So just out of curiosity, how much damage can be done to the guy before any attacker has any blame or responsibility. Just a slap? Black eye? Maybe broken bones?
You cannot expect to have any real damage done to the guy, but given his stance, would it really come as any shock if somebody knocks him on his pompous ass? This just reminds me of an old saying...something about heat and staying out of the kitchen. If you don't want to run the risk of having somebody hit you, don't intentionally crap all over somebody's faith while openly sitting back and snickering about how stupid and silly they are for holding that faith. I just can't wait to see this a-hole's follow up once Lent rolls around.
A true Christian response to this man would be one of pity. Wishing physical violence on him (or even secretly rejoicing if it would happen) is some ways would be worse than his acts. Someone who claims they know God's message, someone who should know better, acting in violence that way is worse than someone ignorant of the truth performing a stupid act. If the host truly is the body of Christ -- how would Christ have responded ? I think that answer is clear in all of the Gospels.
I agree with you that what this guy is a jerk and even as a non-Christian won't condone what he's done but I think your responses and some of the more extreme responses, like threats on his safety, are just playing into his hands. This move was clearly designed to bait Catholics so that he and the professor who inspired him can make their point, "look how ridiculous Catholics are that they are going apesh^t over a cracker. I have no doubt about the importance of the Eucharist is to Catholics but this is one my advice, with the full caveat of as an outsider, that at the risk of knowingly putting up with desecration it might be better to not give these guys the satisfaction of baiting Catholics. I liken this situation to the Danish cartoons of Mohammed as a terrorists. Most of the negative response wasn't directed at the cartoonists for their insensitivity but at Muslims for their angry reaction. Instead of making a point about respect of other religions instead the argument totally shifted to how it was Muslims who were intolerant. My guess is the person that stole the Eucharists and his mentor want that sort of reaction to make Catholics appear intolerant and unreasonable.
I'd agree with that. But, at the same time, if you don't streneously object to the sacrilege, you communicate to the perpetrator and the public that it isn't that big a deal. And, seeing as it is the actual Body and Blood, it should be a big deal. I think it sounds like the church was taking a pretty reasonable approach, wanting to explain to the guy why it is such an affront and asking for the Eucharist back. Unfortunately, you can't control the reactions of all the bystanders, some of whom may demonstrate their fallen nature.
I am human and have emotional responses. As a life long Catholic, I can tell you that I have endured all kinds of things from non-Catholics. It isn't nearly the type of outward discrimination as racism. I want to make that very, VERY clear. Things that I have experienced: 1. Being told by people that I should give up being Catholic to become a Christian. That little nugget (that I heard over and over) always spawned a lesson about history. 2. Having the local Baptist church knock on my door to invite me to their church. After thanking them nicely and stating that I am Catholic, I was told "you know all Catholics are going to hell." It really goes on and on...and then there is THIS jackass. If he were this smug and condescending to me in person, would I be very tempted to hit him? YES. Am I proud of it? NO. Am I honest about it? YES.
Note that, to some Catholics, the well-being of a cracker is more important than that of a person. Religion = FAIL
This is the mindset that incites violence. It may be a cracker to you, but to those of faith it is something more. The fact that you cannot understand that and have such disrespect for the beliefs of others makes you a complete jackass.
While I don't share that sentiment, I can understand it. We are all human. I was surprised, however, to see you say that he would only have himself to blame if he were attacked. As RocketsJudoka pointed out, Muslims who react with hatred and threats are (rightly) criticized. I struggle to see a difference between many of those Muslims and the Christians who threatened Meyers' life (and the president of the university Meyers teaches at as well). I know you didn't go that far but I would hope you at least realize that people are to blame for their own actions. Note also that I think Meyers is being a total tool in this instance so you are certainly not alone in that regard.
Actually, my post could not be construed as advocating anything other than non-violence. You are the one saying that physical harm is a legitimate reaction to a harmless, albeit immature, prank. Who's mindset is inciting violence, here? In what way, exactly, did I disrespect the beliefs of others? To me, a cracker is a cracker. So when I say, "To some Catholics, the well-being of a cracker is more important than that of a person," I am making a statement of fact that reflects my perspective on the situation. So I guess what was so offensive to you, what made you call me a "complete jackass", was nothing more than that I don't believe in your magical cracker. Did you ever consider that YOU may be the one with a lack of understanding?
as an ex-Catholic I can't tell you how many Catholics have told me I'm going to hell for leaving the Catholic church. But no matter how smug or arrogant the person was I was I can never see how violence toward them was a proper answer.
No, your perspective sucks. Your perspective captures well your feeling that a cracker is just a cracker, but does not even consider what a cracker is to a devout Catholic. When a cracker is used in the Eucharist, it becomes the actual body of Christ. So, to desecrate the cracker is to desecrate God himself, whom you worship. Obviously, you don't believe that, but use a smidgen of empathy, think for a minute about what it is like in the other man's shoes. What's more, in the case of the stolen cracker, the congregation feels it is made complicit in the sacrilege because they worship as a body and a member of the body has committed the transgression. That's a big deal in the mind of the devout, isn't it? I don't think anyone is having a problem understanding your position; it isn't complicated. You don't believe the mumbo-jumbo and a cracker is just a cracker no matter how much you bless it. No one is looking down on you for not believing it. The Catholics would just rather you didn't go out of your way to piss all over their God. That isn't too hard, is it? (Incidentally, I don't see where you draw the conclusion that the well-being of a person was of lesser importance than that of the cracker. It wouldn't be too unreasonable seeing as the former is a creation and the latter the incarnation of God. But, I'd think a Catholic guided by his doctrine would not sacrifice one for the other -- a Catholic overcome with his emotion and sin might, but that's true of everyone).
Again I might be expressing my own faith view onto Catholics, ironic since I went to Catholic school for a year as a kid. I can appreciate the sacredness of the object but to me it seems like this is a deliberate attempt to get a rise out of Catholics and if Catholics oblige them they will be playing into his hands. Even worse it will show every crazy anti-Catholic yahoo out there an easy way to make Catholics look bad as the Salmon Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists showed it was easy to make Muslims look bad. So while yes the Eucharist is sacred but at the sametime it seems to me that sacredness is what you imbue into it so is the physical object as important as the ritual? To me it seems like that while a manisfestation of the body of Christ has been desecrated the true body of Christ is beyond being touched by the physical.
Well, this is the subject of centuries of debate regarding Communion. There was dispute in the early Roman Catholic church about what Jesus meant when he said "This is body..." and "This is my blood...." Did he mean it metaphorically or literally? Eventually, the Pope clarified he meant it literally, and when people partake of the Eucharist you actually consume the body and blood of Christ (with all the implications regarding his sacrifice), and the symbolic position was rejected. The Protestant church later went the other way and asserted it was holy, but symbolic not actual. I think that Protestant influence is predominant in the US and people (even Catholics) tend to underestimate the importance of the Eucharist to Catholicism. I don't think it's right to say, in the Catholic paradigm, that the sacredness is merely in the eyes of the believer -- something is supposed to be really happening to the Eucharist. Actual Catholics, please correct me where I'm wrong. (I do think God should be able to take care of himself on this one. If someone is about to desecrate the Eucharist, can't He strike them dead, have the earth swallow them whole, afflict them with leprosy or blindness, or something like that? Or, perhaps simply reverse the transubstantiation when the Eucharist is abused?)
Empathy has nothing to do with the point I was making. It would if I were actually advocating the actions of those who desecrated the Eucharist, but I said nothing to that effect. Why should my perspective conform the the mythological world of the religious mind? There is an implicit contempt for my beliefs (or rather, lack of them in this case) in Refman's advocacy of violence against those who do not have the same emotional investment in Catholic rituals. That is my position, and I don't think you quite understand it if you are you accusing me of having a lack of empathy. I think there is a common belief that one's religious views are sacred, while atheists are almost never afforded the same respect. I strongly disagree. Let's not forget that the student who originally took the Eucharist from the church (well within his rights, I might add) received death threats, and in this very thread Refman has explicitly condoned violence against those who would do the same. This absurd overreaction is not reasonable in any sense of the word. In fact, it takes nothing less than a suspension of one's rationality to elevate a cracker to the status of "incarnation of God". Look, I'm fine with entertaining the delusions of religious people as along as they don't interfere with the physical well-being of real people. In this case, Refman and other have certainly crossed the line, yet you continue to rationalize their antisocial behavior. Why is that?
It shouldn't. However, this conversation isn't about how YOU feel. This conversation is about somebody who is going out there and taking a dump all over the beliefs of others. If you can't see where that would stir some emotions, then there isn't much helping you. No there isn't. I really don't care what you believe so long as you don't belittle my beliefs. Again, for emphasis, I do not care if you, or anybody else, has an investment, emotional or otherwise in any of the teachings or rituals of the Catholic church. What I do care about is when those rituals are openly mocked and interfered with. That I, and a good many other Catholics, will not abide. What is really unbelievable here is that you can't see how your incredibly deep "it's a cracker" analysis could be viewed as a lack of empathy. That is why things like this should bother you as well. Things like this do not exactly give people of faith a warm, fuzzy feeling towards atheists. Is it a bad rap? You bet. Sadly, though, people tend to lump groups of people with common beliefs into one conceptual basket. At no time did I state that grievous bodily injury or death were acceptable. All I said is that I would understand if a punch were thrown, and that I would be tempted to throw a couple myself if put in that position. I just can't wait to get the "reasonable" opinion of the one who has no respect for people or their beliefs. Ah yes...so reasonable...so respectful of others...you really are a man of the people. You say things like this and yet cannot understand why some think you are being a jackass. Shocking.
I think you misunderstood. The churches don't have stake outs, they have stakes out as in wooden stakes ready to stab him in his vampire-ish heart for stealing a holy object (albeit a not so tasty wafer...)
I was raised Catholic (12 years of Catholic school) and was a practicing Catholic. I would now consider myself Evangelical (I guess). I've thought about this issue and how I think Jesus would want us to react if the host truly was his body. Somethings I know: Jesus is big enough to take care of himself - he knows what it is like to be beaten, spit upon, whipped and murdered. Nothing a misguided fool does can cause real harm to Him - conversely the harm I (or any believer) inflict upon Jesus by our daily sins are much worse than these acts by a misguided fool. Because Jesus suffered for our sins, when I sin I am pushing the thorns into Jesus' head, holding the whip beating him and driving the nails into His hands. That is much more grievous than the sacrilege of an unbeliever. The man doing this is wrong. He is shallow, self-serving, arrogant and petty --but than again, so am I. and I should know better. I believe that a believer reacting with violence would grieve God more than the act of a petty unbeliever
As I pointed out in the post you quoted, the doctrine wouldn't support death threats or violence. That behavior is the expression of sinfullness that is brought out by the strong emotions elicited by the offense. It's sin and would be condemned by the doctrine. It isn't a function of the religion that would marginalize the value of life; it is a function of our common humanity and our propensity to do evil regardless of our religious convictions. I wouldn't say Religion = FAIL. I'd say Humanity = FAIL.
