Here’s the difference between what Cook did and the pig’s head on the the stoop of the mosque: Cook’s actions, as you’ve described them, were not motivated by hatred for the church or its members. It was an act of civil disobedience to protest the use of public funds to support “religious purposes.” I will grant that Cook did not make the best decision in making his point (but I will say that I do support that it’s a point that needs to be made in some way, as the Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, and the government is not to show any preference for one religion over the other), but what he did is not a crime.

The wafer is freely given, and when a person takes ownership of it, it is his or her right to do as he or she chooses. What if he had chosen to take it home because he felt it provided a closer, more intimate connection to God? Would that have been “stealing,” “kidnapping,” or any of the other crimes of which he was accused?

Finally, you write, “Douglas Adams saying “you’re not allowed to” say anything about it is untrue,” but you seem to be confusing the fact that things are being said with the idea that they’re “not allowed.” Take, for example, the fact that teenagers are not allowed to stay out past curfew. Yet they do, all the time, and in general, they are punished in some way, based on their parent’s leniency (or lack thereof) or their city’s laws.. Similarly, people questioning theistic beliefs may say what they think all the time, but they immediately face a backlash from theists who feel that any statement that confronts their views are offensive. Bill Donohue’s decision to petition UMM to fire Myers because he did not appreciate what Myers had to say is a perfect example.

Also, it appears that you and others don’t know what a “hate crime” is. Burning a cross is a hate crime, for example. Here is the congressional definition, “”criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” It isn’t the hate that is criminal; it’s what people do about it.

Webster Cook claims that he took the host in protest. After being requested to either consume it or give it back based on the Church’s teachings and doctrine, he refused and he took the host; he has said and written publicly that his motivation was because of his bias against government funds being used for religious purposes, and he specifically chose the Catholic church as his target. All these facts put together do tend to make a person wonder, “was this a hate crime?” It was a crime when a non-Muslim tossed a pig’s head into the front door of a mosque; it was a crime when two women disrupted a Jewish synagogue service; so I don’t think it’s a far stretch to imagine that Webster Cook might have committed a crime. Therefore, Catholics who discuss the possibility that it was a crime, given the actual facts, aren’t just whistling Dixie.

You wrote “I refuse to respect the imposition of the doctrine on anyone who doesn’t subscribe to it.” Nobody told Webster Cook that he had to believe he was kidnapping Jesus Christ in the body. They simply told him it was not OK for him to remove the host from the church. In what way is this any different than telling a non-Muslim that it is not OK to toss a pig’s head into a mosque? Why is it OK for Cook to do what he did?

You’re right: “It doesn’t protect us from criticism,” but that’s exactly what’s causing the backlash. A scathing rant criticizing the hysteria from the Webster Cook incident does not require the loss of one’s job.

Finally, it doesn’t seem you read my entire post. I respect a Catholic’s right to believe the Catholic doctrine. I refuse to respect the imposition of the doctrine on anyone who doesn’t subscribe to it. It is not discourteous to disdain it – any more than it would be discourteous for me to disdain someone stepping on my foot.

It might be best for people who do not understand or subscribe to Catholic doctrine not to express disdain for it. Simple respect and courtesy demand it.