# "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:** 28
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/541 "2011-03-24T19:25:14Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I don’t know why you are so in love with this phrase, unless you are trying to permanently link it in peoples’ minds to cracker taking. Whether I find such a totally fictitious action offensive is of no consequence, but I am sure you hope that others _do_ it offensive and make that link. Now, if you wish to talk about what actually happened and its possible causes and consequences I’ll gladly do so, but I refuse to go along with this association game of yours any further. Boy, you are testy, aren’t you? First you “refuse” to answer a yes or no question - then you demand I answer _your_ questions (which I do) - and now you “refuse to go along with this asociation game of yours”. Who cares whether you “refuse”? Argument by analogy is perfectly valid. Perhaps you’d have better success if you made logical arguments of your own as to why you are right, rather than huffily attempting to “refuse” the arguments of others? Just a thought. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/542 "2011-03-24T19:27:04Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Since “personally-directed act of contempt and hatred” is a definition of your own choosing, would you mind if I substitute “cracker taking”, since it has definitely _not_ been established that this was an act of contempt and hatred? You wanted my answer and I gave it. If you wish to substitute your own, feel free - but I’m not sure what you think to prove thereby. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/543 "2011-03-24T19:35:27Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > You wanted my answer and I gave it. If you wish to substitute your own, feel free - but I’m not sure what you think to prove thereby. Just pointing out that "“personally-directed act of contempt and hatred” is only what _you_ are calling it, and not an established fact. That is why I am trying to avoid the use of hyperbole and bad analogy-while they are good for stirring up base passion, they tend to hinder actual discussion and/or debate. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/544 "2011-03-24T19:41:48Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Just pointing out that "“personally-directed act of contempt and hatred” is only what _you_ are calling it, and not an established fact. That is why I am trying to avoid the use of hyperbole and bad analogy-while they are good for stirring up base passion, they tend to hinder actual discussion and/or debate. It’s what I called it because you asked - solicited - my opinion. Normally, when you ask someone’s opinion, they respond in their own words, right? What’s up with you getting pissed at what other people choose to say? Have you seen me getting pissy at you using the derisive “it’s just a cracker” language to refer to the consecrated host? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/545 "2011-03-24T19:45:50Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It’s what I called it because you asked - solicited - my opinion. Normally, when you ask someone’s opinion, they respond in their own words, right? > > What’s up with you getting pissed at what other people choose to say? Have you seen me getting pissy at you using the derisive “it’s just a cracker” language to refer to the consecrated host? Should I refer to it as a “consecrated host” if I don’t believe it to be so? When there is a difference in the use of terminology between the religious and the non-religious, should deference _always_ be given to the religious? Edited to add-It is a bit of wafer or cracker to all who come across it. Whether it is _also_ a “consecrated host” is a belief that is only held by some, and thus that belief is secondary to fact that is accepted by all. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/546 "2011-03-24T20:34:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He actually was physically assaulted at the student Union. Yes, he was harmed. When was the student “physically assaulted” at the Student Union and if so, why didn’t he have the police lock up whoever attacked him? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/547 "2011-03-24T20:40:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, that isn’t your opinion. > > If it were, you wouldn’t pitch a fit when a kid wore a T-shirt with a quote from Leviticus during the National Day of Silence. The T-shirt didn’t make any threats or do any harm, so if the above were what you really thought, you would have defended it. > > Regards, > Shodan Why would Dio have been upset about a kid wearing a T-shirt with a Leviticus quote on the National Day of Silence? He earlier insisted that there is no homophobia in the Bible, not even in Leviticus, whereas, according to him, “the whole religion of Islam” is extremely homophobic and he strongly implied that if one is a Muslim one has to be homophobic. Granted he earlier spent several pages insisting that the term “Catholic” applied to just about all Christians, said people who disagreed with him on this should “shut up” and then made his previous statements look laughably hypocritical by claiming that “Catholics have only been discriminated against by other Christians” showing he’s either grossly ignorant of the way Christians were historically treated and still are treated in Muslim countries as well as present day Israel or, the more likely answer, when he uses the term “Catholic” he’s only referring to Roman Catholics. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/548 "2011-03-24T20:54:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > He gave an explanation of his actions, and I believe it has been reiterated in this thread, so I believe that you _have_ seen what you have requested, it’s just that you refuse to accept what has been offered. I’m not sure what you mean exactly. Myers intended to demonstrate his contempt for the irrational beliefs of others, yes? Was there a more specific message? (I think that was pretty much the one that was conveyed to the people _he_ directed the act towards.) What good was accomplished? > [@Czarcasm](#): > > It is a bit of wafer or cracker to all who come across it. Whether it is _also_ a “consecrated host” is a belief that is only held by some, and thus that belief is secondary to fact that is accepted by all. Myers’ act was _dependent_ on the religious belief. We wouldn’t be talking about it if he hadn’t been acting upon that understanding, whether he shared it or not, so it seems pretty primary in the circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/549 "2011-03-24T21:08:57Z")
I just reread Myers’ own explanation linked in the OP. Certainly anyone who was interested in Myers’ opinion of the religious beliefs involved could have discerned that readily enough without his taking the time to contemptuously _demonstrate_ it. He writes well, is versed in history–no one can imagine that he didn’t have a pretty good idea how the insult would be received. Does anybody imagine that anybody’s mind has been changed about the belief upon which the act was based? So what’s the point? Myers might as well have driven by a church as services let out, holding up a middle finger and screaming “screw you ignorant retards!” Except I suppose this way he managed to reach more people. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/550 "2011-03-24T21:10:04Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > When was the student “physically assaulted” at the Student Union and if so, why didn’t he have the police lock up whoever attacked him? The “assault” consisted of the people there grabbing him, restraining him, and trying to pry his hand open. He did file an official abuse complaint with the university. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/551 "2011-03-24T21:17:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Should I refer to it as a “consecrated host” if I don’t believe it to be so? When there is a difference in the use of terminology between the religious and the non-religious, should deference _always_ be given to the religious? > Edited to add-It is a bit of wafer or cracker to all who come across it. Whether it is _also_ a “consecrated host” is a belief that is only held by some, and thus that belief is secondary to fact that is accepted by all. Actually “consecrated host” is the more widely accepted and therefore correct term. “Cracker” is only used to express hate and bigotry by people like Jack Chick and Fred Phelps. Why you want to align yourself with people like that is hard to understand. Maybe fundamentalist atheists have more in common with fundamentalists of other stripes than you want to recognize. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 24, 2011, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/552 "2011-03-24T21:46:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I am talking about the contradiction between your alleged opinion and your actions. > > No, they were not. There was no disruption. This is getting to be a stupid argument since I don’t even remember whatever incident you’re referring to, but as a matter of law, you’re wrong. This is also a hijack from the topic. ---
**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 24, 2011, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/553 "2011-03-24T21:48:45Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > When was the student “physically assaulted” at the Student Union and if so, why didn’t he have the police lock up whoever attacked him? This has been answered. He was assaulted on the spot when he tried to carry the cracker back to his seat. He did file a complaint. It is not within his power to have the police lock anybody up. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/554 "2011-03-24T21:51:22Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > The “assault” consisted of the people there grabbing him, restraining him, and trying to pry his hand open. He did file an official abuse complaint with the university. Cite? Not challenging you, I just haven’t heard it mentioned. Also, if multiple people attacked him and tried to grab the wafer out of his hand(as you’re saying) how did he get it out of there? Was this really multiple people attacking him or was it more like one person saying to him, “Hey you’re not supposed to leave with it. Either eat it, or leave it” as Dio said he saw happen earlier when someone said they wanted to eat it at home? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/555 "2011-03-24T21:53:16Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This has been answered. He was assaulted on the spot when he tried to carry the cracker back to his seat. He did file a complaint.\*\* It is not within his power to have the police lock anybody up.\*\* Cite? Also, your last sentence implies that the police refused to arrest people who assaulted him. Please provide evidence of this assertion. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/556 "2011-03-24T21:53:34Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Actually “consecrated host” is the more widely accepted and therefore correct term. “Cracker” is only used to express hate and bigotry by people like Jack Chick and Fred Phelps. Why you want to align yourself with people like that is hard to understand. “Disdain” does not equal “hate and bigotry.” We look at their beliefs as silly and childish, but not hate like Chick and Phelps do. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/557 "2011-03-24T21:55:42Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Cite? > > Not challenging you, I just haven’t heard it mentioned. It was widely reported at the time. From [http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html](http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html) : > [@WFTV](#): > > “When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him,” Cook said. “I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they’d leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth.” > A church leader was watching, confronted Cook and tried to recover the sacred bread. Cook said she crossed the line and that’s why he brought it home with him. > “She came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand,” Cook said, adding she wouldn’t immediately take her hands off him despite several requests. > > … > > Cook filed an official abuse complaint with UCF’s student conduct court regarding the alleged physical force. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/558 "2011-03-24T21:57:05Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > I just reread Myers’ own explanation linked in the OP. > > Certainly anyone who was interested in Myers’ opinion of the religious beliefs involved could have discerned that readily enough without his taking the time to contemptuously _demonstrate_ it. He writes well, is versed in history–no one can imagine that he didn’t have a pretty good idea how the insult would be received. > > Does anybody imagine that anybody’s mind has been changed about the belief upon which the act was based? So what’s the point? > > Myers might as well have driven by a church as services let out, holding up a middle finger and screaming “screw you ignorant retards!” Except I suppose this way he managed to reach more people. While I largely agree with this assessment, I’d dispute the contention that Myers is “versed in history” if he’s so embarrassingly ignorant that he thinks Germany was “a Catholic nation” he can’t be all that versed in history. Either that or he knows what Germany’s religious composition was, but decided to lie for the sake of supporting his argument. ---
**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 24, 2011, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/559 "2011-03-24T22:03:04Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Actually “consecrated host” is the more widely accepted and therefore correct term. “Cracker” is only used to express hate and bigotry by people like Jack Chick and Fred Phelps. Why you want to align yourself with people like that is hard to understand. “Crackers” are literally what communion wafers are - little circles of baked, unleavened bread. “Cracker” is an accurate, physical descritor. The purpose of using the word is to draw attention to what the wafres actually are and away from magical language. The comparison to Jack Chick is asinine since calling an object by a literal, physical descriptor is not a slander on anyone. > [@](#): > > Maybe fundamentalist atheists have more in common with fundamentalists of other stripes than you want to recognize. There is no such thing as a “fundamentalist atheist.” “Fundamentalism” is defined by a strict adherence to a scared text or doctrine. Atheism is not a belief, contains no doctrine and has no scared text. ---
**Author:** ![TravisFromOR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cc9497/32.png) [@TravisFromOR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TravisFromOR)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/560 "2011-03-24T22:08:23Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “Crackers” are literally what communion wafers are - little circles of baked, unleavened bread. “Cracker” is an accurate, physical descritor. The purpose of using the word is to draw attention to what the wafres actually are and away from magical language. The comparison to Jack Chick is asinine since calling an object by a literal, physical descriptor is not a slander on anyone. It is a hateful term used to express contempt of the belief in Transubstantiation. You’re not stupid. You know this. It seems that you are purposefully using it in this way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=29)