Since they cause more damage than religions or homeopathic products, let’s start with politicians first, call it the “If you like my campaign promises, I’ll keep them” regulation.
Atheist fantasies are so cute.
I wonder if it’s possible to find out who has been paid to publically whine about the Hobby Lobby decision, the 1993 law that made the HL case, and eventual win, possible, male-judges-making-legal-decisions-concerning-women, and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s people?
Says the guy who thinks a cracker turns into a long dead carpenter…* in his mouth*.
Don’t be absurd. That doesn’t happen.
Exactly. It turns into a tekton in the chalice.
Hahahaha. You’re a hoot. Is that really what you think happens? No wonder your war on religion is floundering.
I actually knew that, but the way I put it was funnier. 
I think you’ll note that atheism is on the upswing. In a couple hundred years Christians will be seen as Scientologists are now.
Also, I took my understanding of the communion from some guy:
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6695304&postcount=2)
The quotation you offer is precisely correct, and brilliantly written to boot.
Your understanding of it is somewhat flawed.
As you now concede, the essential transformation happens in the chalice, not the mouth. Moreover, your description elides what the quoted text makes clear: the bread and wine change character and become the true body and blood of Christ.
Change “character” is a term relating to what changes, and what doesn’t. Things have, according to Catholic belief, both a species and a substance. The species is the outwards appearance of the object – how it appears to our senses. The substance is the thing’s essential character.
So Catholics believe that a transformation of the bread’s essence occurs, while the outwards appearance remains unmodified.
And that it happens in the chalice.
And you know what? That has never made more sense than it does right now.
As I say, I did know that. There was a thread about some kid that ran off with a ensorcelled wafer. And there was sadness. The mouth thing was a joke. You know, like your thesaurus club sig.
So, just so we’re clear, the magic happening in the cup, isn’t absurd.
Please tell me this was sincere and not sarcastic.
So now we 10 pages arguing about the difference between magic and miracles.
Sincere, but only technically. Sorry. 
Correct. It’s not absurd.
I don’t quite get the mouth joke – why is it funny?
The sig line is funny because it combines the movie line from Fight Club – the first rule of Fight Club is that you don’t talk about Fight Club – with the concept of a thesaurus, so that the rule spins out a half-dozen synonyms of “talk about.” That subverts the expectation created by the movie line in a comical way, directly tied to the somewhat silly concept of a Thesaurus Club.
Just to be clear… that’s not actually funny.
Of course not. He just explained it.
It’s sorta funny. Like, The New Yorker cartoon funny.
Nerd funny.