It wouldnt be so bad if it were only PZ Myers expressing his intent of desecrting the wafer. A brief glance at the comments at his blog involving “cracker-gate” (as they like to call it) will reveal the prortion of atheists share his view that “its just a cracker”.

This was anything but a rational attempt to point out why he thinks religion is wrong. But rather a taunt aimed at people who never tried forcing their beliefs on to Myers or even had a problem with Myers not holding the “cracker” as sacred.

In short – I dont thinks Catholics have a problem with someone not holding the cracker sacred in the first place. But Myers expressing an intent to willingly desecrate it CREATES a problem for the Catholics.

In any case, the important points here seem to be, item that Cook broke the unwritten social rules that he were expected to follow when he decided to participate in the ritual; and item that PZ Myers shows an unfortunate lack of understanding of these unwritten rules, of the significances that are attached to the consecrated host beyond its purely material characteristics, and of the whole situation and its context in general.

Personally, I would really expect a more sophisticated analysis from a person of his obvious intelligence and education, but I guess such things don’t always go together.

The church doesn’t have a legal case

Then we’re in agreement. Rights isn’t shorthand for legal rights?

The church doesn’t have a legal case, but it’s obviously incorrect to assume that everything morally wrong is also actionable. Lying to your mother is wrong, but she can’t sue for that.

And nobody here is saying that what Cook is a monster. For my part, while I think that he shouldn’t have done what he did, I’m more offended by the grossly disproportionate reaction it caused, and for that reason I sympathize a great deal with PZ’s response.

Webster Cook did not have the right to take the host without permission. The church and the diocese have every right to complain and seek restitution.

Fine, since you all seem to disagree with me. I’ll assume Webster Cook didn’t have the ‘right’ to not eat the cracker he had been given, and the church has the right to seek restitution. What is the church’s legal case? On what basis will they sue for restitution? Explain this to me, because I don’t see it.

Loaning a camera to someone for them to take your picture is not the same situation. You’re expecting to get it back – the same as with any other loan. This is a cracker that was expected to be consumed – legally, I fail to see how you can say it was loaned instead of given.

Which, if anyone is taking bets, is where I’d put my money.

~ John