Kathy Shaidle has a point;
“I too have to object to the use of the word “cracker”.
Unlike Protestants, Catholics believe that the communion Host is the actual Body of Christ. We’re touchy about people pocketing the Host because believe it or not, there are weird people into Santeria and stuff who use them in pagan rituals.
Also, er, it’s Jesus.”
It’s just not a very good one.
(Peace Be Upon Him.)
Agreed.
Host o’ quiddick?
Tempest in a chalice.
I like Pearlygate.
Someone in the previous thread came up with it.
Actually……….Lutherans also beleive it is the actual body of Christ, and they are Protestant.
I’m afraid a visit from our own brown-shirted, jack-booted, gauleiters of the various human rights commissions is to be expected in the near future.
Let’s keep our fingers crossed.
I’d stand by “its just a cracker” I think that those who get upset by it, be they athiest journalists who are trying to score points against the PM or religious zealots who play offended should have a nice piece of brie and a glass of Pinot Noir with it and mellow out.
Tell Jenny Lynch that you talk thru a mediator by the name of Ezra Levant.
All conversations between the two shall be direct and oh yes……CTV is invited 🙂
I guess if they can call the body of Christ a “cracker” they can keep calling my sons the same thing in high school. Some of the things they get called and told are, Foffcracker, its our country now cracker, we gonna do your white chick cracker, all this time I thought they were referring to a T.V. British detective.
Well, actually, in the Greek Catholic tradition (there were occasions where the Romans got just a little bit too full of themselves), it’s a little cube of bread, so I’ve decided on biscuit as a compromise phrasing, in order to avoid annoying anyone. But the important thing to remember, folks, is that there’s booze involved. It’s those danm puritans who are the problem!
Speaking of Jenny and the HRC, this Tory is doing a good job of making this pack of morons look like the pack of manipulative nazi-like brownshirts they really are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlhAY_T5QAY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fezralevant.com%2F&feature=player_embedded
These pack of morons are at the point of treason IMHO. Hey if they don’t agree with me, doesn’t that make the guilty of hate speech?
Yes, vitruvius, there’s booze involved, and that brings to mine,
‘The vessel with the pestle has the potion that is poison;
The chalice with the palace has the brew that is true’.
Or is it the other way around?
I think Kate is correct to use the term ‘cracker’, for it shows the hypocrisy of the MafiaMob (Canadian journalists) who suddenly are all hyped up about the ‘sanctity of Christianity’, when normally, they are all hyped up about sneering at Christianity.
Their real focus is, of course, Harper. They are ‘stuck on stupid’; they live in a quicksand of hatred for Harper because their beloved Liberals are not in power.
Let me take a turn at bat:
The troubel with using ‘cracker’ is that, when used in a political context, it normally means ‘Southern hick’; it’s often used as a slur against conservatives. When I first saw the original post, I didn’t know Kate was referring to a communion wafer.
There. Now the arguments between Catholics, Protestants and pagans of various sorts can be about another subject.
Cracker-quiddick? Bwaha! 😀
I’m not sure the priest appreciates being called a “cracker”, maybe depending upon whence he came:
“Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a poor white person living in some rural parts of the southeastern U.S.” — from Dictionary.com.
I’m not sure what your point is, Kate. There’s a big difference between Kathy’s saying “I object to your use of the word ‘cracker'”, on one hand, and her tossing a bomb through your window or filing an HRC complaint on the other. Kathy is within her rights to tell you how she feels, just as you are within your rights to speak dismissively of her religious beliefs. No one is suppressing free speech here. How do the Mohammed cartoons relate in any way to your post or to her response?
This is my favourite kind of cracker. Look, the point, RSP, is that this whole topic is completely stupid, which, of course, means that it’s low hanging fruit for comedy. The problem is, sometimes some people can’t separate the fire from the whoopie cushion.
So if a fundamentalist Christian cannot be science minister because he may believe the earth is only 6,000 years old how can any Catholic be allowed to have any position of responsibility (like supreme court justice) if they believe a cracker is actually the body of Christ because some priest said so? Why do journalist only mock protestants and never Catholics (or Muslims or Jews or Hindus) for their weird beliefs and rituals? To a journalist all protestants are weird but a native American who believes his ancestor reside in a killer whale is hip – not loony tunes.
why the hell does this even require a comment period?
show me where the bible says the world is 6000 years old.
This could get ugly. I live in fear of this: Kathy vs. Kate – whom to root for? (yes, whom.)
They both scare me.
I’m an agnostic, so that’s no help.
Well, technically, it doesn’t require a comment period, Old White Guy, it could be handled instead by a comment frequency, in which case you could then compute the period from the frequency, given the speed of comment.
My post was directed to Kate, Vitruvious. She is at least as eloquent as you are and more than capable of speaking for herself.
Point taken, RSP, or as Steve Martin once said: Well, excuse me.
I’m not seeing the connection between not wanting the Body of Christ to be called a “cracker” and Islamofascism and all the censorship and violence it brings. Catholics have every right to be offended (as they often are) and you’ll see none of this will ever rise above an explanation and arguments.
This thread needs Winston Wolf.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANPsHKpti48
Far be it from me to choose sides in a Kat fight, but as the doctrine of transubstantiation is a denial of Christ’s humanity, I’ll have to give this round to Kate, at least on points.
And now we can reignite the decorous brawls of the 4th and 16th centuries on soteriology, the nature(s) of Christ and the doctrine of the holy supper.
Hmm…this would seem to constitute an incitement to hatred and contempt.
Oh, Jennifer (PBOH) – Sacred incarnation of the holy Gaia, save us!
Did you know, Tenebris, that there’s actually an ancient translation error involved in it, and it’s not actually PBOH, it’s Poobah. By the way, if anyone wants to make fun of what I believe, go ahead; why the he11 should I care what you think?
Well now you’ve done it Kate. I bet the Catholics will be rioting in the streets anytime now.
Well maybe we can calm them down. Vituvius, quick link to someone singing Ave Maria and we can all say a prayer for those poor souls still wandering in purgatory for eating meat on a Friday before they changed the rules.
I thought the picture reference was to remind Kathy that Kate just caught her in “Hi Kettle, I’m Pot, you’re black” moment.
But I could be wrong, I’m not very smart.
I’m sorry, Largs, that’s DJ EBD‘s department.
I was thinking along the same lines Kate and Poobah Vit, or should that be Grand Poobah out of respect for, er, the divine Gilbert and Sullivan (and oh, the Flintstones – see below).
RSP – the image of Mohammad is sacred for many Muslims. Kathy, as is her right, has spared him and his followers no end of ridicule. You may not like the taste of the medicine but the service is fair.
Wonder too, how Warren Kinsella squares his “Barney the Dinosaur” stunt with his apoplexy over Harper’s supposed disrespect for the RC belief in the 11th century theory of transubstantiation – whereby a priest declares ‘hoc est enim corpus meum’ or some such, and it’s no longer just a simple wafer but Jesus in the flesh.
To me it seems little different than Wiccan spells, hocus pocus, abracadabra, or Louisiana healing voodoo. Nor does my mind bend any further to consider some 7th century ‘prophet’ as the embodiment of the perfect man demanding of 21st century respect and emulation.
I’m happy for people who have faith in something they believe to be divine. If it helps them get through the day, fine by me. I just don’t happen to share their beliefs and I feel no obligation to practice or have faith in any of their rituals (or pay for them). Nor do I expect them to follow or practice mine, such as they are not.
I just wish we’d all grant each other the opportunity for the same level of disrespect we afford ourselves. The world would be a much happier place.
By the way, if anyone wants to make fun of what I believe, go ahead; why the he11 should I care what you think?
Now there’s wisdom. As my poetic old man used to say: “F*** ’em all, the long, short and the tall”.
Certainly one of many compensatory factors in ageing, eh, Vitruvius?
Aye.
What ET said!!
Let’s not get off on tangents, eh.I don’t like the word ‘cracker’ in reference to the host,and I’m not Catholic, but Kate has the right to be offensive.
It’s the media that are the hypocrites and fools.
Jan:
You’re right in saying that if Kathy has mocked the religious beliefs of others, she can’t very well object when others mock hers. If that was Kate’s point, I suppose it’s well taken. However, I thought Kathy’s objection to Islam centered more on its predilection for controlling others rather than on its spiritual beliefs per se. Perhaps I haven’t paid close enough attention to all that she has said and written.
Hey people, MSM dwelling on the communion wafer to this extent shows the level of their intelligence. We believe what we believe. Let us rather talk about something important like Iffy’s poll decline or the fact that it is so cold for this time of year.
“Kat Fight” lol classic!
I suppose Kathy can file an HRC complaint against Kate.
Being a rap listening cracker myself, the term “wigger” comes to mind. It seems the solution is simple since someone pointed out Jesus was in fact a Jew. Hence forth I recommend we call it a “Jacker”.(no offense intended folks)
Mamba
I too am an agnostic but a few months ago I was flamed for not knowing what an agnostic is. Anyways, for conversations sake I just call myself an atheist because to everyone who is not agnostic the terms mean the same thing: We’re going to hell.
I’ll bring the chips, you bring the soda and ET can bring the DVD’s. On second thought; ET, I’ll bring the DVD’s, you bring the chips.
Well I am absolutely in favor of free expression and the right to criticize religions, I would simply say that:
(1) As stupid and inane as the coverage of this non-story has been, the specific content of Catholic beliefs are entirely beside the point
(2)Unlike, say, Islam, where a single magazine piece sparks an endless series of HRC complaints, there really is no shortage of anti-catholic expression as it is
(3) why was the “cracker” comment even necessary? Sure, the media coverage is dumb, but have catholics done (or threatened to do) something that defines them as the enemy?
As a (recently converted) catholic, I must admit to being somewhat taken aback at the comments about the church by (some) evangelicals here.
Can’t we all agree that what Harper did or did not do with the host is utterly irrelevant to his fitness to govern the country and move on?
correction:
the word should be “while” not “well”
RSP see:
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-05-22-0007/
for a small sample. I love the wit and brashness of Kathy (and Kate), but I think Kathy stepped in it here.
FWIW, nothing Kate posted offends me in the least, after all, she’s the one going to hell 🙂
If it is now an insult to describe a small wafer as a “cracker”, then there’s a whole row of boxes in my grocery aisle guaranteed to bring some of you to your knees.
DVD’s? Me? Hmm. Let’s see, there’s Dora The Explorer. And ‘Blue’s Clues’. Something about ‘Now I Know My ABC’s..(I have grandchildren). Hmmm. You’re right. I’ll bring the chips. And marshmallows. There’s something about marshmallows, sticks and a fire…
Is there an easy way to corelate the number of posts as a function of the topic here? Call me crazy but I think there may be a relationship.
I used to love going to Mosha’s Deli, it’s gone, on 8th Ave S.W. across from the now demolished Town Cinema Blue in Calgary where I especially like the chicken matzo ball soup.
So last Easter I tried to make some of my own and it was very hard to find matzo meal.
When I finally found a Safeway store with a Jewish food section I found out that matzo meal was actually made out of crushed soda crackers*.
*(unleavened bread, heh)
Chicken matzo ball soup is a staple in Jewish households for the Passover dinner which, interestingly, coincides with Easter.
I’m with Kathy on this one.
The discussion should not be one of rights. Do you have the right to offend Catholics? Yes. By all means.
The discussion is about whether it is wise to offend Catholics on this particular issue. It costs Kate next to nothing to modify her words, out of respect for people who are usually her allies.
Bringing up the Muhammad cartoons is an enormous stretch; offending religious people is not a good in itself. The biggest problem with Muslims choosing to be offended was that they were being outraged for a reason–to increase their power. Catholics are not attempting the same thing.
@6:43 – Oh Indy, you go to hell, don’t drag me into it!
“I suppose Kathy can file an HRC complaint against Kate”: Now this, THIS I like!
“However, I thought Kathy’s objection to Islam centered more on its predilection for controlling others rather than on its spiritual beliefs per se.”
Apparently someone here never met a Catholic missionary.
I suppose now Kate will have to live in fear of some prelate issuing a fatw… er, edict. hmm, burqua may come in handy after all, as a disguise.
By the way Largs, your ignorance of all things Catholic is showing. There has been no rule change.
The only thing re-stressed is that if you have to eat meat on Friday for myriad reasons, you must do something positive or charitable to make up for it.
It would be advisable to remain quiet than to speak such garbage. There, is that too harsh? Have I hurt any feelings?