Re: OT: host desecration or hate crime?

On Jul 16, 5:23 am, tension_on_the_wire <tension_at_h...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jul 15, 9:17 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:37:34 -0700, tension_on_the_wire wrote:

I took note of this question and did not bother answering because I
fail to see how it is pertinent to the actions of this individual.  If
you are attempting to point out the hypocrisy of the policies of the
organized Catholic church, you are preaching to the choir (please
forgive the expression).  I agree with you entirely that the teachings
of Jesus Christ were far removed from the policies of the Catholic
church.  Never, in this or any other thread, have I defended the
Catholic Church itself as a valid or correct religion.  How does that
justify anything in the way of individual acts of revenge against one
congregation?

Who committed an individual act of revenge against one congregation?
You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that the wafer-taker's actions
were done purely out of malice, not out of, say, curiosity,
thoughtlessness, or even a spirit of iconoclasm.  From other things you
have written, you seem to be an idealist with generally christian ideals,
but I have a hard time reconciling that view with the total lack of
charity you show in your conclusions about this individual's motives.

Well, first of all, let me say, right off the bat, that I find this
post somewhat amusing when I go back to the current nominations for
POTM in which your following post resides:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/08197c32f9e6ebe5

" Then is there nothing you think should be treated with respect? "

"People.  It is often forgotten that arguments about respecting other
things end up disrespecting people.  Priorities get reversed.
Respect
people, and the rest will take care of itself. " -Mark Isaak

Given that this is your position, why do you not accept that this
individual disrespected the people he was dealing with when he did
what he did?  That has been the sole basis of my position throughout
this thread.  You can be nominated for Post of the Month for saying
it, but when I say it, I am being an "idealist with generally
christian ideals" which do not reconcile with my demands for respect
for this congregation.  I am very curious to hear your elaboration on
why my ideals are in any way uniquely christian, by the way.  Do you
feel that no other religion demands respect for other people?  You are
sadly mistaken if that is the case.  As for being an idealist, I must
ask why ordinary decent treatment between human beings should be
idealistic, and not just an ordinary and very reasonable expectation?

As for your first question:

1)  "Webster Cook says he received death threats and eternal damnation
after he removed a wafer of bread from his mouth during communion and
smuggled it from the church in a Ziploc bag"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378081,00.html

Ziploc bag.  Yeah, maybe he walks around with one in his pocket all
the time just in case he comes across a rare consecrated wafer on the
sidewalk.  Or maybe that was premeditation.

2)  "The UCF student leader said he stole the communion bread, known
by Catholics as the Eucharist and believed to be the body of Christ,
to show to his non-Catholic friend." -same reference.

He admits that he stole it.  It was not thoughtlessness.  He did not
forget it.  He claims he wanted to show a friend.  That is not
curiosity.  He admits that he stole it.  That is disrespect.  And
illegal.

3)  "Webster Cook says that, instead of eating a Eucharist wafer as he
was expected to do during the Sacrament of Holy Communion, he smuggled
the blessed piece of bread out of mass."http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=4E1082...

He knew what he was expected to do.  He knew he was supposed to
swallow it.  He chose not to.  Disrespect.

4)  "Cook, who was raised Catholic, said he decided to bring the
Eucharist home after a church leader tried to physically pry it from
his hand. Cook broke Church rules by failing to consume it immediately
during communion and then removing it from his mouth once seated."http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html

He is a former Catholic.  My previous hypothetical suppositions turned
out to be correct when I guessed whether he might be a lapsed
Catholic.
More proof that he knew exactly what he was expected to do, and
moreover, he knew exactly how offensive it would be to the
congregation when he did it.  So well did he know it, that he waited
until he got back to his seat to remove it from his mouth, hoping no
one would notice.  With a waiting Ziploc bag in his pocket.
Subterfuge and premeditation.  Just in case he is an early Alzheimer's
victim, and forgot how sacriligeous it would be in the eyes of that
congregation, he had the physical and direct reminder when a Church
leader tried to physically pry it from his hand.  Instead of politely
giving it back, as I would expect from an ordinary decent, thoughtless
or ignorant person, he insisted on keeping it, and left the church
with it.  How is that anything other than gross disrespect?  How is it
not malicious?  Iconoclastic?  Don't think so.  If he were an
iconoclast, he would have crushed it in his hand right then and there
and sprayed it all over the carpet.  In front of them all.  And
another thing.  He claims he didn't decide to go home with it until
the leader tried to pry it.  Either he lied, or when he left home that
day he said to himself, "well, you know, i'm going to eat that wafer,
but what if a church leader might try to pry it from my hand first?
maybe I should take this Ziploc bag with me just in case."

5)  "Cook said he just wanted to show the Eucharist to a friend he
brought with questions about Catholicism before consuming it. "
-same reference

Ziploc bag.  He had no intention of consuming it.  And he lied about
the friend as his reason, since we know he intended to leave the
church with it.  And he knew it was not permissible anyway, even if
the friend was sitting right there in the pew waiting to look at it.
He's a former Catholic.  He knew way better.

6)  "Though Cook returned the wafer one week after the theft, outraged
Catholics were unforgiving, according to WFTV.com"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378081,00.html

Knowing all this, and knowing the full import of his actions as a
former Catholic, he waited one full week before returning the wafer.
That is not a well-meaning individual.  That is someone who waited
with his sharp stick in their eye for a whole week before he finally
gave in when it became evident that his student career might be in
jeopardy if the congregation took action against him in the University
Senate.  He claims it was because of the death threats.  He certainly
didn't give in because of the kindness of his heart.

6)  "Cook said he still hopes to meet with the local Bishop to discuss
prohibiting the use of force to recover the Eucharist. He also wants
an apology"http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html

HE wants an apology!!!!!  Give me a break!  He still doesn't accept
that he did anything really disrespectful or that he should be the one
to apologize.

Yes, my opinion of this individual is pretty much the same as it was.
It was an act of revenge committed upon this particular congregation
with perhaps more than one reason behind it.  He may have anger about
the sense of betrayal he felt against the Church when he realized he
no longer believed what they offered as the truth.  That may, in fact,
be the reason why he is so angry about the university funding of
religious groups on his campus.  Between the two, he decided to pull
this stunt, though perhaps not with the intention of getting caught,
but he certainly planned it with a Ziploc bag.  Didn't want to
contaminate his pants pockets with crumbs of Eucharist, I guess.  I
shudder to think what he planned to do with it, if he had safely
gotten it outside without notice, to maximize the offense in whatever
way he could.  We will never hear that part of the story, of course,
now that his status is in potential jeopardy if the congregation
pursues it further.

At any rate, I don't think my conclusions were "jumped to" at all.  I
see plenty of evidence that his acts were in fact done out of malice.
As for your remark about my total lack of charity, well, my definition
of charity is that it is given to the needy.  What this individual
needs is not in my power to give.  He needs to develop a little
respect for people, as you stated in your wonderful POTM nomination.
If only you thought that respect was due to all, including people of
faith.

--tension-

Beats me how anyone can defend the actions of the church interloper or
PZ at this time. You'd have to have a complete disregard for the
feelings of other human beings, or have set some group outside of that
consideration for some reason.

Just take an example that most of us would understand. Say that two
anti-war protesters joined the funeral party for a fallen soldier.
One of them joins the funeral party as it passes the flag draped
casket. He decided to take the flag to show his friend. People don't
like that. They get upset and try to stop him. The flag taker gets
death threats.

Some blogger hears about it and makes claims like send him all the
funeral flags that anyone else can take, and he will make a suit out
of them and walk down the street. He claims that he is justified in
doing this because the flag symbolizes nothing that matters to him and
he sees nothing wrong with it.

This isn't hyperbole. You have to ignore the feelings of other human
beings to claim that situations like this are justified.

Just because that little wafer doesn't mean anything to you, doesn't
mean that you can regard it as meaningless.

We are all here speaking out against some perceived problem, mostly
anti-science junk, but there is a difference between being the problem
and speaking out against it.

Ron Okimoto

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: host desecration or hate crime?
    ... organized Catholic church, you are preaching to the choir (please ... Who committed an individual act of revenge against one congregation? ... "Webster Cook says he received death threats and eternal damnation ... Catholics were unforgiving, according to WFTV.com" ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: host desecration or hate crime?
    ... explicitly restricted to Catholics, ... There are many Catholics sitting in that church who are not permitted ... there is no justification for a charge of theft. ... the wafer was GIVEN ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: host desecration or hate crime?
    ... The wafer has no feelings about it. ... show the very opposite of malice. ... he knew exactly how offensive it would be to the congregation ... I would like to hear from any former Catholics on ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: host desecration or hate crime?
    ... explicitly restricted to Catholics, ... There are many Catholics sitting in that church who are not permitted ... (which that wafer became the instant he chose not to eat it, ... present justification to perform it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Follow up to: "Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority"
    ... that if the RCC has believed for centuries that Protestants ... proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, ... Besides the religious members, the Congregation has ... As baptized Catholics who hold the Catholic faith in its ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
Loading