Oh it’s just like old times with Donohue. Queen Mary I, aka Bloody Mary, and dozens of inquisitions used exactly the same issue to burn Protestants of all shades. And the reason that Catholic priests put the host on people’s tongue was to keep the hoi polloi from walking off with the host and using it for magical purposes. Charles X of France was in part overthrown in 1830 because he insisted on a law to protect sacred objects from theft (higher penalties for walking off with altar clothes than for walking off with the collection).
Some people never learn. EVER.
If they just left it alone, no one would have known about it. If it really is such a bad thing, God can handle it Bill. Why don’t you serve Him/Her/It by taking care of some lepers or something?

But, but, but…..

I’ve been told by the neocons that the Islamofascists would come out to get us and destroy our civil liberties, while Christians are peaceful and loving people who won’t cause anyone harm or misery over something as trivial as a cracker.

Plus, I have to give all my money to the religious right, and then sell myself to slavery.

People, people.  Can’t we be reasonable and moderate about all this?  Let’s see if we can’t accommodate the beliefs of Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and call it a Christcracker.

There are times when I’m just so happy that Amanda changed the “submit” button to “blaspheme.”  This is one of them.

Being a jerk is not a firing offense, which is why William Donohue still has a job.

PZ says all sorts of dumb stuff on his blog when he’s not talking about science. Wiliam Donohue says all sorts of dumb stuff all the time. You’d the the latter would recognize the need to peacefully coexist with the former.

Sorry to harp on this, but this is why the whole FISA thing was doomed.

It’s considered to be AOK to be a hypocrite when it comes to freedom. It’s simply not questioned. For someone to use their free speech rights to try and deny others the same.

Freedom is not viewed as an overall thing. It’s viewed in terms of personal freedom from the government…full stop.  But to most people, the freedom of others, either from government or themselves, just doesn’t matter to them.

I wonder what happens when I open up my bread store, Jesus Crust.

Well, you’ll probably get some of PZ’s hate mail.  But I say, let him who is without sin throw the first scone.

OK, I know, that was uncalled for.

Michael,
Bad puns are the pathway to evil.

I like PZ a lot, but I am not on his side here.  I don’t know why the young man took the host, but it is a grave religious insult, and not along the lines of “you can’t say mean things about Jesus” but more along the lines of “don’t participate in our religious ceremonies and then desecrate things we hold holy.”  Although it was very hard for me, when I took a class on Islam, and we went to a mosque, I wore the head covering.

Donohue should seriously stop talking, and death threats are over the top, but going to a relgioius ceremony and offending (however accidentally) believers is pretty lousy.

And I’m really getting sick of anti-Catholic stuff.  (Not calling Jesse or Amanda anti-Catholic, but I wasn’t so happy about Samhita’s post on Feministing the other day, even though I think very highly of her.)  You see, we get it from fundamentalist Christians all the time.  And I have known a number of very good Catholics who devote their lives to serving others and social justice, both here and in the third world.

Absolutely.  Everyone who wants to should be able to criticize the practice.

But it does make me wonder why they care.

I think the “go help PZ” link should point here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fight_back_against_bill_donohu.php

I wonder what happens when I open up my bread store, Jesus Crust. 

Not to quibble, but the fact that you can serve 1,000 people with five loaves of Jesus Crust bread is bound to impact sales volume.

Forget that there’s nothing to really be pissed about—there never really is with Donohue.

Yeah. I find it really hard to believe that Donohue is genuinely angry about this. He’s probably extra-pleased to have something new to yell about.

I’m sorry, Ismone, but I have to disagree. PZ is right—to say that taking the host is a hate crime is to cheapen actual hate crimes everywhere.

Yes, I agree. Maybe PZ going on to say that he would gladly “desecrate a cracker,” is a bit much… but then again, maybe expecting the rest of the world to give a damn about your silly beliefs is a bit much. PZ is out to demystify and de-sacredize (eh?) the world, and given his mission of irreverence, saying things like that is what he does. Personally, I sympathize with that position. If PZ has hurt feelings, that really shouldn’t be his problem. There are people who strongly believe that the moon landings never happened. No reason that they should be safe from mockery, right? What if there was a particular religious sect that, during their ceremonies, believed that they were in radio contact with the Lost City of Atlantis? Because that absurd belief is now “religious,” is it safe from criticism? Well, transubstantiation is also a laughably absurd belief. It’s completely ludicrous, and relies upon a hysterically stupid philosophy of matter. If it hurts the feelings of believers to have folks like PZ or me come out and say as much, well, tough. If I were to come out and say that I think that Los Angeles isn’t a real place and that news footage of the city is filmed on location in Reno, I’d get laughed at too. If that upsets me, that’s my problem. Now, I’m not going to go into a church and make off with a consecrated wafer - it seems pointless, and I have to wonder what this guy’s motivation was - but I won’t hesitate to say that turning it into a witch hunt and having secular authorities effectively take the believers at their word that this wafer is the literal Body of Christ held hostage is insane, and a reflection of a downright criminal level of privilege given to religious belief in our culture.

I do not care if the rest of the world cares or not about my “silly beliefs.”  Or chooses to criticize them.

But people who are going to take part in mass should behave respectfully, or not at all.  The comment thread over there just about made me sick.  The young man deserves support, but acts of religious descration being hate crimes really isn’t that far-fetched.  Here, he returned the host, and it seems like their was no intent to do wrong.

But if someone did break into a sanctuary, and say, piss on something important to that religion, I’m thinking hate crime.

Just because extremist Catholics say stupid things doesn’t mean that other, more moderate people’s beliefs should be disregarded.

No one made the kid go to mass, no one made me go to mosque.  But when he attended, he should follow the religious practices, and when I attended, I covered my hair.  Even though covering my hair was DEEPLY offensive to me as a person and feminist.

but acts of religious descration being hate crimes really isn’t that far-fetched.

Oh, it most certainly IS far-fetched.

But if someone did break into a sanctuary, and say, piss on something important to that religion, I’m thinking hate crime.

You’re thinking wrong. Hateful, yes. A horrible, atrocious thing to do? Yes. Hate crime? Nope, I don’t buy it. Some pretty serious harm has to be done, and pissing on, oh, I dunno, some relic of a saint just don’t cut the mustard, emotional trauma notwithstanding. Assault or murder based on race, ethnicity or (yes) religion is a hate crime. Cultural genocide based on same is a hate crime. Peeing on a relic or something? That’s willful destruction of property, and should be prosecuted as such. NOT a hate crime.

Like I said before, I don’t get the kid’s motivation for making off with the wafer, and don’t see any good reason to do something like that. Irrespective of intent, however, the reaction of the church community but most especially the cooperation of the local university (an allegedly secular institution) was outrageous.

Hate crime? Nope, I don’t buy it.

It’s the precise definition of a hate crime: an act meant to lash out at and intimidate another group.

A horrible, atrocious thing to do? Yes. Hate crime? Nope, I don’t buy it.

Good to know that when neo-Nazis break into Jewish cemeteries and knock over the gravestones, it’s not a hate crime, just bad behavior.

Seriously, are you listening to yourself?  You’re arguing that desecrating symbols of a religion is not a hate crime.

Does this mean I’ll need a bodyguard the next time I call it a “magic cookie” in public?

By the way, I’m not arguing that what PZ said is a hate crime of any kind, even though he’s kind of an asshole for saying it.  But do we really want to get to the point where people spraypainting anti-Muslim slurs on a mosque is no longer considered a hate crime, just kids having fun?

Does this mean I’ll need a bodyguard the next time I call it a “magic cookie” in public?

As long as you don’t steal it from the church and brag about it, you can call it anything you want.  Heck, you can call it a Death Cookie for all I care.

But do we really want to get to the point where people spraypainting anti-Muslim slurs on a mosque is no longer considered a hate crime, just kids having fun?

Do you seriously think that vandalizing someone’s grave is the same as stealing a freaking cookie?

Good to know that when neo-Nazis break into Jewish cemeteries and knock over the gravestones, it’s not a hate crime, just bad behavior.

Where I’m from, Jewish gravestones are flat. This may have been a preemptive move against knocking over.

But do we really want to get to the point where people spraypainting anti-Muslim slurs on a mosque is no longer considered a hate crime, just kids having fun?

I think the difference is intimidation. I’m not sure how stealing the cracker intimidates someone, makes them fearful for their lives or their safety.

Of course vandalizing someone’s grave is more severe than making off with the host, even though it is considered desecration.

But on that note, saint’s relics are usually parts of people’s dead bodies, so you’d think pissing on them would be problem.

And yeah, I think PZ is being something of a jerk, but considering the fact that he is being faced with jerkiness (Fr. hostage and Donohue) I’m somehow not surprised.

On the other hand, we feminists do get pissed off when the words of extremist feminists are used against us—oh ALL feminists believe that.  Of course, the Church is a more structured organization than feminism, but Donohue does not hold a position in the CHURCH that permits him to speak for it.  Also, according to Catholicism, our own consciences are our final guide (that’s right, more final than the pope, even) so saying I, as a Catholic, don’t support Donohue isn’t just noise.

Not really relevant, but my brother and I always called the wafers “Jeezits” as kids. We also speculated that church would be better attended if Cheez-its were used during Communion instead.

Do you seriously think that vandalizing someone’s grave is the same as stealing a freaking cookie?

Is it only bad if it causes property damage, but lesser acts are fine?  I’ll pull it back, then.  Let’s say that someone steals the yarmulke of the guy in front of him in a synagogue and sneaks it home.  Is that perfectly fine?

Fuck the entire Catholic church for all I care. Fuck that Nazi pope and all his pedo friends.

Eating Christ is insolent and a crude mockery of the Lord.  It is a hate crime of the highest order, a hate crime against Jesus.

If it’s not just a cracker, does that mean that Christians owe Nero, who accused them of practicing ritual cannibalism, an apology?

You know why I’m not Catholic? Because I can’t find a church that will bless these flying saucer wafers for communion.

I still can’t parse what the college kid did as any sort of hate crime. Spitting chewed-up communion wafer at a priest? Yes. Stealing the church’s wafer supply and drawing a pentagram on every wafer before returning the wafers to the church? Yes. Taking one wafer off the premises, unchewed? Er, no.

I suspect a good percentage of the people who opt to take communion don’t actually believe in transubstantiation, but they don’t want to make a stink about it so they line up dutifully. Or they use birth control. Or they’re OK with abortion rights and divorce. Or they believe the church should allow women or married men to serve as priests. In other words, I’ll bet the sacred ritual is defiled every Sunday at every church by at least a few people. Heck—knowing that my husband and I are atheists, my mother-in-law still wanted us to christen our son, i.e., tell lies in church.

Taking one wafer off the premises, unchewed? Er, no.

So, again, it’s perfectly fine to steal the symbols of someone else’s religion as long as they’re not of major value?

Don’t get me wrong—stealing the eucharist is pretty much the equivalent of stealing a pack of gum.  But we generally agree that stealing is wrong, no matter how small the object is.  Is that rule waived when it’s a religious object?

But Mnemosyne, doesn’t the priest give it to the person? How is it stealing if it’s given to you and you’re not expected to pay for it?

Is it only bad if it causes property damage, but lesser acts are fine?  I’ll pull it back, then.  Let’s say that someone steals the yarmulke of the guy in front of him in a synagogue and sneaks it home.  Is that perfectly fine?

Well, that is stealing, though.  There are certainly non-violent crimes that should count as hate crimes.  Not eating a cracker that someone gave you shouldn’t count.

The individual who took the host home with him did not commit any crime.  He went into a church, freely, with no objections to his presence.  Then someone gave him a piece of what probably tasted more like styrofoam than a cracker, with the expectation that he would eat it.  He put it in his pocket instead.  There is nothing remotely criminal about this.  There is nothing that would even make for a civil suit.  Was he disrspectful?  Sure.  Was he criminal?  No.

Let’s say that someone steals the yarmulke of the guy in front of him in a synagogue and sneaks it home.  Is that perfectly fine?

There’s a gap between “perfectly fine” and “hate crime”. It’s a dickish thing to do, but I wouldn’t say it was a hate crime.

By the way, I’m not arguing that what PZ said is a hate crime of any kind, even though he’s kind of an asshole for saying it.  But do we really want to get to the point where people spraypainting anti-Muslim slurs on a mosque is no longer considered a hate crime, just kids having fun?

Clearly I should read all the comments before sticking my foot in my mouth.

I agree with you on both points brought up here.

“Is that rule waived when it’s a religious object?”

Should it be in place if the object (in this case, communion wafer) was handed to you?  Are you a gentile?  Even been to a bar/t mitzvah, and get handed a yarmulke?  Then, did it ever make it home with you?  Difference?

There’s a gap between “perfectly fine” and “hate crime”. It’s a dickish thing to do, but I wouldn’t say it was a hate crime.

So when does it cross the line into “hate crime”?  Does it require property damage?

Again, the argument here seems to be that since only Catholics think the wafer has any value, it’s fine to do whatever you want to it if you’re not a Catholic.  Does that extend to all symbols everywhere, or only religious ones?

By the way, the guy didn’t steal the cracker. Do church crackers come with a DRM?

Should it be in place if the object (in this case, communion wafer) was handed to you?  Are you a gentile?  Even been to a bar/t mitzvah, and get handed a yarmulke?  Then, did it ever make it home with you?  Difference?

Did the person who gave you the yarmulke ask for it back before you left the building, and you refused and ran off with it?  That seems to be what happened here. 

Yes, the deacon who demanded it back was being an asshole about it.  That doesn’t mean that he was in the wrong.

“Do you seriously think that vandalizing someone’s grave is the same as stealing a freaking cookie?”

It wasn’t actually stolen, either.

The comparisons thrown around are ridiculous. Desecration can be part of a hate crime, but it doesn’t follow that any desecration is a hate cime.

PZ is absolutely right in putting things in perspective, only because of the sheer insanity of what he’s reacting to. And by insanity I’m not thinking the belief in transubstantiation itself. Normally I’d think that with his attitude of zero compromise to the existence of supernatural beliefs, PZ isn’t really helping anything, but something needs to be opposed to the hateful, disproportionate reaction. It’s disproportionate even for people who accept transubstantiation as reality, which makes desecration of the wafer a pretty major desecration.

Either the belief should be accomodated to things ranging from the existence of dirty floors to the existence of people who are less than the most orthodox catholic, or it shouldn’t be confronted to those realities.

So when does it cross the line into “hate crime”?  Does it require property damage?

When it threatens the safety of the victim group. I’d say taking a yarmulke and burning it in front of someone gets closer to hate crime because it has the implication that you’d like to burn them. But just taking it doesn’t.

Is it only bad if it causes property damage, but lesser acts are fine?

Well Mnemosyne, I guess I see what you are saying, but frankly I think this is a somewhat extreme view.

Yes, if someone vandalizes a grave, that really is only property damage. Dead people don’t care if you desecrate their graves, or even their corpses. It does, however, have a symbolic meaning to their survivors, and that is why it is done. You are symbolically defacing a person’s name & memory. Now, I realize that the eucharist wafer does also have a very potent symbolic meaning for Catholic believers, but I really think it is just an exaggeration to call it a ‘hate crime’ to steal the communion wafer. I’d more call it an obnoxious stunt.

I guess what it comes down to is that I believe Donohue is really exaggerating the importance of this stolen wafer, even to Catholics. I could be wrong, but I have plenty of Catholic relatives & I find it hard to see them getting one tenth as exercised about this as Donohue is. It seem to me that Donohue is playing a role that he knows is in his advantage, not honestly responding to something. Now maybe you will tell me I am wrong about Catholics, that they really are just as crazy as Donohue is pretending to be. I don’t know.

Although, I must thank you for making me re-consider whether hate crime laws really should exist, after all.

Yes, the deacon who demanded it back was being an asshole about it.  That doesn’t mean that he was in the wrong.

Yes he was wrong. He gave it, it’s not his anymore. If someone gives me a Bible, I have the right to burn that Bible or whipe my ass with it. If you want to avoid this, don’t give it to me.

Again, Cook did not steal the cracker. He did not do anything wrong. Just because NAMBLA says it’s wrong doesn’t make it so.

Don’t get me wrong—stealing the eucharist is pretty much the equivalent of stealing a pack of gum.  But we generally agree that stealing is wrong, no matter how small the object is.  Is that rule waived when it’s a religious object?

First of all, he was given the wafer by the priest. He didn’t tackle the guy and steal the cracker. According to the original story of the case that I read, his initial intention was only to take the wafer back to his seat to show his non-Catholic friend that was curious about what the whole Eucharist thing was all about. But two different members of the church physically tried to stop him (one grabbed onto him and wouldn’t let go, though he kept asking them to). He got somewhat understandably pissed off that people were manhandling him. Was walking off with the wafer a mature way to handle it? No, but there wasn’t malicious intent. And it certainly wasn’t a hate crime. If he had broken into the church and spray painted “Kill all Catholics” on a statue, that would have been a hate crime.

I think religious rituals should be respected in their own houses (churches, religiously affiliated schools, etc.). But once they leave those areas, they are just one of thousands of beliefs out there. And- as Jesse said- to many people that is just a cracker. If the Catholic Church had just issued a statement that it was a rude thing to do and said they were going to punish the kid within his church (however Catholics punish themselves- excommunication?) then that’s their prerogative. But you can’t punish people in the public sphere for disrespecting a religious tradition (especially, in PZ’s case, one they don’t belong to).

I guess what it comes down to is that I believe Donohue is really exaggerating the importance of this stolen wafer, even to Catholics. I could be wrong, but I have plenty of Catholic relatives & I find it hard to see them getting one tenth as exercised about this as Donohue is. It seem to me that Donohue is playing a role that he knows is in his advantage, not honestly responding to something. Now maybe you will tell me I am wrong about Catholics, that they really are just as crazy as Donohue is pretending to be. I don’t know.

Oh, I totally agree with you there.  Bill Donohue is a gigantic asshole who spends his life getting his Underoos in a twist over ridiculous things.  I think PZ is a bit of a jerk to put things the way he did, but he wasn’t wrong to do it.

My argument is solely that what the kid did was wrong.  It was wrong on a small, pack-of-gum scale, but it was still wrong.  And it worries me when people start arguing that no religious symbols are worthy of respect, even when you’re actually in that church or synagogue.  It’s not like someone was walking down the street handing out wafers—the kid was attending Mass in a Catholic Church.  You should respect the space you’re in when you’re a guest in that space.

Are they selling the flesh of Christ, too?  Using majicks to enslave Him in a cracker and then demanding a price for Him?  Do they claim to own the Lord?  The insult to Jesus grows with each scream into my mind.  That young man sounds like a hero.  Probably trying to save Jesus is all.

Sirkowski, let’s say I go into a religious building where they require women’s heads to be covered.  And so they give me a covering.  And I take it, knowing what the expectations are.  But instead of putting it on my head, I throw it on the ground and stomp on it.  And leave.

Would you see this as being disrespectful to the religion?

You are given the host to put in your mouth and let dissolve on your tongue.  Non-believers aren’t supposed to take the host, and even Catholics aren’t supposed to take the host until they go through communion.

If people choose to engage in a religious ceremony, they should not dishonor it.  If they feel so inclined, they just shouldn’t go.

With the story in context, the deacon sounds like a real jerk.  But on the other hand, if he had wanted to show his non-Catholic friend, he should have just worked it out with a priest.

I think religious rituals should be respected in their own houses (churches, religiously affiliated schools, etc.). But once they leave those areas, they are just one of thousands of beliefs out there.

That’s the whole point.  The kid was still inside the church.  Their house, their rules.  I’m not sure what’s so strange about the idea that when you’re inside the church, you have to respect their rules.

Again, I’m not defending Donohue and his band of flying monkeys at all, and I’m not saying a word against PZ, because he wasn’t wrong.  I’m just pointing out that saying, “But it’s just a cracker, what’s the big deal?” is being incredibly dismissive.

Sirkowski, let’s say I go into a religious building where they require women’s heads to be covered.  And so they give me a covering.  And I take it, knowing what the expectations are.  But instead of putting it on my head, I throw it on the ground and stomp on it.  And leave.

Would you see this as being disrespectful to the religion?

Yes, it is disrespectful. But in a GOOD WAY. In the end, nothing a value was lost.

Andrew Sullivan is such a bullshit artist.

Some Christians think it is just a cracker eaten with Jesus in mind, some think that it is both a cracker and Jesus, some think it’s Jesus and has lost its crackerhood -  corresponding to most protestants, a few protestants (mostly Anglicans) and big O Orthodox, and Catholics.

But whatever your viewpoint as a Christian, you should keep in mind that Jesus can take care of himself and doesn’t need the believers to protect the crumbs at all costs.

Andrew Sullivan is such a bullshit artist.

The thing is, until it hits your tongue it IS a cracker. So by purchasing wafers before they’re used in communion, you’re not desecrating Jesus at all.

The transubstantiation concept seems to imply that the cracker should taste like human flesh.
By all accounts, it doesn’t.
What’s the Catholic explanation for that?

He didn’t steal it, it was given to him…

Also, while the Church’s official policy is to not give Communion to non-Catholics, it’s pretty much an unenforced rule.  I’ve tried to argue this with my mom as an excuse to not go to Church on Easter and Christmas, but she hand-waved it and said I need to set a “good example” for my younger siblings.  Cause being an atheist is a bad example apparently…

That’s the whole point.  The kid was still inside the church. Their house, their rules.  I’m not sure what’s so strange about the idea that when you’re inside the church, you have to respect their rules.
And, as I said, he claims (and there’s no reason so far to not believe him) that he wasn’t trying to disrespect the rules until people turned physical and pissed him off. The people inside of the church could have asked him to eat the wafer or hand it back and tell him to leave if he didn’t. They had no right to touch him. But he shouldn’t have walked out with the wafer, either.

Once he was outside the church, it was a cracker. As I said, the Church had every right to “punish” him within their religion/church. They don’t have the right to get him punished (expelled, etc.) in the public sector where it is just a snack food.

The transubstantiation concept seems to imply that the cracker should taste like human flesh.
By all accounts, it doesn’t.
What’s the Catholic explanation for that?

The explanation that has been given to me is that the bread and the wine are changed in their essentials, but not in their incidentals like taste and appearance.

I’ve been trying to dig up the specific reference in the Catechism (I’m not Catholic, I’ve just studied these things) but haven’t been able to find it this morning.

The transubstantiation concept seems to imply that the cracker should taste like human flesh.
By all accounts, it doesn’t.
What’s the Catholic explanation for that?

only people of unblemished faith and virtue can experience the true taste of the Emperor’s New Cracker.

The offense was really at PZ’s desire to desecrate those sacred crackers. The whole thing is just insane. Who talks about holding wafers for ransom? The Catholic League is just looking for another scalp because PZ openly dismisses their bullshit. Stupid religious ideas deserve no more or less respect then stupid secular ideas. I was a Baptized and Confirmed Catholic, but the whole idea of sacred beliefs is ludicrous. Beliefs are just thoughts in our heads. They cannot be sacred or special and they all be open to criticism.

Once he was outside the church, it was a cracker. As I said, the Church had every right to “punish” him within their religion/church. They don’t have the right to get him punished (expelled, etc.) in the public sector where it is just a snack food.

If he’s attending a public school, yes.  (Which I seem to recall he is.)  If he’s enrolled in a Catholic school—especially one that’s associated with that particular church—then no.  If he’s at a Catholic school, they’re within their rights to suspend or expel him because he broke the rules, and that includes a Catholic university.

There’s definitely wrong on both sides here—the church officials should not have manhandled him and he could probably countersue if he wanted—but that doesn’t mean the kid was 100 percent in the right and it was just a cracker even when he was still within the walls of the church.

The transubstantiation concept seems to imply that the cracker should taste like human flesh.

That was covered in the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 AD, when the Catholics came up with a formalized concept to defend transubstantiation from encroaching dissent that was starting to bubble up among the Cathars and Albigensians.

Trust me, the Catholics have already thought of this.

If he’s attending a public school, yes.  (Which I seem to recall he is.) If he’s enrolled in a Catholic school—especially one that’s associated with that particular church—then no.  If he’s at a Catholic school, they’re within their rights to suspend or expel him because he broke the rules, and that includes a Catholic university.
I agree but you were correct that he does in fact attend a public school.

What the kid did was rude.  What the church officials inside did in response was criminal.  The death threats after are also criminal.

My god this is screwy in so many ways.

First, if the kid was originally just planning to take it back to his seat, WHY the heck did people go after him? In the Catholic Church I grew up in, it seemed there were two different traditions among older Catholics that younger Catholics didn’t tend to participate in—some took the host directly on their tongue from the priest and didn’t chew, some others actually carried it back to their seats with them, prayed, and then took the host.

Secondly, while this was a consecrated host, the reactions make me scared what these people would do if they found out the various things that happen to unconsecrated hosts at times. A Mexican friend brought back hosts dipped in carmel and chocolate; apparently the nuns in Mexico make them and sell them.

And the altar servers at my childhood Church would sometimes eat them for breakfast when stuck with the 6am weekday mass.

Good to know that when neo-Nazis break into Jewish cemeteries and knock over the gravestones, it’s not a hate crime, just bad behavior.

One of these things is not like the other. Come on. There’s more nuance to this than you’re giving credit for. Knocking over gravestones (or otherwise defacing them) is not a hate crime because those stones happen to be religious symbols. There’s just a little bit of a history of oppression, ethnic strife and attempted genocide that makes such an action go a bit deeper than the direct action upon physical objects of religion.

By the way, I’m not arguing that what PZ said is a hate crime of any kind, even though he’s kind of an asshole for saying it.  But do we really want to get to the point where people spraypainting anti-Muslim slurs on a mosque is no longer considered a hate crime, just kids having fun?

Again, what makes such an action a hate crime is distinct from the defacement of the symbol or object (in this case a building) itself. I do not see how this could possibly be unclear. Is simply spraying graffiti on a mosque a hate crime? NO. What if it’s a deliberately offensive, but not necessarily overtly threatening bit of work - say an image of the Prophet with a big ol’ penis on it or something? We’re in the gray area with that example, but still would stop short of calling it a hate crime, short of knowing about the response of the congregation/community or the intent of the ‘artist.’ If it can be demonstrated that this is an intimidating, threatening action, throw the book at ‘em. Otherwise, they can feel free to hit ‘em with a civil suit for emotional distress.

In any case, there are clear distinctions that you are not making here.

Sorry, a quick clarification: spraying anti-Muslim slurs on a mosque most certainly is a hate crime. The point I am making is that it is not physical defacement of the mosque with paint as such that makes it a hate crime. It seems pretty outrageous to claim that the abuse of a consecrated eucharist is morally alike to such a crime.

Um, walking away from an event with food that was handed to you for you to consume is not stealing.

Grabbing a person walking away with a cracker they were given is assault or battery (I get a little confused sometimes about where the line is drawn). He was physically handled in a threatening way without his permission. THAT is a crime.

I hope he files charges.

No one made the kid go to mass, no one made me go to mosque.  But when he attended, he should follow the religious practices, and when I attended, I covered my hair.  Even though covering my hair was DEEPLY offensive to me as a person and feminist.

Agreed.  If you go into a religious place of worship, either be respectful of the rules of their house as a guest or don’t bother going. 

I certainly doubt most students at my college, especially those who are White and/or male will get a pass for doing something similar to POC/Feminist academic/cultural/safe spaces.

Moreover, if any student at my progressive radical-left private liberal arts college did what he did, s(he) would immediately be dressed down by the Dean and brought up before the judicial board on misconduct charges. 

Expulsion, however, is excessive considering this is presumably his first offense.  Potential penalties from what I’ve heard range from being mandated to take a religious tolerance/sensitivity class from the multicultural/interfaith office, performing some sort of restitutional service to the religious institution concerned, or being suspended for a semester on judicial misconduct grounds depending on the severity of the offense.

Sorry, a quick clarification: spraying anti-Muslim slurs on a mosque most certainly is a hate crime. The point I am making is that it is not physical defacement of the mosque with paint as such that makes it a hate crime. It seems pretty outrageous to claim that the abuse of a consecrated eucharist is morally alike to such a crime.

You’re arguing that some religious symbols are worthy of respect, but others are not.  Is it only the non-edible symbols that have to be respected?

It seems to be a pretty common belief here that the eucharist is no big deal—just a cracker—so anything this kid did with it inside the church is also no big deal.  I’m trying to figure out what other religious symbols are no big deal and can be dealt with as you please inside the walls of the church/synagogue/temple.  If you get thrown out of a mosque for wearing your shoes inside, should you be able to sue the mosque?  After all, everyone wears shoes, so why does it make any difference if you wear them or don’t wear them in the mosque?  Why are they so upset and making a big deal over shoes?

Um, walking away from an event with food that was handed to you for you to consume is not stealing.

Would you agree with this if this happened in the context of an individual/group of strangers crashing your/your relatives’/friends’ wedding/anniversary/birthday/bar mitzvah parties?  I mean, after all, no one opposed their entry and the food was handed to them.

“don’t participate in our religious ceremonies and then desecrate things we hold holy.”

Since this sounds like exactly what happened—assuming desecration took place at all, I didn’t pay attention to that part—I don’t understand how you can write this line without seeing how it disproves your position. The kid did nothing in service except decide not to immediately eat what they gave him. So you may literally find yourself arguing that people who attend church should not later commit blasphemy.

If instead you take the position that desecrating a consecrated host is a crime against Jesus, I direct you to Matthew 26:53. Here we find the literary character’s response to people who wanted to protect him from Crucifixion: ‘Don’t you think I could stop this if I wanted to?’ Or as my favorite version puts it: “Funny irony. If I could ask, Ceiling Cat sez I can has army. LoL”

In other words, Mnemosyne: do you think Jesus was crazy to say that, and that we should protect him as we would protect any imbecile? I don’t see any way to reconcile that with the claim that said cracker is really Jesus, but feel free to try.

As someone mentioned before, many people take the wafer back to their seat and pray, then consume it. Many Protestants do, in fact.

As someone above also mentioned, Catholics allow—no, many welcome—non-Catholics to take Communion.

So here’s the scenario.

My cousin—Protestant—goes up to the priest in a Catholic church, accepts the wafer, and moves to sit down without eating it. Right there the Catholic priest could try to argue that my cousin is disrespectful to his religion—but my cousin would argue that failure to sit down and pray with the wafer is disrespectful to his religion. And Eucharist is a Christian ritual, so there is no reason for my cousin to think otherwise. More importantly, there is no excuse for the Catholic to assume my cousin SHOULD think otherwise. Hell, they’re the ones who are inviting all (even non-Christians!) to take the Eucharist.

So, thus far, the Catholic priest has no cause for criticism, though he may be concerned (about his own church “open door” policy, that is).

Next, the priest manhandles my cousin. Full stop. That’s assault. There is nothing that justified this. Nothing. This is before the death threats, etc.

An added irony is that, from my cousin’s perspective, the assault was a “hate crime,” as some posters use the term (a vulgarity in the extreme, but I’ll get to that in a sec). After all, he was practicing his faith in a house of what was advertised as his faith and, as a direct result, someone did violence to him. So it would be the priest that was guilty of the “hate crime.”

I don’t care whether or not Cook was Protestant. Point is, the Catholic priest in this analogy really has no right to get offended if someone fails to understand a ritual intended only for devout Catholics. And I’ve known Catholics who didn’t understand the basic points of Catholic ritual, the result of cross-contamination between Catholic and Protestant churches. Unless the church strictly restricts mass to those who know the rules, there’s no reason for complaint.

(By the way, I have had family members confused about the Eucarist at different churches; the results were laughter and genial conversation because, frankly, no one committed assault in response to participants wavering from what the lead celebrants thought was ritual rule. This—for me—is excellent support for the idea that the church in this case shoulders 100% of the wrong and Cook is completely in the right, but I’d understand if my personal experiences were nonpersuasive. Nevertheless, I think the fact that the Catholic church in particular opened its doors to all comers destroys the argument that Cook should be criticized.)

This view that you can have a nonviolent “hate crime” seems more than a little sick to me. And insulting to pretty much everyone of my demographic. So if you drag a gay man behind a truck, that’s pretty much the same thing as breaking a stained-glass window? Seriously? WTF? So lynching two black people in peaceful protest—because they are black—is in the same category as knocking over a tombstone?

It sounds like some here are using Dobson’s own definitions.

I do not understand how you can approach hate crime status—the real thing, not the bullshit being scattered about on this topic—without some act of violence and/or threat thereof. Burning a cross on a vietnamese person’s yard is a hate crime because burning a cross means “we want to kill you.” No one’s stupid enough to dispute it. Some people are evil enough to dispute it, but those people aren’t on this site, they’re on the Supreme Court.

Not even that knocking over a tombstone thing works. Now, if you break into a Jewish graveyard and spray swatstikas everyplace, you’re in the ballpark because that symbol has become one of violence. It isn’t as clear as the burning cross but I’d sure take it to mean impending violence.

How can “stealing a pack of gum” ever amount to violence, and if it can’t what the fuck are you people talking about hate crimes for? Why the hell are you nodding in agreement with Dobson? Didn’t the fact that you were parrotting him suggest that you might be off on this one?

But, please, I’m all ears. Someone explain to me how failure to eat a wafer in a time non-verbally specified by some authority figure (who arbitrarialy assumes that all present know this time period) occupies the same moral space as a lynching.

In other words, Mnemosyne: do you think Jesus was crazy to say that, and that we should protect him as we would protect any imbecile? I don’t see any way to reconcile that with the claim that said cracker is really Jesus, but feel free to try.

I’m not arguing that the wafer is “really” Jesus.  I’m not a Catholic anymore.  I’m arguing that when you’re in a house of worship, you should respect the customs and symbols there.  I’m not sure why this is such a bizarre, far-out position that I have to constantly defend it.

If someone is a guest in your house, can they do anything they want while they’re there?  Let’s say you hand them a plate with food on it, since people seem to be obsessing over the fact that the wafer is edible.  Can they go sit on your bed and eat it instead of sitting in the dining room with the other guests, or would you find that upsetting?

Didn’t the fact that you were parrotting him suggest that you might be off on this one?

The fact that I think it’s rude both to walk off with the Eucharist and to wear shoes in a mosque means I agree with Dobson?

You might want to read, you know, the actual arguments I’m making instead of the strawwoman ones you’re setting up.  You may also want to remember since I’ve already said it three times that I’m not saying anything about what PZ said, and I think Dobson is an ass.  I just don’t think that you can decide that religious symbols are open to be treated badly because some adherents of that religion are assholes.

I really don’t have the depth of understanding to evaluate this whole sordid situation.  Just dropped by to say that “Jesus Christ on a cracker!” is my favorite overly-elaborate swear.

The fact of the matter is the people here criticizing Cook haven’t done a damn thing to show that the religious symbol was actually disrespected in a way that Cook would have known was a problem AND that said disrespect justified being manhandled. Instead, Mnemosyne and others distract from these issues by throwing out bullshit analogies.

And I’m still waiting on why those analogies aren’t supposed to be insulting to those who were targets of lynching, beatings, etc. Your concern for your creed doesn’t justify insulting murder victims or those who care about them by claiming your sense of offense is a hate crime.

And the altar servers at my childhood Church would sometimes eat them for breakfast when stuck with the 6am weekday mass.

Man, I was an altar server as a kid and most people who weren’t won’t believe the kind of stuff altar servers get up to.  Tag in the church, munching on the hosts, trying to get into the wine, sitting in the priest’s chair/throne thing and playing at being kings/queens… not to mention being too young to ‘get’ the importance of some of the ingredients to the rituals, so the various things that required holy water FREQUENTLY got refilled from the tap ‘backstage’.  Good times.

No One of Consequence hit the nail on the head. Breaking ritual is rude and inconsiderate, and you might make a case for petty theft, but hate crime is just not in it. Without being psychic, I can nevertheless offer a 99% guarantee that nobody in the congregation felt threatened with violence—at least not until they grabbed the kid, anyway.

(Knocking over Jewish tombstones certainly could be an attempt at intimidation, though, especially if tensions along religious/cultural lines ran high in a specific community.)

I’m not a Catholic anymore.  I’m arguing that when you’re in a house of worship, you should respect the customs and symbols there.

I’ve been in a ton of Catholic churches, not the least of which the one where I went to Catholic school, and I don’t remember a damn thing in either the Mass, or the Nicene Creed, or any of the other bullshit that said “By God, if we hand you a cracker, we’d better goddamn see you eat it.”

Maybe a breach of tact was committed, here, but the response of his school and the Catholic community has been beyond absurd. If this had been a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, we’d be excoriating the Muslim community for stamping on free speech and overreacting to a perceived slight. But this is Americans and their religion, now, so naturally whatever ludicrous fantasies they have about crackers can’t be challenged in the slightest.

Is it only the non-edible symbols that have to be respected?

No, it’s just beyond fucking idiotic to maintain that not eating something is the less respectful way to treat a supposed holy symbol. Like PZ said, the way the Catholic church wants it, the Body of the Host is going to be mingling with your feces in about 12-36 hours. That’s respect?

And I’m still waiting on why those analogies aren’t supposed to be insulting to those who were targets of lynching, beatings, etc. Your concern for your creed doesn’t justify insulting murder victims or those who care about them by claiming your sense of offense is a hate crime.

So you only have to respect the religious symbols of people who have been persecuted within the last 100 years?  Everyone else is fair game?

Again, if you would read what I’ve posted, I didn’t say that Bill Donohue is right.  I didn’t say that PZ is wrong.  I said that this kid acted disrespectfully.  Should he be expelled from school for that?  Of course not.  But we also shouldn’t be acting like he’s a completely innocent victim who wandered into a church without realizing he was at a religious service and not at Hometown Buffet.

not to mention being too young to ‘get’ the importance of some of the ingredients to the rituals so the various things that required holy water FREQUENTLY got refilled from the tap ‘backstage’.

I would describe that as evidence that the altar kids actually understood the importance better than the adults.

I just don’t think that you can decide that religious symbols are open to be treated badly because some adherents of that religion are assholes.

Jesus fuck, religious symbols are open to be treated badly because they aren’t people! And again you use the analogy of harm to me or crumbs in my bed for someone walking out with an object I give them.

Maybe a breach of tact was committed, here, but the response of his school and the Catholic community has been beyond absurd.

I agree.  Donohue’s “outrage” is bullshit and there’s absolutely no reason we should even be hearing about this. 

What’s disturbing to me is how many people in this thread think that it’s no big deal to go to into a house of worship and do whatever they please.  If you don’t know the rituals of the place you’re in, either hang back from doing anything or watch the other people to see what they do.  Why is this such a controversial stance?

No, Chet, the Body of Christ will BE your feces.

So, slightly off-topic: could one of the Catholics here please explain exactly when transubstantiation STOPS? Or does Christ only incorporate those parts of the wafer that your cells take up, leaving the other, Christ-free bits to become waste products?

I’m not trying to mock, I actually want to know. I can see why this peeved the Albigenisians, though:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gui-cathars.html

Jesus fuck, religious symbols are open to be treated badly because they aren’t people!

So again we circle back—can you treat any religious symbol from any religion any way you want and no one should get upset?  Or is it only the ones that Bill Donohue gets his panties in a twist about that don’t deserve any respect?

If people at the Church of Satan came in one morning and discovered that some idiots had sprayed crucifixes all over their walls, I’d be pissed about that, too, and I think only assholes join the Church of Satan.

And again you use the analogy of harm to me or crumbs in my bed for someone walking out with an object I give them.

The complaint by the church seems to be that he didn’t eat the wafer they gave him where he was supposed to.  I gave you a direct analogy of a dinner guest taking food that you gave him/her and eating it in a place you didn’t want them to.  Why is this an inexact analogy?

And I will say for the hundredth time since it doesn’t seem to have sunk in for anyone yet:  YES, THIS IS A BULLSHIT, GINNED-UP CONTROVERSY.  That doesn’t mean that it’s okay to go into a house of worship and act any way you want.

What’s disturbing to me is how many people in this thread think that it’s no big deal to go to into a house of worship and do whatever they please.

Nothing he did was disruptive until the priest manhandled him. He didn’t “act however he pleased”; he partook of the Eucharist in a manner consistent with his religion.

He didn’t follow a rule he didn’t know anything about. I went to Catholic school for 4 years, Mass every wednesday, and nobody ever said you had to eat it right away. A lot of the nuns brought it back to their seat. As I recall, you could do either, as your conscience dictated.

Why is this such a controversial stance?

Because you’re acting as an apologist for the people who called in death threats? Just a thought.

I gave you a direct analogy of a dinner guest taking food that you gave him/her and eating it in a place you didn’t want them to.

If that offends you, you’re an asshole. Case closed. As long as there’s enough to go around nobody should be upset when somebody tucks a little in their purse.

So you only have to respect the religious symbols of people who have been persecuted within the last 100 years?. . . Again, if you would read what I’ve posted, I didn’t say that Bill Donohue is right.
And if you’d read what I have posted, you’d see that I didn’t say anything about respecting only certain religious symbols of some arbitrary time period (where. the. FUCK. did you get 100 years from?): that’s your strawman. In fact, when I think “hate crime” I think ethnicity which doesn’t even involve religion. And I would have thought you would, too – so I suspect you’re throwing these strawmen up deliberately.

But maybe you aren’t. Fine. Here’s some clarification. For most of us, hate crimes are committed against ethnicities. Rightwingers want to co-opt hate crime language for themselves because it dilutes the term. Problem is, they’re nearly all white. What to do? Hey, I know! We’ll make it cover religion – and ONLY our religion!
So, despite your belief that Dobson lacks moral fiber, you’re doing him a solid here.

This is not unprecedented in righwing policy, by the way. Do note Bush’s civil rights branch of the DoJ doesn’t protect blacks from vote theft – instead, it looks out for religious sects that are on good terms with rightwing evils. And, of course, they’ve been doing this with racism – which becomes “reverse racism” – for years.

So, yeah, your criticism of Cook is still complete bullshit resulting from an illegitimate bias.

If you don’t know the rituals of the place you’re in

. . . a place where you’re invited in AND where you may BELIEVE you know the rituals.

Way to ignore a point that’s been expressed several times over now. Deal with that and you might become persuasive.

And again, you keep claiming the action happened in the church, when plainly nothing he did there needed to disrupt the ceremony until they decided to disrupt it themselves.

Nothing he did was disruptive until the priest manhandled him. He didn’t “act however he pleased”; he partook of the Eucharist in a manner consistent with his religion.

It was consistent with his religion to take the wafer back to his seat and show it to his friend?  What religion is he following there, again?

Because you’re acting as an apologist for the people who called in death threats? Just a thought.

Please point out to me anywhere that I said the Catholic League is anything other than a bunch of assholes, or that they were right to phone in death threats to PZ Myers, or that the kid should be expelled from school.  Just one spot where I said anything other than that the kid acted disrespectfully in a place where he was a guest.

And, oh—I didn’t want to dilute the fact that “hate crime” requires VIOLENCE or THREAT THEREOF. Just pointing out that the application of it to religion in THIS case was hinky.

It was consistent with his religion to take the wafer back to his seat and show it to his friend?

Sure. It’d certainly be consistent with mine.

Just one spot where I said anything other than that the kid acted disrespectfully in a place where he was a guest.

Except that he didn’t - disrespect requires intent. Where in your church is it posted that you have to eat it right away? It never was in mine, and as a result, people didn’t.

I’m still not understanding this principle you seem to have where the religious have the right to have everything their own way, or else.

No One of C, I’m no theologian, but it seems to me that the host wafer is swallowed, like ordinary food. But when it reaches the stomach and mingles with hydrochloric acid, rather than being pulped into a stew that then proceeds into the intestines to be rendered into waste, it filters out of the stomach and straight into the soul. Mind you, if the wafers were higher in fiber, this couldn’t happen. Thus, the wafers are made from plain flour and water, with no oat bran option.

In fact, when I think “hate crime” I think ethnicity which doesn’t even involve religion. And I would have thought you would, too – so I suspect you’re throwing these strawmen up deliberately.

The strawman I threw up was against people like Sirkowski who think that no religion, anywhere, of any stripe, deserves special consideration.  Are you another person arguing that religion should be removed from the list of hate crimes laws?

Let me also say that Bill Donohue couldn’t find a hate crime if it bit him in the ass.

I’m still not understanding this principle you seem to have where the religious have the right to have everything their own way, or else.

They get to have it their own way under their own roof.  If you are on their property, they get to make the rules.  If you don’t like their rules, don’t go onto their property.

Outside of those four walls, no, they don’t get to have everything their own way.  Saying that they can make whatever rules they want on their own property is not some bizarre new legal argument—you have that same right on your private property.  Why does that right vanish if someone is using that private property for religious reasons?

Are you another person arguing that religion should be removed from the list of hate crimes laws?

No.

Now explain to me why you aren’t being insulting to lynching victims.

Are you another person arguing that religion should be removed from the list of hate crimes laws?

I don’t know. What constitutes a hate crime against religion? Saying that a religion makes factual claims that are incorrect? Donahue and his ilk think that’s a hate crime. If it is, it shouldn’t be.

Burning a cross on someone’s lawn because they’re a Jew? That’s a hate crime and it should stay that way. But is it a hate crime, for instance, to publish Scientology’s trademarked materials? Even if it’s in the service of exposing a dangerous cult? I think the question is a little more complicated than your one-off remarks would indicate, but I’d say that’s pretty typical of your posts on this subject.

They get to have it their own way under their own roof.

He took the Host out from under their roof. Once he’d done that he had every right to do what he wanted with it. Once they gave it to him he had every right to do non-disruptive things with it, like put it in his pocket instead of his mouth. And no one had a right to put a hand on him for it.

Saying that they can make whatever rules they want on their own property is not some bizarre new legal argument—you have that same right on your private property.

Oh, well, if that’s the case, bring on the blackjack and hookers! Come to think of it, forget the blackjack.

In point of fact there are a large number of things I can’t do on private property, and it’s not quite clear that a church does constitute “private property” given the public subsidies and tax breaks for churches. The legalities are, again, a lot more complex than anyone would realize from your simplistic reasoning.

What constitutes a hate crime against religion?

Destroying a Wiccan symbol put up as part of a holiday display.  Or is that just white people being whiny?

Now explain to me why you aren’t being insulting to lynching victims.

Because I’m not saying that this was a horrible, horrible crime similar to lynching someone.  I’m saying he acted disrespectfully in someone else’s house.  I’m also saying that, yes, there is such a thing in the world as a religious hate crime—though, again, you’re not going to find any being decried by the likes of Bill Donohue.  You can hear some pretty horrifying stories from Wiccans and other members of minority religions that don’t happen to be tied to a particular ethnicity.

Yes, early on in my comments I simplified for the slippery slope.  Who gets to decide what level of disrespect is allowed on church/synagogue/temple property?  Shouldn’t the people who run the church/synagogue/temple get to decide that?

Is it just reflexive the way you ignore my points, Mnem, or is that a conscious strategy?

Somewhat missing from this discussion is the fact that the young man was assaulted, not for violating Church rules about who can receive Communion (hell, I can receive Communion, as I’m still in the books as a Catholic), but for violating some usher/priest’s sense of decorum.  He then fled the premise, and that’s when the church really lost its crackers (sorry, pun intended).  He was “holding it hostage” and they called it “worse than a hate crime”, and the kid received death threats until he gave it back… at which point Bill Donahue started clamoring for his expulsion.

As for PZ’s request… I could, if I really really wanted, go to mass tonight or tomorrow night at the church down the street, that I belong to, receive the eucharist, mail it to PZ, and I would not, technically, be violating any of their rules (since I’m “Catholic” and whatnot).  Considering PZ is planning some sort of Sacred Cow Extravaganza (which will be including multiple sacred items from several religions), I’m pretty sure groups beyond the Catholics are going to be pissed.  Tough shit for them; per Rawls, societal sub-groups don’t get to discipline anyone outside their membership [I’m paraphrasing a rather lengthy discussion of his in Justice As Fairness that I read a couple of years ago, so feel free to read it yourself].

As long as PZ only violates religious icons that he himself owns, nobody can do anything to him, and I would argue he is not acting immorally or unethically.

I had the honor of meeting PZ Meyers a short while ago when he was here in Seattle at the Pacific Science Center.
I say honor because he’s a blogger who isn’t afraid to say what he thinks- espeically on a subject that many people are irrational about.
This is certianly one of the most irrational, blown out of proportion things that has happened on his blog in oh.. a few weeks now.
Don’t worry folks there will be more as long as there is still religion/cults around so people can argue irrational points based on what the sky fairy tells them to do and oh also FEAR.

I remember arranging a talk by a Holocaust survivor at my high school; this would have been about 1983 or so.  I have been reviewing this thread and the thought that popped into my mind was this: one of the things that he was most troubled about in his memory (even though he wasn’t a very observant or even believing Jew) was that the thugs who broke in to the synagogue pissed on the Torah.

I’m an ex Catholic, and a fairly militant atheist, to the point of being called for rudeness on it in another thread.  I think that the kid that stole the host committed a vulgar, disgusting and highly insulting act.  Do I recognize the silliness and of such WooooHOOOOO! (fingers wiggling) magic nonsense of transubstantiation?  Yes.  I also accept that people who follow a religious path have a right to go about their ceremonies without having them “desecrated”.  A truly tolerant, rational society ensures that people aren’t treated badly while going about their private business and bothering nobody else.  Donahue is going to far, naturally, coming out into the free secular world to impose his views on the rest of us for the apostasy of actually having opinions.  But what the kid did was wrong. 

Wrong enough to merit death threats?  No.  Wrong enough to merit assault?  No.  Wrong enough to merit any attack or even threats on his person?  No.  But shockingly wrong nonetheless, akin to wiping his ass at a party and dropping the TP on the veggie tray.  It makes him a narcissistic, contemptible little creep, but even they are entitled to the protection of the law.  I don’t think that “Cook shouldn’t get death threats or be assaulted and he didn’t break any laws” is a statement incompatible with “what an insulting little fuckhead”; in this case they nicely mesh.

There’s also a bit of serene arrogance here, on his part, a child’s assumption that no matter what he does it has no consequences.  To wander into somebody’s holy place and desecrate their god (which is what this is) seems to be an idiotic invitation to trouble.  If I go into bar in Harlem and make cutting comments about American blacks or a bar in some small town in Georgia and do the same about “white trash” I have a perfect legal right to be safe from assault.  I’m also probably going to have my ass kicked from here to Sunday and I would be a colossal, egotistical, deluded fool to expect otherwise.

The only disrespect that Cook committed that was clearly intentional was walking out of the church with the wafer. There’s a very good chance that he didn’t know he had to consume it immediately and that taking it back to his seat was a problem. People laid their hands on him and he got upset. Understandably. His walking out with the wafer (which he probably knew wasn’t allowed) was mostly likely intended as a “f’ you” to the people who had just gotten physical with him than to the Catholic Church as a whole.

I read somewhere that he has filed a complaint (possibly with the University) about the physical assault inside the Church.

Except that he didn’t - disrespect requires intent.

Would you argue that an action that turns out to be racist, regardless of whether it was intended/unintended by a White person against a POC constitutes racism?

Repeat and repeat for sexism, classism, or any other forms of oppressive, injurious, and other detrimental actions towards underprivileged groups. 

I’m sorry, but as someone who has witnessed too many overprivileged and irresponsible undergrads and co-workers attempt to use such arguments to excuse their oppressive, injurious, and detrimental actions against other classmates/co-workers, I and most people I know in supervisory positions in academia and the professional workplace tend to be more inclined to pay attention to the detrimental effects and its seriousness when deciding on corrective actions/punishments.  The only place intentions have in such considerations is as a small mitigating factor which does not overlook those detrimental effects and its seriousness.

Would you argue that an action that turns out to be racist, regardless of whether it was intended/unintended by a White person against a POC constitutes racism?

Oh, Jesus Christ (on a cracker.) Let’s try to keep some fucking perspective, ok?

Repeat and repeat for sexism, classism, or any other forms of oppressive, injurious, and other detrimental actions towards underprivileged groups.

Oh, right, because the Catholic Church is so notoriously underprivileged.

Let me repeat.

He.

Did.

Not.

Steal.

The.

Cracker.

themann1086, you are correct in law.  It doesn’t answer, though, the points made by Mnemosyne and others, for example.

Whoever assaulted him should be arrested.  Bill Donohue should go into right-wing hyperbole rehab.  “and that’s when the church really lost its crackers” (a) still has me chuckling, and (b) is a pretty good summation of their overreaction.  (If they’d just said, “everybody seems to have handled this badly, will Cook please call Fr. So-and-So at 555-OGOD and we’ll talk about this” and acted like adults then this wouldn’t have happened.) 

But Cook is still an idiot.  And you’re right.  That’s not a crime.  All we can do is hope that he is heedless of Catholic admonitions on birth control and declines to breed.

It doesn’t answer, though, the points made by Mnemosyne and others, for example.

That what? They gave him a cracker and didn’t tell him what to do with it? And flipped their wigs when he did something a lot of Catholics do?

I mean, their first reaction was to physically assault him. Not “well, you know, we have a rule here”, not “that’s not very Catholic”; no, they roughed him up. So he got the fuck out of there.

For that, you think he’s an idiot who shouldn’t breed? Funny, that’s just what I was thinking about you.

A hate crime?  Seriously?  It most certainly is not.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what constitutes a hate crime.  It’s a matter of intent, not degree.  If the intent is to intimidate a community- religious, ethnic, etc. - then it’s a hate crime.  If that wasn’t the intent then it wasn’t a hate crime.  That’s why hate crimes are notoriously difficult to prove - it’s not a hate crime to beat up a POC (it’s still a crime, of course)unless it can be proved that his race was the reason for the assault. 
So stealing a religious symbol COULD be a hate crime if the intent was to intimidate the people of that religion, but there is absolutely no way that’s the case here. 
And yelling “hate crime” about things like this is beyond insulting, it’s sick.

Juan Stoppable, the Eucharist is a sacrament to Catholics, not a teaching aid.  By the standards of their faith he basically took Jesus for an in-house show-and-tell object, and then was shocked when the other congregants started acting even more badly than he did.  Nobody comes out of this one with their brains or judgment respected, I’m afraid.

If you scroll down the longer of the two stories that PZ links to you’ll find that Cook seems to have a concern with university money going to a faith organization.  Fine.  That concern may or may not predate this incident.  But I think we should all consider at least the possibility is that this is a pretty standard bit of university-age “immaturity politics” actually designed to create this flap.

I’ve looked through these stories and I seem to be missing something.  Is Cook himself Catholic?  It matters nothing to his rights, but if he isn’t it does up the wanker level to 11.

<u>Now explain to me why you aren’t being insulting to lynching victims.</u>

Because I’m not saying that this was a horrible, horrible crime similar to lynching someone. 

Bullshit. What on Earth do you think a hate crime is? Do you seriously not know?

You can hear some pretty horrifying stories from Wiccans and other members of minority religions that don’t happen to be tied to a particular ethnicity.

If they weren’t dragged behind trucks (as in the case of a homosexual—and homosexuality ALSO isn’t an ethnicity) then it wasn’t a hate crime.

Ok, fine. You don’t know. Let me help: as I have said several times before, you’re going to need some actual form of violence before you commit a hate crime. You are misusing the term. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Worse, you’re perpetuating a right-wing meme by diluting the defintion of hate crime in exactly the same way that the rightwing dilutes racism by claiming whites can suffer from racism in the exact same way minorities do. Even worse, you’re using their current tactic to muddy the waters by insisting the issue is about religion—as if several posters haven’t mentioned that it’s quite possible to committ a hate crime against someone because they’re a practicing Jew.

So. Stop. It.

Unless you are deliberately here to do something nasty.

And, assuming you’re done perverting the definition of a hate crime just as Dobson is, then you’re still left with trying to defend your criticism of Cook.

And then there’s the other irony: since Cook’s actions would not have been wrong for a Protestant and because the “rules” of Catholic Eucharist—oh, I’m sorry—the rules for the specific variant of Eucharist that this particular church happen to uphold since Catholics may practice it differently—were NOT made rigorously clear to Cook, and because the Church actually employed (admittedly mild) violence against Cook, the Church is more likely to have commited a hate crime here.

Somewhat missing from this discussion is the fact that the young man was assaulted, not for violating Church rules about who can receive Communion (hell, I can receive Communion, as I’m still in the books as a Catholic), but for violating some usher/priest’s sense of decorum. 

It wasn’t missing, themann1086. It has been ignored by Cook’s critics.

The only disrespect that Cook committed that was clearly intentional was walking out of the church with the wafer.

This wasn’t disrespectful. The Church lost its moral high ground when it committed assault.

Juan Stoppable, the Eucharist is a sacrament to Catholics, not a teaching aid.  By the standards of their faith he basically took Jesus for an in-house show-and-tell object, and then was shocked when the other congregants started acting even more badly than he did.  Nobody comes out of this one with their brains or judgment respected, I’m afraid.
I’m not Catholic, but several people who have been (or are currently) stepped in up thread to say that in some Catholic churches, it is perfectly fine for you to walk back to your seat with it. They couldn’t have known that he was taking it back as a “show and tell object”. For all they knew, he just wanted to eat it in his seat. And I’d be shocked in any religious building if people suddenly started grabbing me. I would’ve reacted a lot worse than Mr. Cook, I’m afraid.

I’ve looked through these stories and I seem to be missing something.  Is Cook himself Catholic?  It matters nothing to his rights, but if he isn’t it does up the wanker level to 11.
None of the articles I’ve read explicitly state that he is, but it was implied enough that I took it that he is.

Note to Chet’s next dinner guests: take a hip flask to raid his drinks cabinet.

Only a hip flask?!!

Back when my friends and I were broke college students working summers to earn enough to pay what the near-full scholarships did not cover, we’d have no problem crashing fancy white-tie 5 star wedding reception dinners with multiple helpings of filet mignon, chocolate mousse, and more for free meals at the expense of the well-off.*  Doubt we’d have much trouble eating and drinking Chet out of his home…..just a matter of time and quantity of friends willing to join in the fun. 

BTW, Chet, thank you for the dinner party invite.  How many friends can I ask to join in the festivities?

* They were all held at hotels of the Ritz Carlton or the Wardorf-Astoria caliber.

Juan and Brandy don’t think for a second that I am defending the idiots who decided that Miss Catholic Manners carries a knuckle duster .  Even if he was being a disrespectful wanker they should not have set upon him.  A ban from that parish would suffice, if he was acting as badly as they say he is.

The people who make points about differing practices regarding the Eucharist have made me ponder.  I was raised in a fairly middle-of-the-road Catholic tradition: the Eucharist either went into your mouth or into your hands to be placed in your own mouth in front of the priest; it was the same in each and every church I ever went into to.  (Anything else would have met with dropped jaws and raised eyebrows, so far as I know.)  I may have made the error of assuming Catholic uniformity, given the tendency of that Church towards that condition.

The thing that gnaws at me in terms of believing Cook is that he has the Eucharist in a plastic bag, as if it were a prop on CSI; it reinforces my suspicion that this is a bit of juvenile political theatre.  If he were a practicing Catholic who was merely upset about how he was treated he would have consumed the wafer and completed the sacrament.  The baggie smacks of (Jon Lovitz Master Thespian Voice) DRAMAAAAA!

The people who make points about differing practices regarding the Eucharist have made me ponder.  I was raised in a fairly middle-of-the-road Catholic tradition: the Eucharist either went into your mouth or into your hands to be placed in your own mouth in front of the priest; it was the same in each and every church I ever went into to.  (Anything else would have met with dropped jaws and raised eyebrows, so far as I know.) I may have made the error of assuming Catholic uniformity, given the tendency of that Church towards that condition.

I was raised in a parish which was at the intersection of Irish Catholicism and some Eastern European Catholicism (Polish, mainly). My parish’s major “competition” was between the St. Patrick’s Day and St. Joseph’s celebrations.

Also, as someone else pointed out above and jogged my memory, nuns also seem to be into the whole “take the host back to the pew, pray, consume” thing too—my primary exposure was to the Mercy and Dominican orders.

Note to Chet’s next dinner guests: take a hip flask to raid his drinks cabinet.

Why should I get upset if my guests want to take a nip for the ride home? Assuming they’re not driving, of course.

As long as there’s enough for everybody, there’s no reason for me to get upset if someone takes one for the road. Cook didn’t take steal a pallet-load of communion; he took home one fucking cracker.

God forbid anybody at one of pseudo’s sexy parties sneaks home a Ritz in their pocket; the National Guard might have to be summoned!

The thing that gnaws at me in terms of believing Cook is that he has the Eucharist in a plastic bag, as if it were a prop on CSI; it reinforces my suspicion that this is a bit of juvenile political theatre.  If he were a practicing Catholic who was merely upset about how he was treated he would have consumed the wafer and completed the sacrament.  The baggie smacks of (Jon Lovitz Master Thespian Voice) DRAMAAAAA!
I agree with Juan that it was probably a pride thing. He kept it in the baggie and let someone know that he still had it to try and get an apology out of the church (in exchange for the returned wafer) because of the manhandling. The most mature thing to do? No, but people can get rather dramatic when their pride is wounded.

The amusing thing is that if those people in the church hadn’t touched him, he would’ve just showed his friend the wafer, eaten it and no death threats towards him or PZ Myers would ever have been made.

This just shows how much times have changed.  Back in the Middle Ages people stole Hosts all the time to use in folk magic.  By the 14th century, alas, many places (particularly in Germany) were claiming that these stolen Hosts would actually bleed, especially if they were taken by Jews.  The result was anti-Jewish riots and a lot more anti-Semitism, plus many, many, many pilgrimage sites.  Check out Carol Walker Bynum’s fascinating book =Wonderful Blood= for an excellent look at the subject.

I don’t think what Cook did was wrong, actually, and as I’ve pointed out what he did was not in violation of Catholic dogma; it was only in violation of that usher/priest’s sense of decorum.  That is Not Wrong.

Hell, here’s Dane Cook (no relation AFAIK) talking about it years ago: http://youtube.com/watch?v=g1S21LFw-O8&feature=related

“The problem that I have with the Catholic League isn’t that they’re offended.  To people who believe in the transubstantion of the Eucharist, declaring it “just a cracker” is offensive.  But the majority of the world thinks that the Eucharist is just a cracker.  If that belief, no matter how strongly worded, is worthy of a jihad against someone’s livelihood and even their life,”

Uh,

1) Anyone can express an opinion: the student stole and then held hostage a religious item. The professor promised to desecrate the Eucharist as well. That is not expressing an opinion. It’s forcing it on others and disrupting their practices, and it’s something that honest liberals are opposed to.

2) Jihad? Nobody’s died over this. There were riots when Newsweek falsely claimed that soldiers flushed a Koran down the toilet. How can you not see the difference? Notice that the professor did not and will not do the same to certain other religions (and nor should he); he would actually be risking his life then.

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/World/GE12Wd01.html

Again, some people just aren’t being honest or consistent. If someone had tried to deface a religious item at a mosque or an African-American church, this entire site would be railing against it.

Anyone can express an opinion: the student stole and then held hostage a religious item.

You can’t steal what’s being given away. They gave him a Eucharist. It was one cracker. Try not to let goofy religion overwhelm your sense of perspective.

It’s forcing it on others

Nobody forced anybody to read PZ’s blog.

Notice that the professor did not and will not do the same to certain other religions (and nor should he); he would actually be risking his life then.

You don’t know PZ very well, I take it. No, he’s certainly said the same things about Islam; he’s posted the controversial Danish cartoons, for instance.

Your implication that he can get away with it because Catholics are pushovers is kind of stupid, considering how many people Catholics have murdered for doing something they don’t approve of. You might ask an abortion doctor how nonviolent Catholics have been.

If someone had tried to deface a religious item at a mosque or an African-American church, this entire site would be railing against it.

If someone had destroyed an item of legitimate value, in an attempt to oppress a religious minority, sure, we’d probably think that was dirty pool.

In this case, someone took a cracker by mistake. Get the fuck over it. Respect for religious nonsense simply doesn’t extend that far.

Notice the false equivocation going on in Red’s post: PZ is threatening to deface copies of sacred cows that he himself owns, while Red (and other apologists) are making it like PZ is going to break into some religious building and deface someone else’s religious icon.  This is not true and needs to be called as the bullshit it is.

No One of Consequence said, “If they weren’t dragged behind trucks (as in the case of a homosexual—and homosexuality ALSO isn’t an ethnicity) then it wasn’t a hate crime. [...]  Worse, you’re perpetuating a right-wing meme by diluting the defintion of hate crime in exactly the same way that the rightwing dilutes racism by claiming whites can suffer from racism in the exact same way minorities do.”

Respectfully, I must disagree and point out that from my perspective, as someone who has been the victim of fortunately minor (thank God) hate crimes, it appears to be you who is warping the term, in a way that narrows it to the point of near-uselessness, where only crimes of sufficient violence to make it over some goalposts whose position doesn’t look very stable, count as “hate crimes”.  This is every bit as damaging to the threats that hate-crime laws and language are supposed to help with, as diluting it so that everything that annoys anyone is a hate crime.

When I was beaten up not for anything I did or where I happened to be, but because two carloads of strangers decided they didn’t approve of my gender expression, that battery was a hate crime even though I didn’t get killed.  When someone threw a rock at me because he disapproved of the way I dress, that assault was a hate crime even though I was able to dodge.  When someone scratched a Spanish epithet into the hood of my car because they mistook me for gay and thought that was a bad thing, that vandalism was a hate crime.  I should not have to be maimed or killed to be able to report those as such; part of the idea is to keep things from ever getting to the maiming and killing stage if we can.  Your claim that small crimes cannot be hate crimes is a bogon; saying that smaller hate crimes exist in no way implies that all hate crimes are equal, or that my tribulations are equal to those of Rita Hester or Matthew Shepard or Tyra Hunter—and Lord save me from ever suffering what they did.  To claim that only their deaths can be called hate crimes says that what happened to me, and countless other people, doesn’t matter—you’re not sending the message that it’s “not as bad”; with your rhetoric you’re sending the message that it doesn’t even count as Part Of The Problem.

So I beseech you:  find a way to make your point that doesn’t trivialize all the smaller-but-still-real attacks suffered by members of various persecuted classes just for being who they are.

Because what you’re doing now offends me every bit as much as the police officer who, phoning in his report from the emergency room where he’d just interviewed me, tried to ‘dilute’ the hate crime concept on my behalf, trivialising it, when he said, “Oh, and he wants to call it a hate crime because he’s transgendered.”  (No, mister cop, please remove that sneer from your tone— I want to call it a hate crime because what they said before and during the attack indicated that they were beating me because I’m transgendered; if they’d just been trying to rob me I wouldn’t have called it a hate crime.  And on a different occasion when someone threw an egg at me from a moving car I didn’t report it as a hate crime because I had no way of knowing whether it was one or not (I might have just been a target of opportunity that time).)

From my point of view, you and that cop are both doing the same thing—or rather, having a similar effect regardless of any difference in your motives—making most hate crimes “not count”.  He by making “hate crime” a meaningless phrase by trivialising it, and you by making “hate crime” a nearly useless phrase by moving the goalposts; and both of you trivializing the fact that I was attacked for being transgendered.  Not ‘yelled at’—because yelling insults across the street is a violation of taste and decency but not a violation of the law, so folks can offend me a whole hell of a lot without it being a hate crime—but attacked, which is a crime and was done in these cases for hate-of-a-class or desire-to-intimidate-a-class reasons.  You and the folks you warn against are both working to classify most victims a “just some whiners we don’t have to take seriously,” and you blindness to that effect of your words troubles me.

Note that we have moved a bit afield of the original question of whether the student comitted a hate crime by taking the Eucharist; I’m taking issue with your assertions regarding the definition of a hate crime, which I find offensive and dangerous, not in this comment, with anyone’s conclusions as to whether the student’s intent makes his actions a hate crime.

Religion is given far too privileged a position in our society. The lowest sort of bigotry is accepted as long as someone says their invisible father figure told them to hate, and yet disagreeing with the idiocy of people who believe in bloodthirsty fairy tales be cause they are to willfully ignorant to cope with the real world as it actuall6y exists is somehow supposed to be bigotry? People choose to believe in religion, and far too many people use that choice to justify harming others.
Mocking the idiotic, superstitious beliefs of the religious is not bigotry. Religion is not an innate state like race, gender or sexuality, it is a belief system. I will mock anyone who believes in stupid things, be it that professional wrestling is real or that invisible sky daddy loves us so much he will punish us for eternity if we fall in love with the wrong person. There is absolutely no difference between believing in supernatural father figures and believing the moon landing was a hoax, unless you’re seriously willing to run around whining about how Snopes is a hate site because they debunk the moon landing conspiracy theories you need to quit defending people who send fucking death threats to those they disagree with because some guy in a funny hat says they’re right.

Religion is given far too privileged a position in our society. The lowest sort of bigotry is accepted as long as someone says their invisible father figure told them to hate, and yet disagreeing with the idiocy of people who believe in bloodthirsty fairy tales be cause they are to willfully ignorant to cope with the real world as it actuall6y exists is somehow supposed to be bigotry? People choose to believe in religion, and far too many people use that choice to justify harming others.

To be more precise, christianity….especially the more fundamentalist sects is given far too much privilege in our society.  Last I checked from friends, classmates, and co-workers who are hindus, buddhists, taoists, muslims, New Age spiritualists, wiccans, or jews…..outside of some liberal cities and areas…..they’re not exactly living in an enlightened pluralistic paradise…...

And yet when people are making fucking DEATH THREATS the most you can seem to manage is to agree with them that the people being threatened were just horribly wrong for disrespecting their ignorant superstition. Hey, this dude is getting death threats because he insulted a cracker, clearly the one in the wrong is the guy who insulted the cracker.

Again, I think people who insist professional wrestling is real are idiots. I feel the same way about people who insist supernatural father figures are real. How is one of those statements any more bigoted than the other?

Yes he was wrong. He gave it, it’s not his anymore. If someone gives me a Bible, I have the right to burn that Bible or whipe my ass with it. If you want to avoid this, don’t give it to me.

Fine - the next time I go round to your place and you offer me a chair, I’m taking it home with me.

It was a communion wafer - giving it to someone is not meant as a matter of transferring property rights; it is an invitation to participate in a ritual of solidarity.

So clearly death threats are entirely reasonable in this case.

The transubstantiation concept seems to imply that the cracker should taste like human flesh.
By all accounts, it doesn’t.
What’s the Catholic explanation for that?

Well, you know, the essence is that it is flesh and blood, but only the unimportant stuff - i.e. everything we can see, taste or measure - says that it’s bread.

It was at about at that point, aged 13 or 14, that I lost my faith in Catholicism…

<blockaquote>It was a communion wafer - giving it to someone is not meant as a matter of transferring property rights</blockquote>

Legally, that’s what happens. So what happens next is between you and your conscience, as the Catholic church would aver. All these people trying to turn something that’s not a crime into one should just join the Jesuits and the Inquisition (sorry, Holy Office) where they belong.

So clearly death threats are entirely reasonable in this case.

No more so than assaulting a fan of an opposing sports team.  There seems to be assholeness on all sides - I was inclined to write Cook’s actions off as ignorance or happenstance until the detail about the plastic bag sprung to mind.

Look, there are several aspects to religious rituals.  The theology around the communion wafer strikes me as complete crap, as I suspect many around here would agree.  But that shouldn’t be confused with the very real social purpose of the ritual - communion expresses a symbolic connection between a community of believers.  To disrupt that in their own church is disrespectful, regardless of how stupid the mumbo-jumbo is.

Last time I was in a church at mass ( a funeral, if I recall correctly), I refused to go up for communion because I took the symbolism seriously.  I wasn’t a believer; to participate would have been a lie. It is perfectly possible to both disagree with something, but to recognise and respect the purpose it serves for others.

And that merits death threats, harassing people’s employer, etc?

Are you functionally illiterate, Grendel, or do you just act like it for the lolz?

D’Glenn said the following untrue things:
. . . it appears to be you who is warping the term, in a way that narrows it to the point of near-uselessness, where only crimes of sufficient violence to make it over some goalposts whose position doesn’t look very stable, count as “hate crimes”.[sic]

Bullshit. You just pulled that “sufficient violence” crap out of some random orifice. You know good and well I never said “sufficient” and merely said violence. Thanks for the strawman; I suppose expecting even a little intellectual challenge out of the web today was simply silly.

When I was beaten up not for anything I did or where I happened to be, but because two carloads of strangers decided they didn’t approve of my gender expression, that battery was a hate crime even though I didn’t get killed. 

And you’re the one saying that death is a prerequisite. Burning a cross in the right context is a hate crime even though no one gets killed, just as I said above. Read the posts.

What you went through was a hate crime and was deplorable. If you want to vent, fine. But I’m not the cop that beat you up so please don’t make shit up, put it in my mouth, and blame me for it. Chances are that cops relatives beat up some of mine, too.

And Phoenician in a time of Romans: You, like everyone else criticising Cook, haven’t done a damn thing to prove that Cook actually violated the ritual. Not. One. Thing. You have, however, inadvertently upheld the church’s “right” to commit assault. And ignored the fact that, if Cook was schooled in a different version of the ritual, a hate crime was actually committed against him. And in true wingnut poster fashion, everyone attacking Cook conveniently ignores posts that turn their arguments into trash.

With “liberals” like these, who needs rightwingers.

Fuck your precious superstitiouc motherfucking “symbolism”, people are recieving death threats, people are having their jobs threatened. the fact that you consider a motherfucking stale-ass cookie used in a superstitious cannibalism ritual more important than people’s lives is disgusting.
The very fact that people are defending the psychopaths who threaten people over a goddamned cookie proves that PZ Meyers point was not only valid but necessary.

Fuck your precious superstitiouc motherfucking “symbolism”, people are recieving death threats, people are having their jobs threatened. the fact that you consider a motherfucking stale-ass cookie used in a superstitious cannibalism ritual more important than people’s lives is disgusting.

Ah, so you are functionally illiterate, then.

Feel free to point out where I condoned in any way the death threats, or considered “a superstitious cannibalism ritual” more important than people’s lives. I haven’t even bothered dealing with them for teh simple reason that nobody is arguing for them - my comments were on other matters.

I believe most high schools offer remedial literacy programs for adults.  Perhaps you should consider looking into them…

Why is it always “there are assholes on both sides” when fucking pig ignorant superstitious morons threaten to KILL someone who was maybe just a slight bit snarky about the insanely stupid shit religious fanatics believe in?

Asshole, when there are motherfucking death threats on the table, everything else pales in comparison. I don’t care if Meyers took a shit on the altar, it is flat out insane to bitch about anything he did when the response was death threats.
Person A insults a cookie, person B responds by threatening to murder person A. when your response to that situation is to complain that person A was out of line, your a fucking apologist for the worst excesses of primitive superstitious ignorance.

More false equivalence, yay!

As I (continually) point out, taking the cracker back to the pew is not against the rules.  It’s like if I offer you a drink and you take it out of the kitchen into the living room.

Taking it home is like, well, taking it home.

Apologies for the language, but It really enrages me hoe privileged superstitious ignorance is, even by supposed progressives.
So what if anyone was rude about catholic beliefs? It’s a belief system, it is not an inherent part of what makes a person. People who believe ignorant things can come to their senses and accept reality- people cannot change their race, gender or sexuality in the same way. It is an insult to every gay who’s been bashed (most likely as a result of the poisonous, dehumanizing words religious leaders have for gays), every woman who’s been raped, every black man who’s been harassed to call this a hate crime.
You bring up antisemitism- non religious jews face as much of that because real bigotry is about immutable aspects of a person, not about whatever stupid thing they happen to believe.

Are you going to declare Snopes.com a hate site because they debunk moon landing conspiracy theories? Or is a stupid belief only worthy of defense when it is promoted by guys in funny hats who cover for child molesters?

Grendel, learn to read.

I mean seriously, pull some more shit out of your ass.

I can read, you fucking apologist for murderous scum.
Person A insulted a goddamned cracker, person B threatens to kill person A, along with threatening person A’s employer. If your response to that is to complain about person A, you’re a fucking apologist for murderous, ignorant scum. It’s not hard to see, man, just look at who you’ve aligned yourself with when you complain about Doctor Meyers insulting a goddamned cracker.
Whatever supposed insult there is is dwarfed by the response. When you compare insulting a goddamned cracker with hate crimes designed to actually harm people, your are disgustingly out of line. You have elevated a goddamned cracker to the point it’s worse to insult it than it is to threaten to kill a living, breathing human.

So what if anyone was rude about catholic beliefs?

I don’t care if he was rude about Catholic beliefs - I’m rude about Catholic beliefs. Don’t get me started on the whole Virgin Birth thing…

I’m simply pointing out that, assuming he knew what he was doing when he took the cracker home, he was disrespectful to the congregation in their own fucking church. I don’t give a shit about the transubstantion of the wafer anymore than I give a shit about a burning bush supposedly speaking to some Hebrew goat herder, or the Big Sky Fairy dictating dreams to an Arab camel merchant.

When you are in a church, synagogue or mosque, and participating in a ritual with members of that congregation, it is deliberately disrespectful to treat that ritual as your own joke.

And, since Grendel doesn’t seem to be smart enough to grasp simple concepts unless they’re chiselled on his/her forehead - death threats bad.  Baaaaaad.

Why is it always “there are assholes on both sides” when fucking pig ignorant superstitious morons threaten to KILL someone who was maybe just a slight bit snarky about the insanely stupid shit religious fanatics believe in?

It’s the same old double standard. When a believer takes up arms and kills for his religion, he’s a “militant.” When an atheist writes a book or a blog, he’s a “militant”, too.

And my favorite - when he refuses to see just how comforting wishful thinking can be, he’s a “fundamentalist.”

When you compare insulting a goddamned cracker with hate crimes designed to actually harm people,

$64,000 question, Grendel, baby - who has done this? When and where? Quotes, please.

Remedial literacy classes - think about them, okay?

Everybody in this imbroglio has behaved badly. The kid should have gone ahead and eaten the wafer. He could have talked to the priest or one of the Ladies of the Altar Guild before or after the service, and they’d probably been happy to show his buddy an unconsecrated wafer to satisfy his curiosity. Heck, they might have shown him a consecrated one if he promised to play nice.

The whole baggie/hostage business was stupid, but college kids as a species are not known for their wisdom and sound judgment.

The deacon was a jerk, and probably guilty of assault.

And PZ Myers and Bill Donohue are both dick-headed blowhards, but that’s not exactly news.

I still plan on writing to Myers’s chancellor or whatever, because he doesn’t deserve to lose his job or tenure over this.

So fucking what if he was disrespectful to their beliefs? What is so goddamned special about their beliefs?
People are disrespectful to my beliefs all the fucking time and I don’t flip out and threaten to kill anyone because of it. Is it just because my beliefs aren’t preached by pedophiles in funny hats?

$64,000 question, Grendel, baby - who has done this? When and where? Quotes, please.

Remedial literacy classes - think about them, okay?
Aside from Bill motherfucking Donohue, the poor soul you want to defend from ever having his precious beliefs so offended, there are people in this very thread making that sick comparison: Ismone, Tyro, Mnemosyne…
Care to drop the condescending prick act, or is that not an act?

Grendel, the rest of us who weren’t raised by Grendel’s mother had mothers who taught us an important maxim: Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Yes, I agree that death threats (which are always out of line), were a ridiculous overreaction.

But that doesn’t mean that the recipients of those threats weren’t jerks.

Nothing is special about religious beliefs. But people who disrespect them are still jerks.

Webster Cook is a dumbass. And Sally Quinn is a rude, ignorant jerk.

So fucking what if he was disrespectful to their beliefs? What is so goddamned special about their beliefs?

Which part of “I don’t care if he was rude about Catholic beliefs” and “he was disrespectful to the congregation” are you having problems with?

there are people in this very thread making that sick comparison: Ismone, Tyro, Mnemosyne…

Very good - then you will be able to provide quotes showing that, in your own words they “compare[d] insulting a goddamned cracker with hate crimes designed to actually harm people”, right?  Go on - show us Isomone, Tyro or Mnemosyne saying “This is a hate crime just like lynching a black” or “This is a hate crime on a par with murdering a queer”.  Quotes, please.

Care to drop the condescending prick act, or is that not an act?

Got it inscribed on my birth certificate.

Again - the quotes, please.

hamletta and Phoenician quibble over an irrelevant (to this issue) point with Grendel, which means they get to ignore the fact that the church’s ritual was NOT disrupted by Cook, for the reasons outlined above.

Grendel, even if you were right (which I doubt) about ethnicity or sexual orientation >> religion, it wouldn’t fucking matter. At all. Cook did not disrupt the ceremony and the church commited a crime and, if Cook was Christian, it comes up to being a hate crime. That is what Phoenician, hamletta, Mnemosyne, and others are too chickenshit to confront.

Stop giving them cover. They’re in the wrong and too childish to admit it. The thing you’re pursuing obscures the point.

And Phoenician—the hate crime issue is on topic, and you’re bullshitting again. Mnemosyne used the term hate crime. When I pointed out that covers lynching blacks Mnemosyne conveniently decided to stop reading any posts mentioning hate crimes. There are no quotes to mention because, like you, Mnemosyne didn’t have the intellectual honesty to confront posts that destroyed his or her argument. Thanks for playing.

What the fuck ever, man. You prefer to pretend that insulting a fucking cracker is a hate crime go right on with your bad self. You’re just proving Dr. Meyers’ point, and proving that it is a necessary point.
Superstitious bullshit doesn’t deserve to be defended. It’s ignorant, and meaningless, and those of you who want to claim it’s harmless can try to explain the reaction to the terrible crime of insulting a damned cracker if you want. I’ll just consider it primitive superstitious bullshit that is holding mankind back from our potential while y’all count angels on the head of a pin and debate whether peeing in the holy water is worse than lynching.

That last post was in response to Phoenician, BTW.

hamletta and Phoenician quibble over an irrelevant (to this issue) point with Grendel, which means they get to ignore the fact that the church’s ritual was NOT disrupted by Cook, for the reasons outlined above.

The wafer is handed out in as part of a ritual of communion.  This is why it is called “a communion wafer”.  You will note it is not called a “take it home in a baggie and hold it hostage wafer”.

The fact that Cook was disrespectful to the congregation is orthogonal to the death threats (obGrendel: Death threats bad. Baaaaaaad).  However, people, in focusing on the stupidity of the Catholic theological beliefs about the wafer seem to have missed the very real and valid social function which was disrespected.

And Phoenician—the hate crime issue is on topic, and you’re bullshitting again. Mnemosyne used the term hate crime.

Apart from the fact that “crime” is probably wrong, it sure as hell seems to be comparable to spraying a swastika on a synagogue, or, I dunno, throwing bacon fat against the side of a mosque.  I can see that he might of made a mistake in taking it back to his pew - but taking it out of the church in a baggie was just being an asshole motivated by the same impulses as said swastika sprayer or bacon fat thrower.

Mnemosyne used the term hate crime. When I pointed out that covers lynching blacks Mnemosyne conveniently decided to stop reading any posts mentioning hate crimes.

Uh-huh. A common cold is a disease.  AIDS is a disease.  Feel free to rant on for three or four posts about me comparing a common cold to AIDS.

Oh, drat, nearly forgot - ObGrendel: Assaulting asshole bad.  Baaaaaad.  Making death threats bad. Baaaaaaad.

The wafer is handed out in as part of a ritual of communion.  This is why it is called “a communion wafer”.  You will note it is not called a “take it home in a baggie and hold it hostage wafer”.

Horseshit!  For the third or fourth time, he was not in violation of any Catholic doctrine; taking it back to your seat is allowed.  He only “held it hostage” [Jesus H. Christ you can’t hold a cracker hostage] after he was assaulted and fled the church.

Seriously, what the fuck?

So would you say that mocking a gathering of prominent moon landing hoax nuts was a hate crime? Would you say that someone going to a George W. Bush speech wearing a T-shirt intended to be offensive to supporters of the administration was committing a hate crime? After all, they are intentionally disrupting a gathering by mocking the stupid beliefs and evil actions of the people there.

I prefer to think that mocking the idiotic and dangerous beliefs of people is not only not a hate crime, it’s an important stand for any person to take in a world that embraces idiocy and tribal hatred.

The wafer is handed out in as part of a ritual of communion.  This is why it is called “a communion wafer”.  You will note it is not called a “take it home in a baggie and hold it hostage wafer”.

You will also note that assaulting someone before they eat the wafer is not part of the ritual. Your intellectual dishonesty continues. Or do you need those basic literacy programs you mentioned earlier? We went over this a dozen fucking times above and still you ignore the arguments of others.

Apart from the fact that “crime” is probably wrong,

And this is the part where you shut the fuck up or you become an imbecile with a keyboard.

it sure as hell seems to be comparable to spraying a swastika on a synagogue, or, I dunno, throwing bacon fat against the side of a mosque.

Imbecile it is.

I am a Christian. What Cook did did not constitute a crime. It did not constitute even a hateful act. And, as I have pointed out, what was done to him (violence plus disrespect of his faith if he was Christian) was a hate crime under a much less liberal definition of the term than what you rightwing apologists are using.

Uh-huh. A common cold is a disease.  AIDS is a disease.  Feel free to rant on for three or four posts about me comparing a common cold to AIDS.

I’d rather watch you make bullshit comparisons. Exactly how is something that is not a crime nor contrary to the tenets of a religion a “hate crime” against a religion? Now, in your answer, relate that back to this piece of shit analogy you just made.

Are you still typing just because your keyboard makes an interesting sound?

Do you have any actual substantive points to offer here? Anything? I can’t believe you’re as stupid as you’re making out, so I must conclude you’re just dishonest. If you win your pissing match with Gendel, fine—I’ve already pointed out why that’s irrelevant. But do you even have the self respect necessary to recognize you’ve been talking out of your ass here?

No hyperbole here: there are right-wing blogs with more intellectual consistency. If you’re all going to keep posting tripe, call yourselves conservatives, or libertarians or something: progressives and liberals don’t need this kind of poor representation.

Chet,

My main point was that in most situations I’ve encountered in academia and the professional workplace where classmates/co-workers disrespected or committed injurious harm against other classmates/co-workers….most in supervisory positions to decide corrective measures/punishments mainly considered the gravity and extent of injury to the student/co-worker….intentions only factored in as a tiny mitigating factor….and even that is dependent largely on whether the offender(s) have shown they understood the seriousness and injuriousness of the offense concerned and sufficient corresponding contriteness. 

Main reason why intentions are rarely privileged in such situations is that too many students/co-workers try to minimize and excuse their disrespect or injurious actions by saying “I did not intend that”....or “That was not my intention” in the hopes of evading any accountability from the academic community/workplace.  Such excuses from my observations won’t get you very far with academic judicial boards, workplace supervisors/HR, or judges.

You will also note that assaulting someone before they eat the wafer is not part of the ritual. Your intellectual dishonesty continues.

ObGrendel AND ObNOOC - Assaulting asshole bad.  Baaaaaaad.

All the dynamics of a friggin’ kindergarten, I swear.

Actually, an analogy springs to mind.

As I understand it, in the US, a national anthem plays before the ball-game, during which good patriotic Americans stand with their hand on their heart.  I’m not an American, and I most certainly would never pledge allegience to your flag, so I’d probably sit quietly until it is all over.

Imagine Cook at one of these games.  He decides to remain sitting quietly, for whatever reason.  Imagine some idiot takes offense and assaults him by forcing him to his feet.

Oh, right - ObGrendal and ObNOOC - assaulting asshole bad.  Baaaaaaaad.

Cook then decides to show his discontent by goosestepping out of the stadium, singing the “Horst Wessel Lied” while everybody else is trying to respect the anthem.  He’s an asshole.  As a result, he gets death threats from various bozos.

We interrupt this anology for the ObGrendel and ObNOOC - Death threats bad.  Baaaaaaad.

A bunch of bloggers sit around discussing this event, in excruciating detail.  A whole lot of them - non-Americans - make comments along the lines of “I don’t understand why people are so upset about him singing a different song” and “How can you disrespect a stupid *song*?”.  Then a few pipe up and point out that he wasn’t “just” disrespecting the stupid song (which, incidentally, is a horrible thing to sing, exceeded only by the horror of my own national anthem), but disrespecting the people standing and taking part.

At which point a couple start ranting about them supporting the death threats.

And to end off this analogy - ObGrendel and ObNOOC - Death threats bad.  Baaaaaaad.

I’d agree Phoenician. Childishness pretty much sums up your position. Well, childishness and arrogance.

Before letting this thread die, I should point out the patronizing behavior of many of Cooks critics. Keep in mind that the narrative that Cook did something bad is, in effect, a defense of the Catholic priest who was holding the Eucharist. As far as I’m concerned, the way he handles the ritual is wrong. (It shouldn’t be doled out to anyone who isn’t Christian and who doesn’t understand it—it’s a less absurd version of Mormons converting the dead into their religion). But Phoenician et. al. put themselves in the position of, in effect, declaring which Christians are right about the Eucharist. (After all, if there were multiple versions of the ritual, they’d have to admit they were full of shit.) So add arrogance to the list. On that note, in particular to Phoenician: fuck off. My faith doesn’t need any defense from you. Seriously. You’re the opposite of help.

Anyway, Phoenician and the others were too pathetic to even respond to any salient points, which, in Internet terms, means they were completely in the wrong.

But we all learned an imporant lesson. Some authority figures can do no wrong, even en the eyes of so-called liberals.

Oops, had to note Phoenician’s last piece of shit diatribe. Note that its first analogy about AIDS made no sense—and he/she never did bother to explain it.

Now he comes up with another one.

A whole lot of them - non-Americans - make comments along the lines of “I don’t understand why people are so upset about him singing a different song”

I’m a Christian. Cook did not disrespect the Eucharist. So you’re analogy is complete bullshit.

Maybe I was wrong. You’re not dishonest. You really are an idiot.

Imagine Cook at one of these games.  He decides to remain sitting quietly, for whatever reason.  Imagine some idiot takes offense and assaults him by forcing him to his feet.

That would be assault, full stop. If you can’t recognize that, you shouldn’t be allowed in public outside of the presence of an adult. And many people giving the pledge would reject the behavior of the criminal who commited the assault. Frankly, not all americans are assholes like yourself.

Cook then decides to show his discontent by goosestepping out of the stadium, singing the “Horst Wessel Lied” while everybody else is trying to respect the anthem.

Absolutely nothing Cook did has a cognate to this. I should know: I’ve taken the Eucharist many times. Once the church committed assault on Cook, the ritual was OVER. You fascist prick. (Seriously, wtf is with the Nazi stuff here?) The church disrupted their own ritual.

I’m not an American, and I most certainly would never pledge allegience to your flag, so I’d probably sit quietly until it is all over.

Imagine some idiot takes offense at you and manhandles you to your feet. In the face of a physical altercation, you do the reasonable thing and leave the premises. You’re so socked by the incredible breach of ballgame decorum that you forget even to put down your chili-cheese footlong.

When the inevitable death threats roll in, are you going to put the phone down and say “yeah, I guess that guy has a point! How could I disrespect the Dodgers that way? I guess I do deserve to be killed!”

Somehow, I doubt it. Cook didn’t goosestep out of anything; he left a church after a priest began to assault him. The priest created the situation. That’s why Cook is basically blameless here.

Wow!  This is getting intense.  There are almost 200 comments here, and I stopped once it became a back-and-forth between a couple of angry posters, but I just wanted to point a few things out.  Apologies if this has been said before in the remarks I didn’t read.

1.  This mass took place on the campus of a public university, NOT a Catholic church.  Mr. Cook was/is a student there. He had every right to be there.  He did not walk into “someone else’s sacred space” and desecrate their ritual.  They were in HIS space.  That I think, is the reason he was there.  He was on the student senate, and he went to see what was being done with the $40,000 the student activities fund was doling out to religious entities.  Obviously, he had an agenda. I have heard variations on the story where he was disruptive during the ceremony.  If those are true, that was in poor taste, but hardly a hate crime.  Walking back to his seat to show a friend what the wafer looked like is NOT a hate crime, or a crime at all.

2.  The ruckus started when authorities from the church started to physically accost Mr. Cook.  Mr. Cook then decided to leave, and in what seems like a fit of pique, refused to surrender the cracker.  Again, that is poor form on his part, but hardly criminal.  Apparently, Mr. Cook then filed a complaint with his university about the physical intimidation he faced.  From what I can tell, the Catholic diocese AND the Catholic League only started to raise a stink and file a counter-claim with the university after it came out that Mr. Cook had filed a complaint.  This whole thing REEKS of     prempmtive strike ass-covering on the part of the church.  Get everyone whipped up about the desecration so the Catholic dicoese in question doesn’t get egg on their face for physically assaulting Mr. Cook.

3. PZ Myers, the real subject of the original post, never, in fact, DID ANYTHING TO ANY CRACKER.  The fact that death threats and hateful vitriol were spewed at Mr. Cook was reprehensible, but spewing the same crap at PZ was completely, totally out of line. I think it is good for bloggers to show solidarity with PZ.  This is a freedom of speech issue, and honestly, if anyone is guilty of a hate crime here, it’s the Catholic League for knowingly fomenting such hatred and menacing a person with threats of bodily harm merely because he exercized his freedom of speech.  That shit’s gotta end.

And as an aside- if a priest mumbling some words and waving his hands over the crackers can turn them into the body of Christ, why couldn’t the priest reverse the transubstantiation of Mr. Cook’s cracker in the same way?  Why did this thing ever have to become an issue in the first place, even to the ‘true believers’?

Grendel, you seem to be flipping out right now because people don’t like your beliefs.

And let me reiterate.  L2Read

You’re damned fucking right I’m pissed off at you sick fucking assholes privileging a fucking cracker over living breathing people who’ve actually been threatened. And yet, pissed off as I am at your sick idiocy I haven’t threatened to murder anyone, nor tried to harass anyone’s employer to fire them. Yep, that’s exactly the same as sending death threats to someone who had the temerity to be physically assaulted by a priest.

1.  This mass took place on the campus of a public university, NOT a Catholic church.  Mr. Cook was/is a student there. He had every right to be there.  He did not walk into “someone else’s sacred space” and desecrate their ritual.  They were in HIS space.  That I think, is the reason he was there.  He was on the student senate, and he went to see what was being done with the $40,000 the student activities fund was doling out to religious entities.  Obviously, he had an agenda. I have heard variations on the story where he was disruptive during the ceremony.  If those are true, that was in poor taste, but hardly a hate crime.  Walking back to his seat to show a friend what the wafer looked like is NOT a hate crime, or a crime at all.

Though I agree it is not a hate crime and those calling for Cook’s expulsion from his university are being excessive, he was still an insensitive arrogant disrespective asshole….especially after he left with the wafer.  Moreover, being a public university, the Catholic community has the same first amendment rights to hold a Mass for themselves and other interested respectful students on campus as Cook did to be there….up until he became a disrespective asshole to the Catholic community by disrespecting the Eucharist which is considered holy by Catholics. 

From my experiences in encountering and dealing with militant atheists at my progressive radical-left leaning liberal arts college, I am wondering whether there was more to this story as there were a few cases of such students going into religious ceremonies and disrupting/disrespecting religious students/people while they were going about their religious business…and I can assure you my college took a very hard line with such behavior as it was viewed no differently than if White students disturbed or disrespected the academic/cultural/safe spaces of POC, heterosexual students doing the same to those of GLBT students, etc. 

It is one thing to promote atheistic viewpoints in public spaces on campus and in respectful academic discourse…..it is another to go in to a religious ceremony…whether oncampus or off and disrupting and/or otherwise showing disrespect for it. 

In fact, the disrespectful arrogance of Cook’s actions along with some of his defenders on this thread is almost as if they’ve all taken a page out of the Western Imperialist and Catholic/Christian missionary handbook of contempt for the non-Western cultures which they’ve saw fit to stomp upon and dismiss as “inferior” and unworthy of any respect. 

In China’s case, Western Imperialist powers and Catholic/Christian missionaries showed the same levels of disrespect to local Chinese religious and cultural customs.  This ranged from “small” signs of disrespect such as not performing ritualistic cleansing before entering certain temples to wholesale destruction of local religious and cultural institutions so churches and Western Imperialist homes and those of their Chinese hangers-on* could be built in their place.  After several decades of this crap…the anti-Western imperialist/Christian Boxers rose up in revolt partially to avenge such insults and abuses to their local religious and cultural customs.  And even to this day….we still have Westerners who wonder what could have caused those “savage” Chinese to perpetuate the massacres of missionaries and other Westerners and their Chinese hangers-on during those bloody summer months of 1900. 

* Yes, they were technically Christian converts…but many China studies scholars studying this period tend to be skeptical of most of those conversions…especially when many converted as a means to circumvent criminal prosecution from Chinese authorities for banditry and other crimes and to use the backing of Western Imperialist guns to bully their non-Christian Chinese neighbors.

Yes, how dare someone leave when they are physically assaulted. The nerve of some people…

You’re damned fucking right I’m pissed off at you sick fucking assholes privileging a fucking cracker over living breathing people who’ve actually been threatened. And yet, pissed off as I am at your sick idiocy I haven’t threatened to murder anyone, nor tried to harass anyone’s employer to fire them. Yep, that’s exactly the same as sending death threats to someone who had the temerity to be physically assaulted by a priest.

Don’t have an aneurysm.

At least not before you L2Read.

So did you get a stiffy when you threatened to murder Dr. Meyers, Foxdie, or does it take an altarboy on his knees crying to get that response from you?

Can’t get a stiffy, don’t have a cock!

L2Read.

And stop fantasizing about altar boys, it’s kind’ve creepy.

So you think a college student who was physically assaulted by a priest is the one in the wrong, you think people offended by the fact that student recieved death threats are in the wrong.
Hell of a moral valuees system you’ve got there. And no, I won’t shut up about the fact that you sick fucking assholes follow a bunch of pedophiles led by a Nazi who covered their crimes. I guess the children they raped need to apologize too, right? Heaven forbid anyone say anything bad about child raping fascists who threaten to murder people over a goddamned cookie.

The Lulz have gone from this thread.

Thanks for entertaining me w/you blood-vessel-bursting antics while I was waiting out long as flights across Kalimdoor, lol.

And, once again, as a favor to yourself and your country.

L2Read.

Whoops, two many “O’s” in Kalimdor and not enough “r’s” in “your”

You’ll never L2Read if I don’t L2Type.

Smooches!

Moreover, being a public university, the Catholic community has the same first amendment rights to hold a Mass for themselves and other interested respectful students on campus as Cook did to be there….up until he became a disrespective asshole to the Catholic community by disrespecting the Eucharist which is considered holy by Catholics.

I would agree, if there was any evidence Mr. Cook knew he was disrespecting the Eucharist.  Nothing I’ve read seems to support the idea that he knew taking the cracker would be an insult when he first did it, and frankly, spitting it out to show his friend hardly seems like a huge act of disrespect, either. Once people started to physically accost him, I’d say all pretense of civility had been thrown out the window, anyway. If he was rude prior to that, they should have asked him to leave. 

And as far as the Catholics’ right to have a Mass- sure.  But with money from the University?  I can see why Mr. Cook might have had a problem with that. That doesn’t excuse rudeness, of course, but if he was there on behalf of the student senate to observe, that in and of itself might have been construed as ‘rudeness’.  As I said, I’ve read different things, so I’m not really sure what happened.

In fact, the disrespectful arrogance of Cook’s actions along with some of his defenders on this thread is almost as if they’ve all taken a page out of the Western Imperialist and Catholic/Christian missionary handbook of contempt for the non-Western cultures which they’ve saw fit to stomp upon and dismiss as “inferior” and unworthy of any respect.

Woah, Tiger!  That’s some fancy leap of logic you’re making there!  Even if the kid was really rude in the Mass, how on Earth does that compare with cultural genocide, which is what you are really talking about?  I’ve also got to ask this- who, exactly, started issuing death threats?  From what I understand, it was the Catholic League ruffians who were showing total contempt here, not Cook or any atheists on this site or anywhere else!  As far as I know, Cook isn’t even an atheist!  Religionists of all stripes take swipes at atheists every day.  I’d hardly say the atheists are just a bunch of assholes who want to crap on everyone else’s parade. 

I do have to say, all things being equal, that atheists and others who are committed to the church/state seperation guaranteed by the Constitution seem to be on a lot sturdier ground legally/logically/ethically than religionists who want to promote their beliefs as morally correct and legally binding for everyone.

Yes, how dare someone leave when they are physically assaulted. The nerve of some people…

If this is aimed at me, I never said that.  I personally would have walked out, too.  The whole refusal to give up the cracker thing?  Yeah, that was more or less him just being pissy.  Not that I wouldn’t have been pissy too.

When the inevitable death threats roll in, are you going to put the phone down and say “yeah, I guess that guy has a point!

Hey, Chet, which part of “Death threats bad.  Baaaaaaad” are you having problems with?

Neko Onna,

The death threats are criminal and should be investigated.  Those death threats and being grabbed do not, however, override the fact Cook is not completely in the right in his actions, either. 

As to whether the grabbing was assault, I would need to read more before I judge.  This is partially because I grew up in NYC where most police officers IME won’t make an arrest even if you have been shoved by someone.  In their eyes, an assault means something along the lines of being decked in the face or sucker-punched.  IME, most NYPD cops would laugh at you if you ask them to press assault charges for merely being grabbed….unless you are a child, physically disabled, or a senior citizen.

I would agree, if there was any evidence Mr. Cook knew he was disrespecting the Eucharist.  Nothing I’ve read seems to support the idea that he knew taking the cracker would be an insult when he first did it, and frankly, spitting it out to show his friend hardly seems like a huge act of disrespect, either.

Interesting.  At home and in the various schools I went to, my classmates and I were taught that barring some sort of illness, it was rude to spit in public period not only because it may offend the sensibilities of others…but that it was unhygienic towards others. 

Moreover, my college and many colleges I know of tend to prioritize the level of damage/disrespect arising from the offense over the “intentions” of the offender because they’ve gotten fed up with dealing with too many irresponsible undergrads who tried to use the “That was not my intention” or the “I didn’t know it would be offensive” excuses to evade corrective actions/punishments by the college after they were determined to be guilty of committing the offense.  The most consideration the intention would be used is that of a slight mitigation/aggravation factor which was largely dependent on the severity of the offense committed and the level of contriteness of the offender observed during the judicial-board proceedings. 

If Cook had done that at my undergrad institution, he would have been dressed down by the Dean, brought before the judicial board, and if determined to be guilty of having disrespected a religious ceremony as he is accused in the story, punished by being mandated to take a religious sensitivity course through the college’s interfaith office and writing a letter of apology to the religious community offended.  It would be treated no differently than if a student had disrupted/desecrated the academic/cultural/safe spaces/events of POC, GBLT, feminist, and other marginalized communities. 

As for my analogy, the tone and attitude from some of Cook’s defenders seems to be variants of “Since I believe your religion and theistic deity are bunk, no disrespectful and/or sacrilegious actions are worthy of reproach and will be summarily disregarded out of hand.”  Disturbing as that was the exact same attitude of the Catholic/Christian missionaries and other Europeans who desecrated/disrespected local customs.  Even if it was done in ignorance…and while it was exceedingly rare…it was probable, it was still disrespectful and caused grave offense among the local populace.  In short, the attitudes I’m reading is “your beliefs are rubbish and we will treat them accordingly…even in your religious places of observance.” 

This is very creepy to me as such attitudes are just as intolerant and non conducive in facilitating a pluralistic secular society where people can choose to not practice any religious custom or choose to practice whichever religious/theistic belief system that they are inclined towards without fears of harassment and/or disrespect from government and fellow citizens who may disagree with one’s choice. 

Protesting proudly about one’s atheism on a public street/square outside of designated religious places of observance….great! Go for it! Doing it inside a designated religious institution….not cool…and sinks to the same subterranean level as the christian fundies. 

Granted, I may have been sensitized not only due to the extensive amount of destruction carried out by Red Guards against religious and cultural buildings and artifacts in the name of eliminating “counter-revolutionary forces” during the Cultural Revolution*, but also because I’ve encountered many militant atheists at my undergrad who would be inclined towards disruptive/disrespectful actions towards religious ceremonies…if they were not put off by the severe penalties of committing an action of disrespectful intolerance against other classmates and being exposed as hypocrites for frequently paying lip service to the college’s progressive traditions of tolerance and respect for the diversity of all its students.  Thus, I have been wondering whether there was more to this story than what has been reported so far. 
 
Keep in mind I attended an atypical college where militant atheists who openly taunted/harassed religious students with insinuations that their belief in any theistic deity meant they were of inferior intelligence were the dominant majority and many religious or even agnostic students felt they had to keep their beliefs hidden to avoid being so harassed.  Their experiences mirrored those of atheist co-workers who were harassed and taunted by theistic and religious classmates at more mainstream secular American universities and religious colleges like Boston College which made for many interesting long after-work conversations. 

* A branch of my family lived through that tumultuous period of Chinese history.

Add exholt to the list of Cook’s critics that ignore the real Christians posting here who defend Cook.

Memo to you as well exholt: Christianity doesn’t need your defense. Cook didn’t offend the Eucharist. When I need you to defend my faith, I’ll commit suicide.

I’ve experienced harassment from athiests and fundies alike. I think I prefer both to the arrogance and patronizing garbage of Cook’s critics.

I’ve experienced harassment from athiests and fundies alike. I think I prefer both to the arrogance and patronizing garbage of Cook’s critics.

I don’t think disrespect/harassment of others for their choice of conscience is acceptable period…regardless of whether it comes from an intolerant religious fundamentalist or atheist.  Doing so undermines the very basis of a healthy pluralistic secular society where people may disagree with each others choices…but agree to do so with due respect and civility. 

Also, are you actually using the phrase “real christian”?? Sounds like the language used by very intolerant fundamentalists to promote their own “purity of faith” and “genuine commitment” over others who may share the same affiliation.

What’s with all this hand-wrining about how the kid really shouldn’t have left the building with the host? I read this as him fleeing the scene where he was assaulted - he’s scared for cripes sake! If a priest manhandled me, I’d be shaken, too.

Showing the host to his curious friend? When I was a kid, that was called “witnessing”. The first step to converting someone is convincing them that your rituals aren’t frightening and insane.

And the fact that he kept the host when he fled, and returned it later, shows that he did respect it - if I ran in terror from all this craziness and found the host in my pockets when I changed for bed later, I’d toss it in the trash. The fact that he didn’t proves that he was not being disrespectful.

All this “he should have known better” nonsense is victim blaming (and of a kid!) and the worst kind.

The death threats are criminal and should be investigated.  Those death threats and being grabbed do not, however, override the fact Cook is not completely in the right in his actions, either.

Well, that’s where the whole concept of proportional response comes in.  If the kid was being rude, he should have been informed of his faux pas, and if he was unwilling to change his behavior, asked to leave.  Period.  No physical contact should have ever been initiated, and certianly no campaign of terror should have been called down against him.  The people in this situation who were affiliated with the church were not interested in proportional response.  As I’ve said earlier, I believe they were interested in covering their asses after Mr. Cook filed a complaint after they physically accosted him.  Saying Mr. Cook’s actions in some way provoked the response is like saying a kid who takes a cookie from the cookie jar without asking provoked her parent to beat her for it.  In no way was the action proportionate to the response.  The parent is an abuser, period.  I would argue that beating a kid is never right, just as I would argue sending death threats is never right.

Granted, I may have been sensitized not only due to the extensive amount of destruction carried out by Red Guards against religious and cultural buildings and artifacts in the name of eliminating “counter-revolutionary forces” during the Cultural Revolution*

OK, you have really jumped the shark with this one.  The Cultural Revolution has absolutely nothing to do with what happened here.  Nothing.  If anything, the actions of the Catholic League seem to fit more closely with the denunciation and destruction of “counterrevolutionary types” and “unreformed capitalists” than Mr. Cook taking a cracker.  I’m sorry if family history makes you mistrust atheists, but the Catholic League was the one to hoist the big-character posters here.

Saying Mr. Cook’s actions in some way provoked the response is like saying a kid who takes a cookie from the cookie jar without asking provoked her parent to beat her for it.

Agreed, and I would go further to add that the reaction of the kid to the beating (i.e. kicking in self-defense) cannot and should not be called a bad / inappropriate action.

In the same way, I take issue with the people who say that Cook did something wrong by removing the host from the building - he was fleeing an assault. There is no indication that he meant to take the host until AFTER he had been assaulted. You cannot blame someone for something they did AFTER you assault them - and, frankly, they are lucky Cook was so polite about the manhandling. After all, *I* have pepper spray….

Also, are you actually using the phrase “real christian”?? Sounds like the language used by very intolerant fundamentalists to promote their own “purity of faith” and “genuine commitment” over others who may share the same affiliation.

No, I’m using the term with respect to you, arrogant pricks who are defending fundies and their particular interpretation (more accurately, perversion) of Christianity. You can’t defend them without insulting me, in effect. If you say their version of the Eucharist is correct, you’re saying mine is wrong—and the ONLY way you can accuse Cook of doing wrong is if he disrupted the ritual, and that can only be the case if the way those fundies handled the ritual was the “right way.”

And way to ignore all of my earlier points that refute your own. Misusing a minor term in one of my arguments, showing you read them and ignored them consciously, is worth bonus points.

You’re still full of shit.