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.)
“Being “offended” by neutral terminology suggests that you think I have an obligation to conform to belief system I don’t share.”
Actually, it doesn’t.
If I’m offended by a movie, a book, or this blog, it doesn’t mean that I think the creators of said media have an “obligation” to conform to my belief system.
It simply means they offend me – there’s nothing obligatory either way.
Any other straw man arguments?
A cracker, unleaven bread, host, eucharist — who cares what it’s called. As a Catholic I understand what it is. Doesn’t bother me one iota if you call the communion wafer a different name.
Was born and raised Catholic and although I have a much deeper understanding of Spirituality than when I was young – I believe that God is not prejudiced. All come to him if they live with the motto “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
No one is trying to alter anothers belief here, and this whole topic is somewhat bloated and stale.
Larry Bennett,
What do the RC’s TVs have on in hell? I like football (they real kind) and baseball.
comedy central in here:-))))
me thinks some O thee catholics will take their bible and go home!!!!
Just, please, don’t expect me to give you tax relief, or a separate school system.
Ah, but he does expect it…and he does receive it.
So it IS our business, bob. If you want
everyone to butt out, get out of the trough.
“Peace Be Upon Him” , KABOOM “Little Pieces be upon him”
If I was Chatholic this would be a bigger isue than a PM who was caught in a protical issue.
This insults the whole Church.
Without a Doubt
Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/205961
“Kate, in her original — and supposedly offending — post, meant no offense,…”
EBD,
I believe she was aware that the statement may offend and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
I also think Vitruvius was referring to the post directly above his, not Kate’s original post.
For the record, I’m not Catholic, not religious and not offended.
GM, re 10:51, your position is eminently reasonable. My opening question was for you, but I didn’t mean to tag you with the rest of what I wrote.
But I’ll ask again: when you asked “Why all of the anti-Catholic statements?” what, what comments are you referring to? I feel like I’m not reading the same thread as you. There’s certainly been some disagreement as to whether it’s rude or offensive for non-believers to refer to the wafer/cracker/biscuit as being such (sorry, I cannot with a straight faith call it the body of Christ, and it would be condescending for me to do so — is there some other term I could use that wouldn’t offend?) but I can’t see that there’s “all of the anti-Catholic statements.” Can you direct me to them? I can’t find them.
The only religious insult I can find is Larry Bennet’s gratuitous slurs on *Protestants* at 10:53, which he proclaims to be a direct response to a gauntlet being thrown down against Catholics. But again, by whom? Where? Where in this thread is there a serious *attack* on Catholicism itself?
Many out there seem to think that Catholics don’t pay school taxes. If you’d rather your children be brainwashed by the freaks teaching in the public system, that’s up to you, don’t ask me to pay for it. It was the Catholic Church that instituted the first schools and universities and hospitals, and holidays for the people. Scholastica is proof that the Church originated the idea of educating girls. Don’t give me that bull sh*t
What the hell is wrong with some of the people commenting?
You are neither worst nor better then the other, you may be better in your own eyes, thought to the rest of the world it does not count, it is also ignorant.
What counts is that you conduct yourself as per common ethics, though others may not applaud. If you count on others for your happiness, you are going to have a disappointing life.
It is, as the US constitution perfectly says, every ones inalienable right also called natural right, to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
These self evident truths are obviously not everybody’s cup of tee, as the saying goes. Nontheless if one think that one is superior, the suggestion would be, go jump in the lake. It is nobodys position to dictate to another how to behave unless of course you are a socialist/fascist or some such, one may hope that the common ethics prevail.
SDH: “I believe she was aware that the statement may offend and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.”
Your belief is groundless, so you are certainly not in a position to label as disingenuous all those who don’t hold that belief.
For years Kate has been slapping the media senselessly with humour and apt quips. So today, she posted —
“Readers may note that the preponderance of items posted here in recent days are decidedly non-Canadian in content. This is due in no small part to the fact that the number one story in Canadian politics at the moment is a controversy involving the Prime Minister and a cracker.”
If you sincerely see that as being an intended shot a Catholicism, you are either tone-deaf or not a long time SDA reader. Look at it this way: Kate has posted at least hundreds, more likely *thousands* of posts about the idiocy and inanity of the media when they cover stupid crap and pretend it’s important, while there has not been one single post attacking Catholicism or ANY Christian denomination. So if you see a post now where she’s drily ripping the media a new one, don’t you think the odds are good that the subject matter is the media, and not some aspect of the media story incidental to the *lame coverage* she’s criticizing?
And here’s what seals it: if Kate ever sets out to insult a sect of a church, for example, you can rest assured that she won’t hide the subject matter at the tail end of a dry quip about something unrelated.
That is why I don’t like churches. They hide cons and even when they go to church they get it wrong! The Liberals need to ban churches if they get in so this doesn’t happen again. Trudeau was supposed to be Catholic but he didn’t listen and he was right! If he did we wouldn’t be multicultural, have gay marriage or fewer white people. We need less churches!!
I was going to have a snack of crackers and cheese. After reading some of the comments, I think I’ll settle for soup and rum.
By the way, GYM and EBD We’re not going anywhere, you see, as Catholics we are infused through and through with the need to forgive, it’s what those men and women in black dresses taught us to do. In the Pater Noster, the prayer of Jesus, we ask the Father to forgive us “as we forgive those who trespass against us.” We have been tricked into obedience by our faith. You feel you haven’t trespassed, and we think you have, either way we
(Catholics) lose … or do we win?
Much ado about noshing………….
bleety’s comment (oddly enough) brings up an interesting point. Being “offended” has become a cottage industry of late. As a physical therapist I’ve been told a myriad of words over the years that I’m flatly not allowed to use because they are “offensive”.
Like “cripple”, for example. The proper circumlocution by which we avoid offending the perpetually offended I was told was to be “differently abled”. I suggested that perhaps dis-abled might reflect the truth and at least be shorter, this was not well received.
Telling the truth about someone’s condition might damage their self esteem, you see. So we are supposed to LIE about it, and this will make the poor crippled b@st@rds feel better about not being able to put their own socks on.
Important to note that (most) people who are actually CRIPPLED don’t care. They have much more important things to worry about, like getting their damn socks on.
Therefore, being the contrary sort that I am, I went out of my way to use the word “cripple”, “crippled”, “crippling”, as often as possible. Handicapped parking spots are the crippled spots, and so forth.
Predictably, patients either didn’t notice, didn’t care, or thought it was a giggle. Administrators uniformly had a cow. This is because administrators live in the world of the perpetually offended, where there is no humor, no truth, no reality, only the frantic avoidance of fuss.
Its the same reason I say “girlies” and “chicks” all the time. Certain people need to be reminded that not everyone will bow to their will all the time.
In the same spirit of nose thumbing at the perpetually offended, I would like to say: cracker.
Those who are offended by this should appreciate two things. The first is that it matters not at all to me or indeed to anyone but you that you are offended. We don’t even know and don’t care.
The second is that you gain nothing by taking offense. Nothing. It actually costs you liver cells and brain cycles to keep the offendedness going.
Y’all do not have a right to not be offended. Not everyone in the universe sees things your way, and whining that you’ve been offended isn’t going to change that.
Its a free country. I’m free to be an unfeeling, uncouth swine, and you’re free to ignore the hell out of me. What you’re not free to do is try to make me shut up and do it your way.
But take heart, the HRCs are working on it for you.
All I know is that you can choose to be offended or not but it is always a choice. No one can offend you without your permission. The media works at pitting us all against each other by trying to make us feel offended and then blame others for our feelings.
Look, people, if there is a God, He will not be judging you by the amount of time you spent in a pew or by what religious background you are from. The key lies in how you treat your fellow man. THE END.
I’m RC and wasn’t offended. Look, Kate has a right to be offensive. It’s a free country (so far), and I’m mature enough to be teased about my religion without making a fuss.
That said, Kathy has a right to be offended. Again, she is simply speaking her mind, and defending her faith. Good for her.
I’m guessing the driving idea behind this story is the MSM is really surprised Harper didn’t vomit the host and turn his head 360 degrees.
For the record, if you’re not catholic you can simply place your hands on your chest. This is a signal that you don’t require the host and the priest will give you a simple blessing.
Be that as it may, Phantom, Bleeter is, once again, mistaken. “Offense” has a moral connotation; if I am offended, I feel have been wronged. Where there is morality there is, of course, a “belief system”.
Bleeter is confusing being offended by something and just not liking it.
Meanwhile the Obama administration seeks to exclude Christians from holding government posts.
Hypocrites pi$$ me off… Some of the oh-so-offended catholics above need to get away from the computer and spend some time giving themselves a good long look in the mirror…
@ Norman 12:33
“Look, Kate has a right to be offensive. It’s a free country (so far), and I’m mature enough to be teased about my religion without making a fuss. That said, Kathy has a right to be offended. Again, she is simply speaking her mind, and defending her faith. Good for her.”
Amen. My point exactly. Not asking anyone to change, submit, etc etc; I am simply letting my viewpoint be heard, and last I was aware that was allowed. Why the fuss?
As for folks like richard, how Christian of you to condemn those you haven’t even met. If you read St. Paul, he says that God loves us even more when we sin, and clearly no christian is perfect. How beautiful is that knowledge? That’s why we are Christians, because we believe that God can make us better individuals. After all, A man who is well does not need a doctor, does he?
OK, I’m tossing a grenade…Hopefully to end this silly thread…
“Ritual Cannibalism”
*cracker*
(Sorry, Kate.)
The notion that a wafer turns into the literal body of Christ is magical thinking that is ridiculous on the face of it.
Nevertheless, Roman Catholics, as well as Jews, Muslims, etc., have the right to use their own resources for the purposes of educating their own children. So one cannot rationally say “they shouldn’t get any of my taxes for their schools”. It’s their own taxes they’re getting back, not yours.
All in all I thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth both the cracker supporters and those that prefer the term Host, I believe made a good showing. Back and forth I went eager to see the next rebuttle and sure that it, too, would be witty,wise and filled with Intellectual wonders I had not considered nor would ever be able to conjure.
Being protestant I am largely ignorant of Catholic custom, however out of respect for how another chooses to worship Christ it would be my own preference to simply defer to their choice of description, after all it is their ceremony. That is just me.
What did occur to me was, those that supported the cracker position were ruthless in their rationality. A take no prisoners posture that was well, a little disconcerting.
On the other hand the Catholics and their supporters seemed far more forgiving and certainly
less intractable.
Hmm. Food for thought.
[quote]If you read St. Paul, he says that God loves us even more when we sin,[/quote]
Mark,
I guess that means that God loves me the MOST.. I know…
Whoa, 120+ comments on this thread and nobody has quoted Bierce yet. Well, it’s never too late:
“Eucharist, n. A sacred feast of the religious sect of Theophagi. A dispute once unhappily arose among the members of this sect as to what it was they ate. In this controversy some five hundred thousand have already been slain, and the question is still unanswered.”
– Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary, 1911
The difference between discussion of slights to religious paraphernalia in the Christian world and the carnage that resulted from the manufactured outrage over the Prophet Mobombhead cartoons is that – as many have pointed out above – we seem to be able to get through barb and counter-bard without resorting to Semtex. Ironically, that’s called evolution. It may have taken us 350 years, but at last we’re at the point where we can get through a day without beheading Bill Maher for blasphemy.
For being criminally unfunny…well, that’s something else entirely.
Meanwhile, since we’re on the subject of transubstantiation, if anyone could perhaps advise me how to turn some Iodine-127 into Iodine-131, we might be able to get past the Chalk River shutdown. It’s only 4 neutrons, people! It’s not like we’re trying to turn bread into God or anything!
(That was a joke, by the way. I’m sure the big guy upstairs understand. He has to have a sense of humour. Look at Whoopie Goldberg!)
“Nevertheless, Roman Catholics, as well as Jews, Muslims, etc., have the right to use their own resources for the purposes of educating their own children. So one cannot rationally say “they shouldn’t get any of my taxes for their schools”. It’s their own taxes they’re getting back, not yours.”
Yes, we certainly all have the right to use our own resources to educate our children, that is presuming after paying taxes, we have them. What Jews, Muslims, etc. don’t have, that Catholics in Ontario do, is the right to pooled education tax resources for the purposes of educating their own children. Therein lies my objection.
This is a hangover from the days when Canada was primarily English and Protestant or French and Catholic. Times have changed. Especially in Ontario. Public schools are no longer Protestant in focus and they haven’t been for quite some time.
I don’t believe our government should, any longer, be supporting (sanctioning) any one religion over any other. If education tax dollars were directed to the student with the family determining appropriate school placement, I’d agree with you with respect to the return of education tax dollars, but that isn’t the case.
We should either provide funding for all or none, i.e., funding for one secular school system with specific religious education taking place in the home, in after-school programs or in houses of worship.
Larry, the teachers teaching in separate schools all come from the same training schools as the ‘freaks’ in the public, so I’m not sure the quality of education in the separate system is markedly different. At one time, it may have been but once full funding became available, separate schools fell under the same Education Act with the myriad of restrictions that entails. I’ve heard more than one old-time Catholic parent comment that the separate school system has never been the same since the day Bill Davis extended full funding.
Anyway, sorry Kate, this is hopelessly off topic. Yes, the media are putzes but so too the parishioner and the priest that initially made this an issue. I’m certain Stephen Harper meant no offense nor disrespect and it seems mighty un-Christianlike to me to publicly embarrass the man for not appropriately following ritual. A simple phone call from the Monsignor to the PMO advising of the faux-pas would seem to me to have been more reasonable.
So much for goodwill toward fellow Christians from some elements and people within the Catholic church.
This is going back to an era we all thought was long gone. Apparently not.
It appears they’re practicing the same values as Ontario with their full funding for the education of those of one religion over all others.
The message can only be some are more equal than others. Those baptized in the Christian faith are often invited to take communion at special services in the Anglican church,and I assume others.
This whole episode is so disappointing and even more so for Christianity. I’m thoroughly ashamed for and of all of them.
They ought to hang their heads in shame.
This comment by wallyj @ 9:02 has given me an entirely different take on who I am: “You rock, Kate. Rub their noses in it. Religion is organized superstition. It is a crutch for the weak . . . [and] allows [its] SUBJECTS to shirk personal responsibility. Grow up people . . .”
Wow: all along, I’ve been under the impression that my faith has helped me to be, among other things, more generous, more compassionate, more aware of inward truth versus outward trappings, and more prone to self-examination re my shortcomings: in fact, being a Christian OBLIGATES me to “Do the best with what [I] have”. That some posters have so little understanding of that is too bad.
Religious discussions here quite often bring out opinions which I find both uninformed and offensive. But, as I wrote earlier, it’s a free country. However, I’m alarmed, that as we become a more “progressive”, socialist and, less generous country, anti-Christian and, especially anti-Catholic, bigotry seems to be officially sanctioned: comments people wouldn’t dare voice about other groups are de rigeur in the public square if Christians are the targets.
Kate? She’s an equal opportunity skeptic, who doesn’t pull her punches for any group. I can live with that. Neither does she make merely gratuitous put downs. I appreciate that too.
You were right Kate to ignore the whole issue initially since the MEDIA were the ones using this to bash Harper.
That’ all folks.
Wow, this thread has some legs.
EBD, please re-read my posts, I think you’ve misread them. Let me channel my inner Inigo Montoya and sum up:
SDH: “I believe she was aware that the statement may offend and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.”
EBD: “Your belief is groundless, so you are certainly not in a position to label as disingenuous all those who don’t hold that belief.”
The only belief I stated is that I think Kate is very intelligent. This is not groundless statement, it is based on my reading her blog for the past year or so.
I also believe she possesses a rapier wit, of which I am quite envious, which takes me to:
EBD:
” So today, she (Kate) posted —
“Readers may note that the preponderance of items posted here in recent days are decidedly non-Canadian in content. This is due in no small part to the fact that the number one story in Canadian politics at the moment is a controversy involving the Prime Minister and a cracker.” ”
This is “the statement” I refer to above. It is dismissive of both the press and religion. I loved the way she laconically gave the back of her hand to two organizations she has little time/use for.
I only find the following bit disagreeable. You said:
EBD: “Kate, in her original — and supposedly offending — post, meant no offense,…”
referring (I think) that she meant no offense to the the church.
I’m saying I think she was aware (Kate’s post at 8:48pm seems to confirm this) that referring to the host as “a cracker” may be offensive to Catholics and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
That’s it.
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?
Posted by: Larry Bennett at July 10, 2009 7:27 PM
My ignorance extends well beyond all things Catholic. I am not a religious person and care not what your rules are. What I wrote was in jest. If you can’t take it, then that is too bad Larry. If you want to become the Catholic version of the Islamic rage boy fine by me. And no, you weren’t too harsh I face much worse than your piddly little rant on a daily basis. Except for editing out some unacceptable words I let posts stand as they are.
The difference between us Larry is that I can not only dish it out I can take it too. That goes for all you here who are raving about the use of the term cracker. How many of you have no problem dissing the beliefs of Muslims (something I do with regularity) and then get in a hissy fit when someone uses the wrong term to describe the host. Hypocrites all.
“When in Rome, do as the Romans do”
As a person of Protestant heritage, when attending a Catholic ceremony or in a Catholic church, I will do as much as possible to not offend and to comply with their rules. But, once out in public, I will say and do whatever I choose…mostly I choose not to offend, but that’s just the way I am.
If and when I choose to be loose in my speaking and toss off some casual comment (like the “cracker” crack), if someone takes offense to that…………..I get angry, not contrite.
“Why the H-E-double toothpicks is this person upset with me for saying something completely innocently?!? They can go to H#ll!”
Anyway, I’m not as eloquent a writer as others, so I will let Kate, EBD, Vitruvius and other like-minded folks speak for me on this issue. Even Phantom, to an extent…I tend to speak the same way regarding “girls” and “boys” and “cripples” and so on…always with a twinkle in my eye so people know I’m only joshing. Just another way to show that people shouldn’t take things so seriously all the time.
Agree it’s a media thing to get at the PM to the point of some, calling it a “scandal”, but in doing so they drag a Christian faith and Christianity along with it.
It proves their desperation knows no bounds.
It’s all about playing the dirtiest of dirty politics at an opportune time to offset the success the PM is having at the G8.
What a pack of slugs and slime balls they are.
> Well, it seems the gauntlet has been
> thrown down and it is now okay to be
> offensive to one another’s religious
> beliefs, but especially to Roman
> Catholics.
I notice I offended Kathy in the other thread with my cannibalism joke, but it’s her own fault, really. She keeps advising people to speak their mind as it’s often a good thing to offend. So I did.
Do I find things about Catholicism damned silly? Absatively. But I’d say that’s much better than certain religions that are just damned scary.
If someone built a Catholic church next to my house I’d bake some cookies and go over to shake hands with the priest and welcome him to the neighborhood. If someone built a mosque next to my home I’d have a for sale sign up so fast it’d make your eyes bleed.
I’m aware this makes me a bigot and I don’t care. There are things that are within my comfort level and things that aren’t, and once again I’m taking Kathy’s advice and being honest about it.
My 2 cents, which is probably more than it’s worth.
Well, lookout, I have to say I too found wallyj’s remark gratuitously offensive and wholly agree with your observation about the essential difference between Kate’s and his: Kate was merely ridiculing the breathtaking and hypocritical silliness of Canadian MSM and her choice of words reflected her disgust with them, not with religion.
Don’t blush, but while I’m not a believer myself, I do find your remarks and your being as evidenced by your contrubutions at sda to be a great advertisement for religion. I note with interest that you are a Catholic convert. I have a very old friend who I played rock music with in the mid 60s, who got into deep trouble with booze and drugs, et al, and who found redemption through becoming a devout Catholic. Whenever I feel the urge to bait the devout, I always think of Terry, and since coming to sda, you and others like batb.
As another old friend puts it, man needs religion. If it’s not RELIGION religion, it’ll be some other kind. Gaia. Environmentalism. Statolatory. Celebrity worship.
LizJ, with respect, I think your censure of the RC Church is quite selective: I’m a Catholic, who somewhat agrees with you. I wrote last night: “I don’t blame the PM in any way. Both the RC hosts—sorry!—and the PMO are at fault here. Surely someone among them should have made it his/her business to be sure the PM knew what was expected: it’s not very difficult. And, IMO, Monsignor Brian Henneberry, Vicar General and Chancellor for the Diocese of St. John, sounds uncharitable to me: it’s his kind of “jot and tittle” legalism that often gives the Church a bad name . . .” But that’s not the whole Church.
Re the full funding of RC education: please don’t blame the RC Church. That dispensation is a constitutional matter, settled in the BNA Act of 1867. It can’t be changed unless the Constitution is changed—an eventuality that Trudeau and his cronies made virtually impossible. No one in those days envisioned a multicultural, post-Christian Canada. Protestant and RC educational systems, both explicitly Christian, were set up. In the 50s, the Protestant systems were still nominally Christian: we said the Lord’s Prayer every morning and a minister would come in for a half hour session once a week. However, as the “Protestant” system became more and more secular and our country more and more racially and religiously diverse, the Protestant system quite happily gave up any pretensions of being Christian and embraced multiculturalism and now, even Gaia worship and openly anti-Christian attitudes.
Re who gets to receive the host at the Mass: it is perfectly reasonable for the Church to set its own rules on that. (But it should let people attending its services know what the expectation is: of course, non Catholics have the freedom to disregard it.) Receiving the host has nothing to do with some people being “more equal than others”. I’m as equal, in the sight of God and the state (well, that’s now debateable!) as the next person, but I’m not eligible—at my own choosing—to be bat mitzvahed. Would you blame Jews for that? And, if one is not a Catholic and doesn’t subscribe to the Church’s teachings, (as many here make perfectly clear they do not), why would one want to receive at Mass?
Re the Anglican Church, that ever so inclusive institution: I and many other ex-Anglicans, who were both marginalized for decades, because we weren’t considered “progressive” (read, “unorthodox”) enough, and made to feel distinctly unwelcome, how does letting all baptized Christians receive Communion rectify this church’s bending the knee to the Zeitgeist? In fact, considering how many marginalized, ex-Anglicans there are these days, the Anglican conceit of “come one, come all” rings pretty hollow. (BTW, for all its trumpeting its own inclusiveness, the Anglican Church is in serious schism. Its numbers are dropping like a stone. Kyrie eleison.)
Threads like this one are most instructive: a number of the very people, who pride themselves on their progressivism, appear to have very uninformed ideas about Christianity, especially the RC Church. This does not augur well for the very openness and understanding many critics of the church say they want to see. Kyrie eleison.
Why such an uproar over PMSH and the wafer by the MSM? Does the MSM not remember that Pauly-want-a-cracker-and-can’t-have-one-Martin was excommunicated from the Catholic church when he was PM over the abortion laws in Canada? Maybe they should be reminded…there I did.
Hey, Me No Dhimmi, great to hear your voice!
I really appreciate your comments here. Yup, as Christians are sinners, with feet of clay, it’s no surprise that the Church screws up. But, as you graciously concede—as many refuse to—the Church has also been, for two millennia, the locus of quite amazing grace for countless believers all over the world. (Bless your friend, Terry!)
Thank you and bless you too!
“Reject the sense of injury, and you reject the injury itself.”
— Marcus Aurelius
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
— Epicurus
Lookout, I’m not censoring the Catholic Church but the people involved in this incident, including the clergy who opined it was a scandal, and running off with it. That stuff is not Christianity as Jesus taught.
I too am a former Anglican, they no longer represent what I can believe in. At this point they could be begging with a “come one come all” to our alter but I really think it’s at a crossroads and where it will go remains uncertain.
Lookout, I do not blame the RC Church.
If I were a Catholic who firmly believed that the school was also the child’s church, I would want precisely the same thing. Similarly desired, were I a devout Jew, Buddist, Muslim, etc. I do not know the official position of the RC Church on the provision of government education funding to those of other faiths but to remain blameless in perpetuating the current situation, I assume they would have no objection to spreading the wealth around on a per-student basis.
I am not sure that supporters of the formerly Protestant school system gave it up so happily. Was it voluntary or simply the result of being obliged to accommodate others having nowhere else to go to school due the the restrictions in obtaining a placement in the separate system? Many Christians are terribly distressed by the loss of Christmas concerts, daily prayer and the lack of formal religious instruction in our schools. Short of conversion to Catholicism, they have no choice but to enroll their young children in private (unfunded) Christian schools if they want their children to obtain a religion-oriented education.
The fact is, Manitoba (1890), Quebec (1997) and Newfoundland (1998) have structured their provincial laws to provide either a single school system or, in Quebec’s case, one based on language not religion. Ontario could do the same.
Hmmm I didn’t even know this thread was happening until Sean emailed me.
But basically, what RSP said.
There really is NO comparison between Muslims who blow up publishers for what they write, and my rather mild _explanation_ of why some Catholics are put off by the “cracker” word.
A lot of people don’t know about the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, and why they don’t think that the host is merely a “symbol” or “a piece of bread” the way Protestants do. Especially in our religiously ignorant age.
So I offered an EXPLANATION.
I didn’t threaten Kate in any way, or condemn her for using the word, or throw a hissy fit. I actually thought I was being rather lighthearted.
Sheesh.
Seems from this thread that _some_ atheists can be just as touchy about their beliefs as others are, so it is funny seeing them mock _me_ for being the touchy one.
that’s the built in danger with charges of “hypocrisy.” They’re never a good foundation upon which to build a sturdy argument, because the charge often comes back to bite the accuser on the behind.
Also, the difference between what Christianity teaches and what Islam teaches is that Christianity is true.
Just sayin’.
It is about consistency, consistency of the media, who couldn’t give a whit for Catholic purity until it becomes a stick (breadstick?) to beat Harper with, consistency of commentators…Kate stands in a place that has a bracing wind, clearly not all can.
As for the other stuff, what bothers me the most here is that people seem to be accepting that Harper did something wrong. I have seen no proof
that Harper put the communion in his pocket…the egregious charge….he defintiely didnt eat it at teh tme, but neither did the woman two to his left (who was that)
Once again this is manufactured, and turning around and quoting Catholic ritual doesnt illuminate the situation any, when he didnt do what you are discussing.
Once again, who is the Monsignor, where are the vaunted research skills of the conservative blogosphere….you afraid that lightning will strike?
Then why call him God?
~Epicurus
Because God made Epicurus, not the other way around.
The creation doesn’t judge the Creator.
Epicurus assumes his life is for Epicurus’ own ends.
It isn’t.
This is what the Book of Jonah teaches, that God made Jonah for His purpose, not Jonah’s.
Epicurus judges God but does not ask whence he was created for.
God will judge Epicurus.
re the cracker:
LUKE
Chapter 22
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in REMEMBRANCE of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Christ was literally still there with his disciples when he said what Luke quotes.
It was a METAPHOR.
If through transubstantiation the priest is actually able to bring Christ down from heaven and transform the cracker into Christ flesh, then it isn’t in remembrance because Christ would then be actually present at their mass.
It was a METAPHOR.
Jesus said this at his last supper because he wanted his sacrifice to be remembered at every meal his followers had every day, it wasn’t something to be transformed into a ridiculous ritual to be presided over by a priest.
Jesus hated priestcraft, he wanted people to be able to go directly to his Father through their belief in his once and forever sacrifice, therefore remembering Christ and his sacrifice at every supper was to confirm this in their minds.
JOHN
Chapter 19
28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, IT IS FINISHED: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
The ritual, known as the mass in Catholic churches, and known as communion in Protestant and Evangelical churches, shouldn’t even exist.
Christian believers should commune with God through the remembrance of Christ every day, at every meal, that was the purpose of the metaphor.
“no doubt Kate wouldn’t be the least bit annoyed if someone referred to her show dogs as mutts”
Nope. Apart from being demonstrably incorrect, “mutt” isn’t an insult. It’s common usage for a dog of uncharted pedigree.
“Pet quality” is the typical insult directed at show dogs, as it suggests the owner is an idiot for putting it in the ring to be evaluated as potential breeding stock.