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.

Calling the Catholic League neo-fascists is kind of over the top, don’t you think? I mean, neo-fascists are white power guys with guns and really hateful agendas; the Catholic League are jerks and Bill Donohue is a big jerk but I don’t think Bill Donohue is stockpiling guns and writing ‘The Turner Diaries, Catholic Edition’.

PZ Myers rules though. Evolution #1.

I wonder what happens when I open up my bread store, Jesus Crust.  Hopefully the attention helps sales.

Colin - these days, I think it’s okay to call anyone a fascist so long as you can relate them somehow to a Democrat.

(I also realize that anything that comes close to saying ‘The Catholic League is not scum in human form’ paints a giant target on my chest, given that stuff that happened. But still, neo-fascists seems a little much.)

Jesse—Touche. Jonah Goldberg, king of American discourse. I’m going to go to a fascist rally downtown after work, and drink the blood of my enemies from a wine glass.

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.

It seems to me the reactions to this (left and right) support certain POVs in the discussion on this thread about atheism, and the “dangers” of atheism and atheists, vs. the separation of church and state…

Michael,
Bad puns are the pathway to evil.

Prof. Bérubé, aren’t you afraid some nutcase will go after you?…

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.

*Changed from neo-fascist, as I’m not Jonah Goldberg.

I always use ‘phalangists’ when referring to quasi fascist religious groups.

Ismone - again, what PZ said was offensive, and what the guy initially did was pretty damn offensive.  There was a kid who got suspended from my Catholic school in fifth grade for taking the host multiple times in the same service (which I never understood on his part). 

But you should be able to criticize the practice, in however impolitic a fashion you so desire, without threat of death.

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

But it does make me wonder why they care.

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. And what’s more important, PZ hasn’t actually done anything to a communion wafer. He said he would, given the chance, but he hasn’t. So why should he get any grief at all over this?

The answer is simple--Donohue is in the outrage business, so he has to be outraged. Forget that there’s nothing to really be pissed about--there never really is with Donohue.

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.

Dweeze, Jesus Crust is going to get hit with the same shrink ray as everywhere else.  Eventually, it’s going to take six, then seven, then eventually the loaves are going to be so small a bag of 12 will feed a family of four.

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.

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

Wait wait--how the hell is the “desecration” of a cracker lashing out and intimidating another group?

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?

From what I’ve read, the boy in question just took the Eucharist back to the pew to show it to a non-Catholic friend who had come to Mass with him.  Only when he was grabbed by a church official, who tried to pry it from his hand, did he leave with it, and ask for an apology before he returned it.  I don’t think any hate or blasphemy was intended.  I mean, it’s not like he sprayed it with Cheez Whiz or something.

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?

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?

It certainly isn’t hate crime. Taking a communion wafer that was going to be destroyed anyway does not imply a terroristic threat to Catholics.

And if I got manhandled at mass I would bounce, too, regardless of whether the wafer was in my mouth or not.

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…

No pepito - the Catholic Church believes it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ during the Consecration, which comes before the distribution of Communion in the order of Mass.

It is the Body and Blood of Christ before it hits your tongue.

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.)

As I’ve said on this topic before, the best exchange here would be something like this:

- So, Father Donohue--
- I’m not a priest--
- Really? So what gives you the right to speak on behalf of Catholics? Who died and made you Pope?

The Catholic Church is not particularly lacking in hierarchy, and $330k/year Bill ain’t part of it.

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.

(For what it’s worth, I think PZ is being a dick here. But he’s being no more of a dick than, say, that eight-year-old boy at your Catholic school who did what the student did. Because every school had one or two of them. I thought it was embarrassing for Silly Sally Quinn to take communion at Russert’s funeral, and I don’t see any reason to treat this differently.)

No One of Consequence,

The Catholics that encourage non-Catholics to receive Communion are not doing so with Church approval.  The official position of the Catholic Church is that only Catholics should receive.  And maybe Orthodox, but I am not sure about that.

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?

t 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?

It was consistent to put it in his mouth once he sat down in the pew. If they didn’t care about being disrespectful, then his non-Catholic friend would have just gone up and received the host himself. He didn’t think he was doing anything wrong by retrieving it and taking it back to the pew, and at a lot of Catholic masses he wouldn’t have been doing anything wrong.

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.

To wander into somebody’s holy place and desecrate their god (which is what this is) seems to be an idiotic invitation to trouble.

He wasn’t really doing any desecrating though. He didn’t even bounce with it until the congregants decided to have their own ‘laying on of hands’.

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.

As long as there’s enough to go around nobody should be upset when somebody tucks a little in their purse.

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

Ah, here’s a case where the golden rule should have applied: don’t be a dick; don’t fly off the handle at dickishness. If Webster Cook really wants to try some edgy puncturing of beliefs, I’m sure people can chip in for a Yankees jersey and a ticket to Fenway.

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.

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. 

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 t