what we should be doing in the face of this farce,we're doing ok,not too much appeasing going on dont you reckon? And Im all for it,and have spoken out against Paul Ws and others' line of argumentation !
Want to call anyone an appeaser,try them.
Then again,I dont really care lol
Truth Machine wrote:
True. If we were to forgo every single thing that someone considers sinful, evil or wrong then we'd be left with very little to do - or eat, for that matter. I for one like swearing, drinking, caffeine, gambling (well, the option to do it if i want), pork products, other meat (on any day including Friday, labour on the Sabbath (whichever day that may be), birthday presents, books that aren't religious in nature, and women having the freedom to do everything men are allowed to do - and to have abortions if they choose to.
Anyone who doesn't like it can cram it in their ideology-hole.
Well, if he had to deceive her in order to get the free wool
You people just make things up to fit your arguments. Cook didn't deceive anyone to get the wafer; They handed him the wafer and he intended to consume it -- so the deception is yours. And any violation of a contract or commitment on his part was a response to a much greater violation by the other side; he had no moral obligation to maintain a commitment made to a criminally abusive other party. The deception came only after he was assaulted, in order to avoid further assault:
I imagine you read that account at some point, but apparently ignored the details and simply went with an impression and built an argument from that. Failing to go back and check the facts in order to validate that one's argument is sound is a far greater moral lapse than anything that Webster Cook did. And continuing to fret about his supposed moral lapse, about as minimal a lapse as one can imagine, and repeatedly insulting him based on fabrications about his behavior, is the worst sort of concern trolling.
Fucking hilarious. I was going to say, as I read this whole fucking thread, that this idea of desecrating the wafer was silly shit that would ultimately play into their hands. I still hold that belief. But HomeoJesus is a new phenomenon entirely. Do it
I wish they would do a DNA test on the thing and then say, "See... told you it was just a cracker."
Speaking of DNA, you've got to love this bit of revelatory ignorance from the "wafer gushing blood" story:
I find it hard to believe that anybody thinks you're allowed to do whatever the hell you want with a communion wafer, once the priest hands it to you.
Because you're a blithering idiot with a brain rotted by authoritarianism, you can't understand the difference between doing something that's not "allowed" by the Catholic Church and doing something wrong.
Everybody knows that there are some things you're not supposed to do with it
"Not supposed to" is authoritarian brain rot talk. Real morality isn't a matter of obeying institutional rules.
But not only didn't Cook do anything that's morally wrong in the eyes of other than the Catholic Church and concern trolls, he didn't even violate the rules of the Catholic Church until after he was assaulted by two different members of that church. People who say that was "a shitty thing for him to do" are shitty people.
"Read the Bible, for starters"
Why the Bible? Try the Bhagavad Gita or the Ramayana & the Mahabarata. Trust me, the last two are far more interesting fictional stories.
While you're at it, check out the Sikh's Guru Granth Sahib or the Tattvartha Sutra of the Jains.
That way, you'll "understand" and "appreciate" the sensitivities of the people who don't eat sacred cows, or don't cut their sacred hair, or don't kill sacred insects.
When something is obviously silly or stupid, you don't need to read the various scriptures and get acquainted with religions to realize how stupid those actions are.
desecrating the wafer was silly shit
"desecrating"? What sort of atheists are these people? The fact is that this guy carefully protected the wafer and eventually returned it to the church. No, these fools are simply making up "silly shit" in place of what actually happened.
Does the Jesus-cracker cease to be Jesus upon excretion? If not, then the world in slowly being transformed into Jesus. There are 2 Billion Christians. Let's say that, on average, each consumes one 10 gram wafer weekly (this is a rough calculation).
2 billion wafers/week*52weeks/year*10g/wafer = 1.04 billion kg/year
Assuming Jesus himself had a mass of 60 kg, this means that 17.3 million Jesii are produced annually.
That's a lot of Jesus.
Similarly, I think an atheist group has a right to bar theists, and if one or more theist(s) insisted on infiltrating and subverting its principles, that could indeed end up with the police and courts involved.
As an officer of "an atheist group", I can assure you that you are full of shit, as well as being a stupid fascist.
Brad wrote in comment#921:
"Package in 5 lb bags. Homeopathic Jesus Pancake Mix!"
'I can't believe it tastes like Jesus!'
Oh, hang on a minute. It's homeopathic Jesus pancake mix.
Mabe we should change the slogan to "Where's the Jesus?"
frog@897,
I'm not sure I understand that paragraph; could you unpack it a little?
My impression has been that if there's just blasphemy going on, that's protected speech and there's no grounds for anything---you can be as offensive as you want---but if there's damage to an object and/or obstruction of religious exercise, different principles kick in and that opens the gate to subjective valuations mattering a lot.
My impression is that if any property is at stake, that changes your culpability and your liability for what the victim considers the value of an object.
So for example, suppose some guy has a cheap watch with great sentimental value to him. If you insult his watch and that causes him grievous distress, because it's his beloved watch given to him by his late father, you're in the clear. No matter how much he suffers, your right to free speech lets you insult his watch as viciously as you like.
And on the other hand, if he has a cheap watch that he also regards as "just a cheap watch," and you destroy it, that's just a minor property offense.
But if he loves the watch, and you know that, and your destroying it causes him grievous suffering, that's a whole different ballgame. (Or so I've thought.) When you cross the line of destroying his property, all the sudden his subjective valuation matters a whole lot to the severity of the offense. The offense is aggravated by your malice or inconsideration, and you can get slapped with extra damages for emotional distress.
Is that incorrect?
And if so, what are the principles for dealing with something like, say, maliciously stealing and destroying a menorah from a synagogue? Is that just petty theft if the market value of that physical kind of menorah is small? Is it only a big deal legally if there's a special desecration or hate crimes law? (Is spraypainting a swastika on a synagogue just equivalent to putting a gang tag on a school, in the absence of a special law?)
truth machine, I wasn't being dishonest, just maybe dense. I was thinking handouts generally, including tchotchkes and munchies, not just photocopy "handouts."
Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe I'm a blithering idiot, but I'm not dishonest, and I'm certainly not worth your time.
As a fallen catholic I have two stories of sacrilegious behavior involving communion. What most non-catholics don't know is that the hosts are dry and rather dense. If you don't chew it properly it will become glued to the roof of your mouth. Not long after my first communion I discovered this and actually had to scrape it off the roof of my mouth with my finger. Unfortunately the spit soaked host came apart in pieces, most of which fell on my shirt and were then quickly brushed off and hid under the pew.
The second story isn't just sacrilegious but also involves the first time I got drunk. As an altar boy I was cleaning up after mass and putting away the various arcane implements we used at that time. Another of the altar boys dared me to down the bottle of wine. I didn't quite polish off the bottle but did manage to drink more than a 10 year old really should be drinking. Unfortunately I had to attend an hour of CCD after that.
Strangely enough after stealing Yahweh's wine and dropping crumbs of his son on the floor I wasn't struck by lightning.
Okay, so what do I need to do? I'd be happy to obtain a cracker from a Catholic church. Do I have to prove that I'm a Catholic to get one when I go in? Is there a secret handshake? Perhaps there's a Catholic ID I am not aware of? If it's so very important, do they still allow even a heathen like a Baptist to have one?
truth machine@928
You know what, you're partly right. You're right that I didn't get the details of the story right, and they do matter with respect to Webster Cook per se.
Thanks for pointing that out, and my apologies to Webster Cook for misusing him as an example.
I was maybe misled by reading the comments more than carefully re-reading the article. I was responding mostly to what people were saying about going and getting communion wafers, and running that together in my mind with what Webster Cook did. I was evidently not the only one who fell into that trap, but you're right, and mea culpa.
On the other hand, fuck off, TM.
My lapse was not the kind of dishonesty or concern trolling you make it out to be. (As you often do with anyone impertinent enough to disagree with you.)
You probably don't care, but I'd pay more attention to what you write if you weren't such a vicious prick.
Fundie chemists believe in cis-trans-substantiation.
Paul W,
i disagree with you on the issue at hand,but your posts were all articulate,well thought out,polite and eloquently written,more than any of mine will ever be(even if English is technically my 3rd language lol),and truth machine,even if more often right than wrong,like Holbach,just blow it too often by being rude inconsiderate rottweilers.
TM:
Nah. I'm not talking about any serious deep moral authority that the Catholic Church has---in my eyes, it has way less than zero, on lots of counts.
I do think it usually makes sense to abide by certain middle-level moral norms, like "their house, their rules," if only pragmatically because we want the same treatment.
We could have a pleasant discussion of basic moral theory, derived principles, and when it's justified to violate a derived norm, and all that... but really, I don't think you're interested, and maybe not capable of a pleasant discussion. You'd rather just assume I can't separate those things out, call me a "blithering idiot with a brain rotted by authoritarianism," and things like that. Fuck it.
As a co-founder and sometime officer of an atheist group, I can assure you that you're full of shit.
I suspect that I sounded a bit more paranoid than I actually am, so maybe it's partly my fault, but jumping to the conclusion that I'm a "stupid fascist" marks you as a flaming asshole.
Just wanted to throw in this (probably sacrilegous) little comment I made on a recent thread at Digital Cuttlefish about a Bulgarian monastery called Rila:
The monks have gone modern at Rila
And explain their renewal of zeal: "Ah,
We consume the Divine
Not as wafers and wine
But as nachos, washed down with tequila."
TM,
Back to your old bad habits I see. Even vigorous disagreement (see the Mensa thread for one between Paul W. and me) is much better expressed without resort to totally unfounded accusations of stupidity, lying, fascism, etc. Save those for the stupid, lying fascists - there's enough of them about!
One time in my younger days, me and my mates flogged a packet of crackers from church and had them with a couple of flagons of beer and cider. Shit, the whole lot was heavenly but it was probably the booze rather than the crackers.
I had my first shag as a 14 year old on the back pew of a church at around 9.30 on a Sunday evening. I had used a bit of trickery to make a rear door to the church seem like it was closed, moved in on this young lady at the Bible Class dance in the hall next door before slipping her thru into the church and whooopeee!!!!!!! I still remember now (42 years later). It was like 1000 blackbirds fluttering out of my bum!
Won't I go to heaven? Well it was a fun shag anyway!
Paul W., TM may be flaming asshole and a vicious prick (I have my own views), but you have still acted as an apologist for the catholic church on this thread. I will take the flames over the apology. Outside of the confines of the church it is just a cracker, and not much of one at that. I see no reason to pay any attention to their superstitions outside of their house and I do not plan on entering it.
When I first started reading this thread, before I read all the details, I thought it was a stunt in bad taste by Cook. However, all of the apologies and special pleading for the church by a variety of posters, plus reading actually what happened, has killed that off in me. This is a tempest in a tea pot, a fart in a hurricane. I would tell the church to bite me, but afraid a priest might actually show up to try it.
While my style is not his, I see nothing in TM's comments to you that bother me Paul. Glad to see you fight back, btw.
Pax Nabisco
truth machine wrote: Given the quality of it, perhaps you should just stop thinking.
I am one-of-these-days-definitely gonna steal that.
Paul Young wrote of his first "shag:" It was like 1000 blackbirds fluttering out of my bum!
I believe it was Mika Hakkinen who, when told of another Formula 1 driver who'd rhapsodized that taking a certain curve flat out was akin to orgasm, said he was probably shitting himself in terror and confusing the feelings. Paul, it ain't out your bum those birds are supposed to be fluttering.
What is the difference between what this kid did and, say, vandals desecrating a cemetery? The point of both acts is to denigrate a religion, and both acts are basically victimless. The kid seems like an attention-seeking asshole to me, not a brave standard bearer for atheism.
Late to the party, as usual, but I had to get this off my chest:
A hate crime is different from an ordinary crime in that, without the targeted class, the crime would not have occurred.
That, to my understanding, is the difference.
If you say, "I am going to find and kill the person who slept with my husband" then that is not a hate crime. You are targeting a particular person, and if you don't find him or her, there would be no murder.
If you say, "I am going to find and kill a faggot" then that is a hate crime. The action is to attack a person primarily because of his (perceived) membership of a particular group: because he is gay. The motivation is to express hatred of, and to oppress, in this case, gay men. (It could be gay women, it could be transpeople, it could be white people, it could be black people, it could be Catholics, and on and on, but I am gay and the struck dog yelps...) If you don't find someone you perceive to be gay, then no crime would occur. Note the importance of perception: straight men have been beaten to death in the street because their attackers thought they were gay.
It is most emphatically not a "thought crime." It is, as has been pointed out, an act of terrorism. The intent is not revenge or personal gain. The intent is to terrorize a particular segment of the community.
And, of course, it does not have to be murder. It can be assault, it can be vandalism, it can be any action that causes the targeted class of people to feel less safe -- that intends to make them keep their lives small. To tell them that they are "less."
So, yes, to the extent that rape is a tool of oppression, then it can be a hate crime. A brutal idiot who thinks "no" means "yes" has probably not committed a hate crime. A heinous crime, but not a hate crime.
And yes, if you kill a rich person because he or she is rich (as some form of class warfare or something), then yes, that is a hate crime. Again, no rich person, no crime. Similar crimes motivated primarily by greed or despiration might be heinous, but might not be hate.
(If you are killing random people -- black, white, men, women -- then you are probably just a crazy motherfucker. Or evil, maybe...)
JH,No 951 :
At this point in time,950 posts into the thread with all the arguments exchanged,if you come here and spout nonsense that was refuted 2 days ago,which you could have known if only you bothered to read,all I can say to you is fuck off !
truth machine #928 wrote:
I'd already read the story, and don't think this reasoning quite works. At bare minimum, Cook took the wafer in the first place intending to bring it back to his seat to show it to his friend, even though he knew that he was supposed to consume it quickly -- and nothing which happened changed that. The abusive behavior only made him put the wafer briefly in his mouth, instead of keeping it palmed in his hand (presumably.) Since later interviews have him claiming that taking the 'host' was an act of protest against the university giving money to the Church, it seems reasonable to assume that Cook never intended to eat the cracker at all. He wasn't about to anyway, but then changed his mind only because the woman grabbed him.
I haven't really been getting into the legal question of theft or damages so much as asking the more basic question on whether his initial, first act was "the right thing to do." The Pink Mitten Lady analogy was my attempt to get away from the emotional baggage involved with attributing magic to crackers or desecrating the sacred or the Church being an abusive bully and just isolate for a moment a few critical factors.
"You may have X only if you will do Y with it." "I'll take it." "Here you go." "Now that I have X, I will not do what you reasonably expected me to do."
That's a moral lapse, as you yourself admit. Even if it's "as minimal a lapse as one can imagine." Which I can pretty much go along with, too. Though knitted socks instead of mittens shows I can imagine some damn fine stupid minimal lapses, if I put my mind to it.
But I'm not really continuing to fret -- I was asking myself a hypothetical question. If someone says "I am going to pretend to take communion, and then take the wafer home instead" should I approve? Should I suggest it? Should I do it myself? (Not would I secretly approve in my heart of hearts or think it's funny, but what's right in this situation?)
The answer is no. I really shouldn't. They give you something in good faith on the assumption you'll do one thing -- and you accept it knowing you're going to break their trust -- that's not right. Technically. Start out honest.
So, if they're going to scream, piss, and moan about it, they at least begin with a kernel of a case. I have to admit that. It's a rather lame, insipid, piddling complaint, but I can see the point. It's a pimple on their head, but they have one.
Cook going up to take communion with a 'plan' in his head to not really take communion was deceptive, and, under the circumstances, a bit rude. If he'd asked me beforehand, I would have reluctantly said don't.
BUT -- given the subsequent actions of the Catholics -- from the Church Lady's strongarm tactics to their overblown hysteria and call for criminal penalties, expulsion, execution, and whatnot -- I can now add on my most sincere and hearty "big fuckin' deal -- it's a goddam frackin' CRACKER you abusive reactionary superstitious loonies."
And, if anything, I'm now rather GLAD he did it. And actually less bothered if other people do it in reaction, frankly, because the issue has been blown out of proportion, and is no longer about the little 'mutual agreement between consenting parties' thing. At this point it's turned into a public argument over desecration of the sacred, and I think that, as a general principle, the sacred should be desecrated every now and again.
Dead cats heaved into sanctuaries remind us that the gods have no real powers. We should all stop kidding ourselves. If you think a cracker has been "kidnapped," we don't have to respect that and play along.
Without reading through all of these (the ones I have had were good), unless you've tried them, I doubt you'd want to eat one. These "Hosts" always tasted to me like recycled cardboard. Flat, sort of acrid, usually wanted to make me throw up (maybe it sensed my future atheism?). I doubt anything could make them tasteful.
Of course, that may have just been that manufacturer, and now (30 or so years later) they taste better, or maybe that Transubstantiation made them go from exsquisite morsels to tasteless dregs. Who can say? ;)
//Dead cats heaved into sanctuaries remind us that the gods have no real powers. We should all stop kidding ourselves. If you think a cracker has been "kidnapped," we don't have to respect that and play along.//
And that pretty much sums it up and concluds the thread,well done Sastra !
Now we have to somehow get to 1000 posts by talking Cricket,or the best movie of the 21st century so far,"Across The Universe".
Owlmirror (#859) - after all that, throw it in the toilet, shit and piss on it, then flush. After all, that is where it ends up, and the company that it departs with...
Damn - I saw the error after I posted - I meant exquisite.
You're ALL going to BURN IN HELL!!!!!!
Have fun...
I'll bring the bratwürst and beer!
USEmpire, you may have made me laugh this morning, but you are rather late to this party.
USEmpire,
I will,thank you !
You might want to familiarize yourself with Pascal's wager,which is kinda cool if you win,but rather sucks if you lose.....
Disrespect for anyones beliefs religious or not is hurtful rude and an afront to all humanity. And most of these comments show how low we as humans can go. It is truely a reflection of how little compasion the human race is capable of . This might be the signs of beginning of a breakdown of civilization. Not the eating of the Hoast, but the behavior of people who think the disrespect of others beliefs no matter how rediculious they might seem to us is funny.Try understanding other people and their cultures there might be less violence and real hate crimes.The reaction of the university and the Catholic community was wrong and equally bad as the act of disrespect, but paying tribute to either offense is WRONG. People Stop, this this is how we get more Hitlers and Jack the rippers treat other and their beleifs with the reverence and ....dare I say it love... you would hope to be shown to you and your own. I've been to many different lands and cultures and been treated well and this beahaior reflects so poorly on ours no wonder we are in Iraq and other places imposing " our ideals" D.K.B.
clinteas, 953
Please point me to the comment where my "nonsense was refuted." I can't seem to find it. Thanks for your tolerance.
D.K.Brooks,
I promise I wont ever desecrate any Hoasts mate,and I would never call this whole thing rediculious,even if i felt it was...
This must be the time of the day that they let the insane out for a round in the park or something in the US.
Siding with Cook, in the bigger picture, leads to Hitler, Jack the Ripper, and the invasion of Iraq? Egads! I take it all back!
Well, at least we didn't behead anybody.
Have you ever been out of your house? Watched the news? Read a newspaper?
For gods' sakes, grow up.
clinteas wrote:
"You might want to familiarize yourself with Pascal's wager,which is kinda cool if you win,but rather sucks if you lose....."
I AM quite familiar with Pascals' Wager, and have had many statistical analysis courses...hence my betting on NOT pissing off Yahweh, and burning in hell like the rest of these intolerant heathens!
JH,
if you want to be taken seriously I would expect you to read through the comments here,this has been a long thread,and your arguments have been at length debated and refuted by minds brighter than mine days ago......The wheel will not be reinvented for you here,if you care to check out whats been said before,I'll gladly debate you.
USEmpire,No 967 :
//.hence my betting on NOT pissing off Yahweh//
You know,im told Zeus,Thor and the FSM,to name a few, are not impressed with being ignored like this mate....
And I hate to have to go to bed with 30 to go to 1000 posts,grrrr...
Another concern troll heard from.
Hitler wasn't having people killed because of their beliefs, he was doing it because of who their grandparents were. According to the Nuremberg Laws, anyone with one Jewish grandparent was a Jew. Likewise homosexuals and Gypsies were sent to the camps because of who they were.
While we know little about Jack the Ripper's motivations, I doubt he was killing prostitutes because of their beliefs, religious or otherwise.
I'm also fairly well traveled. I've had Indian Hindus tell me about how deluded Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Christians were because of their beliefs. Same thing with Saudi and Indonesian Muslims, only substituting Hindu for Muslim. In fact, the most intolerant people I've ever come across were religionists denouncing other religionists and atheists.
If you think the people here are being intolerant, check out Jack Chick or Fred Phelps. They could qualify for PhDs in intolerance.
I have missed 5 or 6 hundred posts on this thread, but I seem to recall that the original title was IT'S A GOD DAMNED CRACKER. It is now IT'S A FRACKIN' CRACKER.
PZ - did you cave, or have you crackered under the pressure of Don the Wildman?
#963: "Disrespect for anyones beliefs religious or not is hurtful rude and an afront to all humanity."
Since the 9/11 religious terrorist attacks, and recent religious attacks against science education, the time for respecting religious beliefs is over with. Constant ridicule of bible thumping morons is the only possible way to rid the world of religious insanity.
Wow, USEmpire, you sure are brave, pissing off Thor, Zeus, Loki, Quetzalcoatl, Hades, Hel, etc etc etc.
PaulW: So for example, suppose some guy has a cheap watch with great sentimental value to him. If you insult his watch and that causes him grievous distress, because it's his beloved watch given to him by his late father, you're in the clear. No matter how much he suffers, your right to free speech lets you insult his watch as viciously as you like.
And on the other hand, if he has a cheap watch that he also regards as "just a cheap watch," and you destroy it, that's just a minor property offense.
But if he loves the watch, and you know that, and your destroying it causes him grievous suffering, that's a whole different ballgame. (Or so I've thought.) When you cross the line of destroying his property, all the sudden his subjective valuation matters a whole lot to the severity of the offense. The offense is aggravated by your malice or inconsideration, and you can get slapped with extra damages for emotional distress.
Is that incorrect?
And if so, what are the principles for dealing with something like, say, maliciously stealing and destroying a menorah from a synagogue? Is that just petty theft if the market value of that physical kind of menorah is small? Is it only a big deal legally if there's a special desecration or hate crimes law? (Is spraypainting a swastika on a synagogue just equivalent to putting a gang tag on a school, in the absence of a special law?)
Chah-ching! We have a winner!
Seriously, YES. Emotional distress isn't awarded just for your putative emotional distress (as far as I understand it). It has to be "objective" emotional distress -- i.e., I went to the doctor and spent $1k on medication, then had to go to the psychiatrist. It's not the subjective valuation that the court uses; it's the objective results of that subjective valuation, including the objective evaluation of experts in the field.
It has to be "reasonable", whatever the hell that means. No judge would find your mental distress over a cheap watch "reasonably" causes you massive mental distress, regardless of your attachment to it because fairies put magical powder on it.
So, it follows that in the absence of a law regarding hate crimes, etc, the destruction is a petty crime, if the menorahs is of low market value; that was how it was treated decades ago, and a major impetus behind the creation of hate crimes --- the cops really couldn't do anything (in the US) about a swasticka on a synagogue, as the punishment for petty vandalism was minimal.
The US court system (particularly civil) is built on protecting economic interests, and using that as the standard for action and remuneration. You would have to declare desecration to be an economic act, and thereby grant special status to religious beliefs relative to unbeliefs to treat cracker-theft seriously (since no one is trying to claim, yet, that Cook was attempting to "terrorize" the CC).
Splatador:
The Bible says this? I've never heard this one before, because that would be a stake through the heart of Biblical infallibility.
That's a joke, right? RIGHT?
Benjamin Franklin,
PZ explained a few thousand posts up that the seed overlords and other seed bloggers were unhappy with the headline of the post showing up in their bar thingy,so he changed it....
I imagine the Seed overlords are getting ancy about the number of comments in the thread too.
Sorry, that should be "getting antsy".
I call Poe on this hilarious dollop of inanity, while praising its construction, for is not completely lacking in subtlety.
Wow, it took 963 posts before this thread got Godwinned.
"Smells like a dead cat in here!"
As a matter of clarification regarding the title change, it wasn't the overlords who were complaining, it was me. Sorry, I just get touchy sometimes. I also think the new title's an improvement.
If only someone in the church was packing heat. That terrorist Webster Cook would never have known what hit him.
980+ posts about a purloined wafer? Really?
I stopped eating those things when my parents could no longer make me do it. Have you ever wondered if priests have ever blessed communion wafers with their holy ejaculate? Two priests, 1 chalice?
I would think "It's a Bloody Cracker!" would have been more appropriately amusing.
religion of for saps and suckers.
there is no heaven, there is no hell.
deal with it.
"By filming under false pretenses... they've undercut their own credibility"
If this is true, then obtaining a consecrated communion wafer under flase pretenses would equally undercut your own credibility.
I thought it's only bloody when it gets stabbed by evil Jews.
Oh this is how we get Hitlers and Jack the Rippers?is it? Interesting. What a wonderful well supported logical point you've made.
While I agree that the student in question stepped over the line of common decency, the reaction from the Catholics is far beyond responding in measure. If people hold silly beliefs they shouldn't be surprised when people point and laugh.
Myers, to a very large extent I agree with you.
But, would you be willing to rag on Islam
the same way you're ragging on Catholics?
I doubt it. You likely don't have the balls
for that type confrontations.
You're new here huh?
Charles. You're new here aren't you.
He has MANY times.
In my opinion, I am in my right mind, but I respect your right to disagree. ;)
But seriously, I don't see that there is an inconsistency between respecting a person, and their right to believe anything they want (however irrational it seems to me, and with the provision that they don't try to in any way force me to accept the "truth" of that belief, or order my life according to its precepts), and the disrespect for the pointing-and-giggling-worthy belief itself.
I suppose I see this as being similar to the way many people are iron-clad in opposition to a political party or candidate based solely on one political position on one issue, and regardless of how praiseworthy that party or candidate's positions on other issues may be. (Flashback to a recent thread arguing whether voting for the lesser of available evils, is more moral and ethical than abstaining from choice.)
I guess I would go so far as to admit that I don't find all people equally worthy of respect; that depends on their words and actions as a whole. Mere religiosity is not, IMO, a make-or-break factor in deciding whether to respect, or withhold respect from, a person.
Instead of stale crackers and cheap wine, the catholic church should use parma ham & pig's blood.
That'll inject some realism.
If the Prof is really brave, he would do to Mecca and desecrate a Muslim shrine. Nah, I didn't think so.
frog@974,
Thanks for disabusing me clearly on that, and so civilly, too.
Right, Dave S, because he promised to go to the Vatican and drop a log in St Peter's apse.
/sarcasm
The murder of Matthew Shephard does not qualify as a "hate crime" because his murders were just thugs who stole his money and had no idea he was gay. He just got drunk at the wrong place at the wrong time.
As far as desecration of the Holy Eucharist goes by secularists, I as a Catholic find it horrifyingly objectively wrong, but they aren't doing as much damage to their own souls as the Satanists and practitioners of dark magik who believe in the Real Presence as least as strongly as I do and who steal the Host for arguably darker purposes. Those who don't believe it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are just doing it to be mean. And even though, as the saying goes, "mean people suck", God loves them too and allows Himself to be mistreated for the sake of their redemption. I will do reparation for all of those here who do not walk in the Light and who for all their learning have rejected the mercy of God and his salvation.
Charles, #988: But, would you be willing to rag on Islam
the same way you're ragging on Catholics?
I'm glad to see that you're so concerned with fairness. Are you also posting on Catholic websites, asking them if they expressed the same outrage against those Danish newspapers when they printed those cartoons about Muhammad? Maybe some of them did, but if so I missed it.
Look at the kooky comments here where a non-catholic journalist and friend of Tim Russert explains why she took communion at his funeral mass.
#1000?
"Missed it by that much."