Eucharist for Thought (nom)
Jul. 11th, 2008 12:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
summer_jackelSo, this post is going to be about politics and religion, both of which I generally do my best to avoid, but I can't resist this one. Usual caveat that this is meant with all respect to religious friends (and you may like my conclusion, guys) but there will be snark.
So,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
kulan pointed to this post here, in which a scientest/prof/writer whose blog I tend to adore writes about an incident in which a student made off with some Eucharist at a Catholic ritual. The Catholics have gotten their panties in a twist to the point of calling it a hate crime (condoned by the Church) and making death threats (maybe not so much with the condoning, at least in public). The neato Jackel-approved snarky prof responds to this with enjoyable vitriol and cheerfully offers to desecrate the heck out of 'em, if anybody can get him the requisite crackers.
Now, my first reaction to this is one of glee. I have a certain deep-rooted, visceral dislike for organized Christianity, but the Catholics are special in my disdain. I could blame their awful historical track record, but it's probably something about the use of massive guilt, the attacks on womens' rights, or the campaign against teaching the evolutionary theory, combined with the grossly unbalanced power they enjoy in the world. (The Jehovah's Witnesses are at least as annoying, but no one is really afraid of them). So I was all ready to savour the heck out of this kid pulling their tails in a particularly delicious prank, and to share in the satisfaction of a scientist adroitly teasing the pathetically unreasonable. But as I was walking in the woods this morning, enjoying my own daily taste of the sacred, I realized that it bothered me somewhat.
So, one of the Catholics' tastier kinky beliefs and rituals is cannibalism, right? Because the cracker literally becomes Jesus-meat, which is holy, thus the hissy fit, at least as I understand. Now, I've nothing against cannibalism, in theory, as long as everything's consensual, and probably wouldn't turn down some human in the right circumstance. So no moral gripe with the Catholics there. I also like the whole 'Jesus as sacrificial animal' part of the story, because it has both psychological resonance and accomplishes practical good, which are hallmarks of useful myth. It removes the need to kill animals to suit religion, which is great for the animals and their owners, while soothing the uneasiness and dislocation caused by changing a long-established tradition. It also points to the fact that, according to its own story, Christian behavior is allowed to be flexible over time when the proper care is taken (animal sacrifice is REALLY IMPORTANT in the Old Testament, as in really really of the highest degree). I can't help but thinking that a little religious flexibility in certain circles right now would save us all a lot of headache, especially in the 'OMG Evolution is Evil, how can we deny it!!!!!!!' debates.
I'm an unmitigated carnivore. Some folks from cannibal tribes have apparently reported that we taste like pig, and I crave pork now and then, though if we tasted like beef I might be eyeing my plumper friends in a questionable way far more often. (joke, guys. Really). I'm curious. Eucharist, if this is true, seems like a great way to sample some meat with minimal fuss and sufficient cultural approval, but I suspect that Jesus tastes a little dry and crumbly. That aside, I somehow missed the part of the story where Jesus' followers ate the body, which is a shame, because I really would have loved that part. It would have made my predatory little heart all warm and tingly.
Still, I realized that in this instance, I felt bad for the Catholics. I mean, what if someone walked into a furcon, was given a really nice bit of art, and then tore it up and announced that all furries suck? We'd be sad. To go at the same idea in a much less snarky and more vulnerable way, though: with a little stretch, I can empathize with the Catholics. The ones who really are offended and not just using this as a political tool, anyway. I am possessed of a deep sense of the sacred, though usually I shut up about it because, among other reasons, I experience spirituality as a private thing. The planet and its life are the holiest of holies to me, and when I experience a clear cut, or an animal raised or killed without compassion and respect, or a bunch of other things I could list, I experience a certain quality of horror and helpless rage that transcends the rational. Having this Jesus cracker thing mistreated might feel like that if Catholicism is your thing.
So, threatening to steal and mess with this cracker: It's not a nice thing to do and there's no real reason to do it, other than to have fun by hurting people for its own sake. I just can't condone that sort of behavior. Having this called a hate crime is, IMHO, an insult to victims of hate crime, and I love being mean to people who've earned my dislike, so the desire to cheer this on is definitely there. But still...
Scientific Pagans, compassionate Atheists, heck, Christians with open minds who are justifiably embarassed by the behavior of the fundies, folk who generally want to help raise humanity into a more scientific and therefore hopefully ecological consciousness...guys, we can snark, but let's not be rude, ok? Being mean for its own sake dosen't help us. Running circles around their silly straw-man arguments with sound science is more fun, anyhow.
So,
kulan pointed to this post here, in which a scientest/prof/writer whose blog I tend to adore writes about an incident in which a student made off with some Eucharist at a Catholic ritual. The Catholics have gotten their panties in a twist to the point of calling it a hate crime (condoned by the Church) and making death threats (maybe not so much with the condoning, at least in public). The neato Jackel-approved snarky prof responds to this with enjoyable vitriol and cheerfully offers to desecrate the heck out of 'em, if anybody can get him the requisite crackers.Now, my first reaction to this is one of glee. I have a certain deep-rooted, visceral dislike for organized Christianity, but the Catholics are special in my disdain. I could blame their awful historical track record, but it's probably something about the use of massive guilt, the attacks on womens' rights, or the campaign against teaching the evolutionary theory, combined with the grossly unbalanced power they enjoy in the world. (The Jehovah's Witnesses are at least as annoying, but no one is really afraid of them). So I was all ready to savour the heck out of this kid pulling their tails in a particularly delicious prank, and to share in the satisfaction of a scientist adroitly teasing the pathetically unreasonable. But as I was walking in the woods this morning, enjoying my own daily taste of the sacred, I realized that it bothered me somewhat.
So, one of the Catholics' tastier kinky beliefs and rituals is cannibalism, right? Because the cracker literally becomes Jesus-meat, which is holy, thus the hissy fit, at least as I understand. Now, I've nothing against cannibalism, in theory, as long as everything's consensual, and probably wouldn't turn down some human in the right circumstance. So no moral gripe with the Catholics there. I also like the whole 'Jesus as sacrificial animal' part of the story, because it has both psychological resonance and accomplishes practical good, which are hallmarks of useful myth. It removes the need to kill animals to suit religion, which is great for the animals and their owners, while soothing the uneasiness and dislocation caused by changing a long-established tradition. It also points to the fact that, according to its own story, Christian behavior is allowed to be flexible over time when the proper care is taken (animal sacrifice is REALLY IMPORTANT in the Old Testament, as in really really of the highest degree). I can't help but thinking that a little religious flexibility in certain circles right now would save us all a lot of headache, especially in the 'OMG Evolution is Evil, how can we deny it!!!!!!!' debates.
I'm an unmitigated carnivore. Some folks from cannibal tribes have apparently reported that we taste like pig, and I crave pork now and then, though if we tasted like beef I might be eyeing my plumper friends in a questionable way far more often. (joke, guys. Really). I'm curious. Eucharist, if this is true, seems like a great way to sample some meat with minimal fuss and sufficient cultural approval, but I suspect that Jesus tastes a little dry and crumbly. That aside, I somehow missed the part of the story where Jesus' followers ate the body, which is a shame, because I really would have loved that part. It would have made my predatory little heart all warm and tingly.
Still, I realized that in this instance, I felt bad for the Catholics. I mean, what if someone walked into a furcon, was given a really nice bit of art, and then tore it up and announced that all furries suck? We'd be sad. To go at the same idea in a much less snarky and more vulnerable way, though: with a little stretch, I can empathize with the Catholics. The ones who really are offended and not just using this as a political tool, anyway. I am possessed of a deep sense of the sacred, though usually I shut up about it because, among other reasons, I experience spirituality as a private thing. The planet and its life are the holiest of holies to me, and when I experience a clear cut, or an animal raised or killed without compassion and respect, or a bunch of other things I could list, I experience a certain quality of horror and helpless rage that transcends the rational. Having this Jesus cracker thing mistreated might feel like that if Catholicism is your thing.
So, threatening to steal and mess with this cracker: It's not a nice thing to do and there's no real reason to do it, other than to have fun by hurting people for its own sake. I just can't condone that sort of behavior. Having this called a hate crime is, IMHO, an insult to victims of hate crime, and I love being mean to people who've earned my dislike, so the desire to cheer this on is definitely there. But still...
Scientific Pagans, compassionate Atheists, heck, Christians with open minds who are justifiably embarassed by the behavior of the fundies, folk who generally want to help raise humanity into a more scientific and therefore hopefully ecological consciousness...guys, we can snark, but let's not be rude, ok? Being mean for its own sake dosen't help us. Running circles around their silly straw-man arguments with sound science is more fun, anyhow.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-11 10:17 pm (UTC)And I have trouble following the logic. What do you think the Jesus of their story would do if faced with the choice of having some of his body hurt and misused or having a child be attacked? Well, actually, we know the answer to that because according to the story he chose to let his body be mistreated and harmed to protect other people.
So, how can mistreating a bit of his body be worse than almost all other sins?
I'm not saying people should do it, just as tearing up a piece of furry art given to you as a gift and then insulting the people would be rude. But it wouldn't be as bad as smacking people around for fun. Remember, the cracker was given to him - he didn't steal it. So, the analogy would be destroying something someone gave you as a present.
It's a bit obnoxious, but it's being blown out of proportion.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-12 01:53 am (UTC)So I think their Jesus would totally have approved of the message that crumbling up the cracker is worse than smacking a child around.
And that's why I'm no longer Catholic (technically, I never was - I was *raised* Catholic and that's a significant difference - but it is also another rant)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-12 08:49 am (UTC)Because, um, no, that's not how it works, and I think if anyone had said "So is that how you feel about $Native_American_Practice or $Aboriginal_Practice, that they should stop believing because it's silly?" then it might have shed some light on the situation. Relative merits of the Catholic Church aside, "Stop believing that because it's stupid" is just highly offensive to me.
And, well, I get around the young-earth creationists by weaseling. Basically I think any faith should be flexible enough to be compatible with facts. So a young-earth creationist who REALLY BELIEVES that the world was created 6000 years ago but DOES work according to the laws of physics because God backdated anything would get my reluctant vote. Those who close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears are not so in my good graces.
Though I'll defend to the death their right to say anything, even stupid and bullying things, as long as they take their lumps like grownups.
(Also I think that desecrating the Eucharist as a protest against the Church is valid as a protest against the Church, but just really annoying when it's a protest against "how stupid your religion is". Just sayin'.)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-12 01:53 pm (UTC)I was raised a Christian and swallowed their party line for many years before finally figuring out that there was a serious disconnect between the Christian tenet of beliefs and the way the world really works, both in terms of science and in sociology. After which I became quite bitter about having been lied to and accepting those lies for so long, and probably offended some people with the way I expressed that bitterness. But now I'm more of a 'live and let live' mindset. I express my opinions in my LJ but say nothing about Christianity in RL public, unless someone starts talking to me about how great their religion is and I should come to church with them. I figure, if they're trying to convert me, I have an equal right to try to convert them.
But I do think the Church's reaction to the whole blasphemed-eucharist thing is just way, wayyyyy over the top. Valuing a cracker, or ANY religious icon or practice, over the life of a fellow human being is just plain wrong. Helloooo, wasn't it Jesus who was telling people to love each other?
no subject
Date: 2008-07-12 08:27 pm (UTC)And the reason I went off on Meyers in my post and not the Christian authorities is because given my general viewpoint on the world I basically take it as given that anything the Catholic Church gets riled up about vis a vis people disrespecting their religion is probably going to be overreaction--and this case is a classic example. I mean, sometimes they get their shit together and go after things that I support, but I really don't go into "$Religious_Leader is pissed off about $Event" expecting that I'll totally side with religion. Because my biggest beef with religious authority is that they expect everyone else to take their practices as objectively seriously as they do, and... no, can't do that. I can take them subjectively seriously, and I tend to (that's the "it's important to you no matter how silly it sounds to me,") but I'm not going to myself put extra value on religious beliefs in a non-church/mosque/temple context.