Defending cracker abuse.

I've been dying to get to this for the last week, and I don't even know where to begin.

One of my favorite bloggers has become embroiled in a controversy for advocating cracker abuse. Cracker abuse you say? That sounds, well, kind of silly. I mean, why would anyone get upset about abusing a cracker? Well, what turns the brains of usually rational people into mush? If you guessed religion, then give yourself a generous pat on the back.

Probably most people didn't see this story from last week. Let me summarize. Webster Cook, a student at the University of Central Florida, attended a Catholic mass on campus. He was given the Eucharist, put it in his mouth, and instead of chewing it up and swallowing the Jesus-wafer unleavened goodness (and presumably pooping it out eventually - but lets not get into that), promptly got up from his seat and walked out of the church. Ok, maybe Cook is a little weird, but it's no more weird than believing that a cracker is the embodiment of a man from the first century.

But Cook's strange behavior is not the fucked up part. The fucked up part is that the parishioners demanded he return the Eucharist (yes, after he put it in his mouth), Cook has received death threats, his act has been called a hate crime, calls have been made for his expulsion, and armed officers now stand guard for Sunday mass. All of this seems like a massive over-reaction, but it's par for the course when Catholic League chief bloviator, Bill Donohue gets involved.

At this point, let me clear my throat (a-hem). IT'S A FUCKING CRACKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And here are all the tools needed to figure this out. A set of working eyes, and a third grade eduction. Oh, and not being a devoted Catholic would probably help too.

So here's the controversy on the internets. PZ Myers, a rather funny blogger at ScienceBlogs, made the point I just made - Cook's post-incident treatment is hugely inappropriate for taking a cracker. So, as a gesture of solidarity towards someone receiving death threats, Myers said the following...

"So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address."

I've often found that the more religious people are, the less capacity they have to understand irony. It's like the protesting Muslims who hold placards saying, "Behead those who say Islam is a violent religion."

But it isn't the reactions of the truly faithful that irk me. Religious beliefs are interesting in that, regardless of how irrational the belief may be, the person holding it can be quite rational in every other part of their life. Meaning, it's unfair to say (for instance) that all Catholics are crazy, but believing transubstantiation is crazy. Case in point, here is a reaction to Myers' above statements from the normally lucid, Andrew Sullivan:

"It is one thing to engage in free, if disrespectful, debate. It is another to repeatedly assault and ridicule and abuse something that is deeply sacred to a great many people. Calling the Holy Eucharist a "goddamned cracker" isn't about free speech; it's really about some baseline civility. Myers' rant is the rant of an anti-Catholic bigot. And atheists and agnostics can be bigots too."

Lots of problems here. First of all, Sullivan is employing some bad double-standards. He has frequently and rightly defended the Danish cartoonists right to make depictions of Mohammad, and often rails against the rising Christian supremacists who think that gay marriage is a great social scourge and the Earth is 6,000 years old. Unfortunately when it comes to mocking something which Sullivan believes is sacred (the holy sacraments) you get labeled a "bigot".

Secondly, Sullivan suggests that it's uncivil to poke fun at something that many millions of people believe is sacred. Just because something can be considered "sacred" in no way shields it from criticism. Lets say I believe that the white t-shirt I'm wearing right now is a sacred object and mustn't be desecrated. You would be right to make fun of me. Similarly, we are right to mock Scientologists for believing that "body thetans" are responsible for all our problems. How are any of these things any more or less ridiculous than the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation?

Of course, if you REALLY believe in transubstantiation, you feel no reason to address this obvious double-standard other than by parsing your own language.

"My objection to PZ Myers - even as I defended his right to say whatever he wants and wouldn't want him punished in any way - is not, in my view, a double standard. Printing a cartoon for legitimate purposes is a different thing than deliberately backing the physical desecration of sacred objects."

I can't comment on what the motivation of the Danish cartoonists was, but Myers is certainly making a larger point about what he perceives to be an unjust over-reaction to the treatment of a cracker. It should also be noted that Myers himself has received death threats and there have been calls for his removal from the University of Minnesota Morris for his comments. Likewise, desecration of Mormon underwear to protest the church's racist underpinnings would be certainly ok too, even if it risked offending each one of the world's Mormons. I must also point out that Sullivan once commented that he could never date anyone who took astrology seriously. While I'm apt to agree with him on that, in the context of his weak defense you have to wonder what exactly astrologers ever did to him personally.

There are two key things that need to be understood here. First, we should never conflate the ridicule of an idea with ridicule of the individual. Saying that someone believes something is stupid is different from believing someone TO BE stupid. I know a number of people who profess to be Catholic in some form or another, and they're perfectly good people. But that does not require me to respect beliefs they hold that are devoid of evidence.

Which brings me to the second point. Nowhere else are we expected to respect ridiculous beliefs except when it comes to religion. Transubstantiation is, on its surface, one of the craziest things anyone could believe. It is time to stand up and demand more evidence for "sacred" beliefs . What people want to believe in private is their own business. However, when lives and jobs are threatened (as in the case of both Cook and Myers) one has the obligation to call a spade a spade, or else we're opening the door for other bad ideas that do carry liabilities for all of humanity (acceptance of suicide bombing, the Rapture, believing that your people were promised a strip of desert in the Middle East by an invisible deity).

Tough call

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I understand that the intent is to satirize right wing attacks on Obama. For this, I commend the illustrator. On the other hand, I think most Americans aren't smart enough to realize this is satire...let alone even understand what satire means. Sorry if that sounds condescending, but it's the sad truth. And the Obama campaign certainly doesn't help people's understanding that this is satire by acting offended.

Dick move of the year.

Don't get me wrong. I have never had anything against Brett Favre. I think he's was a great football player and was fun to watch. But if you're going to hold a tearful retirement press conference in early March, you don't get to come back and say you changed your mind in July right before training camp starts. That is what's commonly referred to as a "dick move".

Part of this stand-off is the media's fault by continuing to make Favre out to be this mythological figure who's above the game. Just because someone won a Super Bowl, several MVP awards, and is largely responsible reviving team interest in a very small community doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants, especially when critical decisions have an enormous impact on other people - namely his former teammates. Coming out of retirement at this point is a really shitty thing to do, because it puts the entire Packers organization in a no-win situation that isn't their fault. Seriously, what the fuck are they supposed to do? Bring him back as a starter, pissing off future QB Aaron Rodgers, who would most certainly leave and accuse the Packers of lying to him and furthering any personal resentment to Favre? Bring Favre back as a second-string? Release or trade him, thereby pissing off Packers fans. Seriously, what an asshole!