# "Desecration" of the Eucharist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2011, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144 "2011-03-18T13:09:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/201 "2011-03-21T16:08:18Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > Firstly, to simply say “there is no evidence” is clearly absurd. It’s an observation of irrefutable fact. name a single piece of evdience for sky gods. > [@](#): > > Every religion has different reasons for why their religion is true. Some are better than others obviously, and not all are convinving. So for instance in the Christian sphere we could talk about the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus as evidence for the Christian belief. This is circular. You’re citing a belief to support itself. Prove the resurrection of Jesus is a “historical reality.” > [@](#): > > You may or may not be convinced by that, but there are legitimate arguments to consider. Name one. > [@](#): > > The criticsm of Dawkins that Meyers was responding to was that Dawkins simply refused to engage with the arguments for faith that religious people were making. If anyone makes this claim about Dawkins, it is utterly false. Dawkins addresses arguments for God and engages with believers in great detail and with great frequency. What specific arguments do you believ that Dawkins has avoided? If you can actually cite one, I’ll step up and demolish it in Dawkins’ stead. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/202 "2011-03-21T16:11:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, the Bible makes almost no attempt to prove the existence of God, and it is perfectly possible to argue for the existence of God without any reference to Scripture. > > Which is another piece of evidence that Meyers was trolling - the nature of the Eucharist has nothing to do with the existence of God, and the Roman Catholic church makes no claim at all that the wafer is physically different from any other unconsecrated wafer. > > He wasn’t refuting any kind of argument - he was aiming to offend. That doesn’t establish the truth of his position in any way. Burning a cross doesn’t prove that black people are inferior, it simply asserts it in a deliberately offensive way. Likewise with Meyers’ desecration - it doesn’t prove anything about God; it just shows that Meyers was behaving like an asshole. Shodan, You’re confusing two separate mini-discussions that we were having- my points about the arguments for the existence of God were in relation to the Courtier’s reply. I agree the desecration had nothing to do with arguments for or against God. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/203 "2011-03-21T16:11:57Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > With the risk of this turning into a “does God exist” thread… > > The “historical reality” of the resurrection of Jesus? Come on. That’s not evidence, any more than a thousand year old document stating a ghost was scene in a London chapel is for the existence of ghosts. All supposed “evidence” for the existence of God requires certain assumptions to be made- like the bible is an accurate record of history- that Myers (and I) are not prepared to agree with. Then you are out of the mainstream thinking of biblical historians. Many historians (even the non-Christian ones) see the gospels as broadly historically reliable. The reason many reject the resurrection is not for reasons of historical evidence, but for metaphysical concerns, namely that resurrection is impossible. But to argue that because God does not exist because there is no evidence, because supernatural events can’t happen because God doesn’t exist is entirely circular. This highlights a further problem in the “New Atheist” epistemology. Evidence is not as objective as you would like it to be. Evidence can only be interpreted in light of a pre-existing worldview. If your worldview is atheistic, then it is no surprise that you will not see any evidence for God, because no evidence is possible. This is I think the only way one can support the claim “there is not evidence for God” but it is an entirely circular argument. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/204 "2011-03-21T16:12:55Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No you weren’t. You made a flippant, critical post about a victim of bigotry and death threats instead of condemning the bigotry and death threats. “Bigotry”? What bigotry? You mean the bigotry he displayed, mocking someone’s religious ceremony, or some other bigotry? I will state right away that death threats are a hyperbolic and uncalled-for reaction to a guy acting like a jerk. > [@](#): > > If he didn’t do anything to cause offense, he could have been doing anything offensive. You aren’t making any sense. He did something that would quite obviously cause offense, had he been caught doing it. ‘I got away with the offensive act’ is not the same as ‘I committed no offensive act’. Particularly where you boast of it afterwards. > [@](#): > > In your analogy, Phelps was commiting a crime by terspassing into the funeral home. Cook committed no trespass. If Phelps obtained his photograph legally, I would defend his right to photograph the guy blowing goats if he wants to. > > Which does not constitue a “trespass” or any other crime, and which did not disturb the ceremony. > > My impression was that in your anolgy, Phelps was crashing a funeral home illegally. If he goes in legally, I have no problem with it. You are once again moving goalposts. Crime is not the same as ‘giving offense’ and has no necessary relationship with it. What it it were proved that the wafer-stealer were acting illegally? Would you admit what he did was offensive then? > [@](#): > > I disagree that they were being “mocked,” but even if that’s the interpretation you want to insist on, they don’t have to read his blog, and they are not actually harmed by it. As I started, so I’ll conclude: Desecration of someone elses’ religious ceremonies is pretty well universally frowned upon. It is obvious you do not share this sentiment, but you are, I would say, an outlier. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/205 "2011-03-21T16:16:24Z")
> [@](#): > > The problem here is that this hypocrisy is pretty well universal among all long-lasting groups, and thus unremarkable. No-one would take seriously a position that Jews have no right to complain about the Holocaust, or Americans have no right to complain about being enslaved. I think this particular instance _is_ different. Most Jews nowadays probably do not revere the acts of genocide from the bible. Most Americans (hopefully) would agree that it was wrong for Jefferson and Washington to buy and sell slaves. But I bet if you asked most Catholics, including the “top” Catholics, if Saint Ludger was right to destroy those idols and pagan places of worship, they would say YES. I don’t have any hard evidence of this, of course. But would you disagree with my last assertion? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/206 "2011-03-21T16:20:28Z")
Calculon, The bible may be “broadly” historically reliable. But that doesn’t mean _at all_ that if the bible said Jesus was resurrected that it’s “historically accurate”. Few historians would say that specific instances of dialogue and intimate life details from the bible are likely to be “historically accurate”. Perhaps he was crucified. Perhaps after three days, someone reported that the rock moved. Perhaps one of the apostles said that Jesus appeared to him. None of this is evidence of even the Resurrection, much less the existence of God. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/207 "2011-03-21T16:20:40Z")
They’d probably say, “Who’s St. Ludger?” We’re not really talking about St. Francis or St. Jude there. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/208 "2011-03-21T16:22:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s an observation of irrefutable fact. name a single piece of evdience for sky gods. I already did > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is circular. You’re citing a belief to support itself. Prove the resurrection of Jesus is a “historical reality.” This isn’t circular. If the ressurection happened then Christianity is likely true. If not, then it isn’t. And the point is not to show that the resurrection did actually happen. The point is to nominate evidence that religious people present to demonstrate the truth of their view. The claim “there is no evidence of any sort” for religion is clearly false. You may not find the evidence convincing, but that doesn’t make it disappear. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Name one. See above. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If anyone makes this claim about Dawkins, it is utterly false. Dawkins addresses arguments for God and engages with believers in great detail and with great frequency. > > What specific arguments do you believ that Dawkins has avoided? If you can actually cite one, I’ll step up and demolish it in Dawkins’ stead. Let’s start with Plantiga’s ontological argument that the existence for God is about 50/50. If Dawkins is correct that “there almost certainly is no God”, then this argument must be false. Show me how. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/209 "2011-03-21T16:23:03Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think this particular instance _is_ different. Most Jews nowadays probably do not revere the acts of genocide from the bible. Most Americans (hopefully) would agree that it was wrong for Jefferson and Washington to buy and sell slaves. > > But I bet if you asked most Catholics, including the “top” Catholics, if Saint Ludger was right to destroy those idols and pagan places of worship, they would say YES. > > I don’t have any hard evidence of this, of course. But would you disagree with my last assertion? I really have no idea how Catholics view the destruction of idols by past saints. If I was forced to guess, I’d say that they would probably mumble something about different rules applicable to persons in past eras - same as what would be mumbled by pretty well every other group facing similar “problems”. The more interesting question would be ‘if saint such-and-such was right to destroy idols in Dark Ages Saxony - am I right to take a sledgehammer to my neighbour Mr. Pushpam’s idol of Ganesh today?’ If the official answer is “yes”, you’ve got a great case for hypocrisy. If “no”, not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/210 "2011-03-21T16:25:00Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Calculon, > > The bible may be “broadly” historically reliable. But that doesn’t mean _at all_ that if the bible said Jesus was resurrected that it’s “historically accurate”. Few historians would say that specific instances of dialogue and intimate life details from the bible are likely to be “historically accurate”. > > Perhaps he was crucified. Perhaps after three days, someone reported that the rock moved. Perhaps one of the apostles said that Jesus appeared to him. None of this is evidence of even the Resurrection, much less the existence of God. So what would you consider sufficient evidence? What is the least amount of evidence that you accept? Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/211 "2011-03-21T16:25:09Z")
Calculon- to further extrapolate my points: I’m not saying there’s no arguments to be made in favor of the existence of God. What I’m saying, basically (and what I think Myers was saying with the Courtier’s Reply), is that the evidence of the existence of the Christian God is of the same caliber as the evidence for the existence of Zeus, or Odin, or Ahura Mazda, or Shiva, or Russell’s Teapot. And all of that “evidence” can be reasonably treated the same. Personally, I imagine that most believers in God have deep, personal, and perhaps even powerful experiences and reasons for believing in God. I think that’s fine. But I do not have any of those reasons. And lacking any personal experiences of this nature, I see nothing even approaching convincing for the existence of God. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/212 "2011-03-21T16:27:52Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Calculon- to further extrapolate my points: > > I’m not saying there’s no arguments to be made in favor of the existence of God. What I’m saying, basically (and what I think Myers was saying with the Courtier’s Reply), is that the evidence of the existence of the Christian God is of the same caliber as the evidence for the existence of Zeus, or Odin, or Ahura Mazda, or Shiva, or Russell’s Teapot. And all of that “evidence” can be reasonably treated the same. > > Personally, I imagine that most believers in God have deep, personal, and perhaps even powerful experiences and reasons for believing in God. I think that’s fine. But I do not have any of those reasons. And lacking any personal experiences of this nature, I see nothing even approaching convincing for the existence of God. That I think is a fundamentally intellectually lazy position. Evidence is evidence and needs to be considered individually. What evidence do you have for the belief that all religious claims can be treated the same? That seems like an ideological faith-based position than a reasoned argument. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/213 "2011-03-21T16:31:25Z")
> [@](#): > > So what would you consider sufficient evidence? What is the least amount of evidence that you accept? Good question. I’m not sure, exactly. Which God, exactly? If you’re talking about “proof” (in the common sense of the word), and for the Christian God, then maybe a personal appearance in public, in which he answers a bunch of questions. Even then, I’d want to look “behind the curtain”, so to speak. And I might still question my own sanity. If you’re just talking about evidence? Maybe something like the words “I am the Lord thy God” appearing on the Moon, visible from earth unaided. I’d still be looking for a big laser beam. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/214 "2011-03-21T16:36:07Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > Name me one good thing about religion that Dawkins talks about. Pointing out how historically destructive religion has been is a factual observation, not an emotional appeal. I think he probably thinks mainstream religion is more dangerous than it really is, but hs arguments have a logical basis. I’m not really interested in those aspecyts of his books anyway. Like I said, I think it becomes a distraction from the actual scientific examination of metaphysical beliefs and the basis for them, which is what is interesting to me. > [@](#): > > They part where he argues that religion is responsible for all of the bad actions of it’s followers, but secular beliefs are not is a classic example. I’m asking what specific bad behavior caused by non-religious beliefs that he, in your own word, “excuses.” > [@](#): > > It is a while since I read the book, but I think you are softening his argument. If that was simply the point then why bring it up. He was trying to address the question of why irrational and manifestly unsupportable beliefs like god beliefs get perpetuated and whether there can be an explanation for it. It wasn’t an argument against the existence of God, it was simply a speculation (by an evolutionary scientist) on a possible reason why the beliefs would survive so hardily in the face of massively contradictory empirical experience and scientific evdidence.. > [@](#): > > The fact that different people believe contradictory things is simple evidence of that principle. You don’t need memes at all to show that. That wasn’t what he was trying to show. I think you really misunderstood that whole section. > [@](#): > > Moreover, your statement could be said of atheism as well. The belief that there almost certainly is no God requires no basis in truth to be believed too It’s not a belief. It’s a reasoned inference from available evidence. > [@](#): > > To insist that something is false because it is a meme is self refuting Dawkins doesn’t do that. > [@](#): > > However I disagree with your claims of the irrefutability of Dawkins metaphysical claims. Here I think he is clearly out of his depth. Telling I think is the fact that he hardly mentions any philosphers or theologians from this century in his work. So for instance in talking of the ontological arguement, he says nothing of Alvin Plantiga version of the argument, nor indeed does he even seem aware of it. This is the best you can do? That he didn’t address every single defense of every classical argument ever made? How long would you want the book to be? Just for the record, though, Plantinga’s Ontological formula is trivially easy to refute. Want me to do it? [quote] You might protest that “The God delusion” is not a book for specialists, and that is why it was omitted. However even popular books need to have an overview of all of the relevant material, and given the influence of Plantiga’s work it is misleading to say nothing of it. [/quote Plantinga’s work is infleunetial on who? Other believers? What scientific arguments has he made? I don’t know why Plantinga gets so much credit from believers. I find him rather shallow. > [@](#): > > On this point I think I agree with Antony Flew’s criticism of Dawkins is that he doesn’t argue against the strongest forms of arguments, but simply argues against simplistic charactures of them. In fact in reading “The God delusion” I never got the feeling that Dawkins had a deep understanding of any of the metaphyical arguments that he was making. Sure he did. There really isn’t anything all that deep about any of them. The flaws in the arguments are easy enough to understand. What particulary strong argument or nuance do you think Dawkins avoided or missed? I’ll go ahead and smash it for you. > [@](#): > > As well there are a number of refutations of Dawkins arguments out there. There are a number of apologist reponses. None of them can refute his basic arguments against any evidence or basis for god beliefs. If you are confident that some really good evidence for sky gods exists, go ahead and tell me what it is. If I can’t refute it I’ll eat my own pants. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/215 "2011-03-21T16:36:58Z")
> [@](#): > > That I think is a fundamentally intellectually lazy position. Evidence is evidence and needs to be considered individually. What evidence do you have for the belief that all religious claims can be treated the same? That seems like an ideological faith-based position than a reasoned argument. I’m certainly willing to consider every piece of evidence. But so far, every piece of evidence of the existence of all those deities I mentioned _that I have seen or heard_ appears (yes, this is a judgement) of the same caliber. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/216 "2011-03-21T16:40:56Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > That suggests that he has little grasp of the notion, actually. Who holds an individual physical copy of a Richard Dawkins book _sacred_? No one, but it’s a common religionist meme that atheists hold Dawkins in some kind of awed regard or reverence, and it would be a predictable response that they would say he wouldn’t trash a Dawkins book, so he was doing it to show that he doesn’t discriminate. ---
**Author:** ![Pazu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pazu/32/15522_2.png) [@Pazu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pazu)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/217 "2011-03-21T16:43:27Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > “Bigotry”? What bigotry? You mean the bigotry he displayed, mocking someone’s religious ceremony, or some other bigotry? > > […] > > As I started, so I’ll conclude: Desecration of someone elses’ religious ceremonies is pretty well universally frowned upon. It is obvious you do not share this sentiment, but you are, I would say, an outlier. At this point I’m completely unsure as to whether you’re referring to Myers or Cook. If the latter: Cook didn’t take the wafer home to “desecrate” it; he said he wanted to show it to his roommate. Why this action deserved death threats and hate mail is beyond me. If the former: Myers never entered a communion in order to steal a wafer; at least one reader sent him some after he blogged about aforementioned incident. So how did he desecrate someone’s ceremony? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/218 "2011-03-21T16:45:51Z")
I’m pretty sure that Catholic beliefs as to the literal existence of their God are just as valid as those of some New Guinean tribesmen as to the literal existence of their ancestor-spirits. I do not myself believe in either. My own opinion is that both are simply institutionalized expressions of a human urge towards the numinous in existence - an urge the highest expression of which is the study of nature itself. However, that being noted - I’d no more desecrate a New Guinean ancestor-worshipping ceremony than I would a mass; both would be intolerably rude and disrespectful acts. If a New Guinean invited me to partake in a ritual or ceremony of theirs, I’d do so on _their_ terms - respectfully. To mock them later, or to steal some part of their sacred regalia to mock and desecrate, is simply unacceptable behaviour. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/219 "2011-03-21T16:46:53Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > Then you are out of the mainstream thinking of biblical historians. Many historians (even the non-Christian ones) see the gospels as broadly historically reliable. No they don’t. I assure with absolute confidence and with a lot of personal knowledge that this is false, especially with regard to supernatural claims made about Jesus. > [@](#): > > The reason many reject the resurrection is not for reasons of historical evidence What historical evidence do you believe exists for the resurrection? > [@](#): > > This highlights a further problem in the “New Atheist” epistemology. Evidence is not as objective as you would like it to be. Evidence can only be interpreted in light of a pre-existing worldview. If your worldview is atheistic, then it is no surprise that you will not see any evidence for God, because no evidence is possible. This is I think the only way one can support the claim “there is not evidence for God” but it is an entirely circular argument This is circular, tautological gibberish. You’re not only trying to change teh definition of “evdience” so that you don’t have to produce any, you’re actually stating that only believers can see it. What utter nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/220 "2011-03-21T16:49:17Z")
> [@Pazu](#): > > At this point I’m completely unsure as to whether you’re referring to Myers or Cook. > > If the latter: Cook didn’t take the wafer home to “desecrate” it; he said he wanted to show it to his roommate. Why this action deserved death threats and hate mail is beyond me. > > If the former: Myers never entered a communion in order to steal a wafer; at least one reader sent him some after he blogged about aforementioned incident. So how did he desecrate someone’s ceremony? A consecrated wafer cannot be obtained without someone descerating the ceremony of communion. I’m not saying such an act warrants death threats. Indeed, I’ve repeatedly said it doesn’t. It is still the sort of thing civilized people frown upon. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=12)