First off, I’d like to see what evidence you’re using to support the assertion that Webster Cook is a nutjob or idiot.

Anyone who has grown up in a non-Catholic religion would likely be interested in the ritual and objects involved in the sacrament of communion. While I don’t know the details about the friend who was interested in seeing the eucharist, it’s quite possible that he falls into my definition. If, having never experienced the Catholic religion, he was interested, he may also have had a fear of going himself and/or talking with a priest.

Again, my knowledge of the details is incomplete (and I’ll gladly accept any correction) but I don’t believe that Cook disrupted the mass in any significant way. Certainly, it was not his intention to do so. He was a threatened party following his actions. Death threats and threats of physical violence are unacceptable. I make no qualifications there, the religious aspect is irrelevant.

The guarantees in the Constitution allow freedom to practice a religion and the separation of religion from the government. Religion does not get a free pass and is not allowed to do anything it wants under the umbrella of “religious belief.” I still fail to see how Cook’s actions would be harassment and how they interfered with the ability of Catholics to practice their religion.

His friend was interested in learning about communion and wanted to see a host? Does anyone really believe that? If he was that interested he maybe could have spoken to the priest or one of the Catholics present?

This idiot did what he did to disrupt the Mass and poke his eye in the face of the Catholics present for no other reason then to shit stir. Even after his actions he could have simply handed the Host back and that would have been the end of it. Instead he threw a hissy fit, demanded an apology (liek he was the aggrieved party) and held the Host “hostage”.

Should he have been kicked out of the University? I don’t think so, but I’m glad to see he lost his position on the SGA. I believe the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of Religion. As a Student office holder at the University you would think he would have some sense of responsibility to allow fellow students to practice their religion without harrassment from a Student Leader.

You don’t get to fiddle around the edges of the strictures of the Constitution just because you don’t believe their faith.

Ahh…you’re such a religion bashing cracker-phobe. Come on. Admit it.

Well, I do have an unnatural fear of Ritz crackers, but I don’t think that’s relevant.

Whether religious or, not people have the right to disagree with what I say just as I have the right to offend them with my words. I would rather have a rational, reasoned, and respectful (but not necessarily alliterative) debate on the issues rather than throw around phrases such as “anti-theist” and “full blown hatred.”

My beliefs are open to debate, open to mocking and ridicule, and I am open to changing those beliefs when new and better evidence is presented. Adaptation is often a trait associated with “intellectuals” and from the outside is seen as a bad thing. The people expecting consistency in their world-view do not deal well with changing information. A scientist/intellectual/professor/etc. who observes and understands the surrounding world will often be willing to change opinions. From this we get labels such as “flip-flopper” and “indecisive” rather than applauding the incorporation of new information into a more accurate view of the world.

…you don’t have to be a victim. It doesn’t help your case and only makes it sound like you’re whining rather than doing something constructive to explain your position.

This is the biggest problem that I see as I travel across the atheist blogosphere (and the religious one for that matter). Explain the position, and understand all sides of the issue without resorting to petty tactics and name calling.

What I am trying to accomplish with this blog (aside from the interspersed humor, geek, and tech pieces) is a place where I can point out injustices and inconsistencies in the way people are treated based on their beliefs or non-belief. If atheists were sending death threats to religious leaders I would be first in line to denounce those actions. No one’s actions should be above scrutiny, no one should get a free pass, and everyone should be offended once in a while.

Seriously, do people even bother to read blog posts or think about them before responding? I’ve been reading this saga and nowhere is there any evidence for any type of hate or even any sort of anti-religious message in your posts. In fact, I thought you made some good points, some good jokes, and kept away from any overt disrespect for religious rituals. Also, there is no justification anywhere for being anti-theist.

In my book the problem boils down to this: people that claim any sort of religious, political, or social message that goes against their direct beliefs as “militant” or “hate-speech” have really lost the ability to laugh at themselves. They’ve moved beyond the point where they can argue reasonably and instead have to turn to defensive measures. Don’t get me wrong- there is plenty of hate speech out there. But there is a VAST difference between hate speech, intellectual conversation, and reasonable argument. When you lose the ability to analyze and criticize yourself, you’ve become militant and backed yourself into a corner of irrational thought and action.

Also, what is with the overt fear of “intellectuals”? Every time a religious topic comes up, someone in the crowd feels to need to make the claim that “intellectuals” are somehow to blame or are somehow twisting the argument. Who are these intellectuals? Where are they coming from? I would be proud to be referred to as an intellectual (minus the bull-crap aura that some associate with it) since to me that means I am willing to use my brain, think for myself, and reach a rational conclusion to a given problem. In that case, why would you NOT want to be intellectual? Intelligence is a gift. Whether you believe it’s from God, Allah, Satan, or universal chance you should still exercise your intellect. And for the record, I am not an intellectual either. I just like to learn.

Finally, why does every situation have to have a victim? It’s getting ridiculous. Religious, spiritual, atheist- all of these sides want to claim that they are victims when the other side makes a move. To me it’s preposterous. You don’t have to be a victim. If you’re secure in your beliefs, there’s no reason to whine every time someone does something you think is offensive. In fact, by acting victimized, you’re giving the perpetrator more credit than they deserve. You can tell your side of the story and you can even make a case that what happened was offensive, but you don’t have to be a victim. It doesn’t help your case and only makes it sound like you’re whining rather than doing something constructive to explain your position.