When I first started this blog, one of the early posts concerned a Mr. Webster Cook, accused Eucharist thief. In the aftermath of what has colloquially known as Crackergate or Wafergate, there were calls from many catholics for Mr. Cook’s expulsion from the University of Central Florida. Thankfully, cool heads prevailed and a panel made up of both students and administrators unanimously determined that there was no clear evidence that either Mr. Cook or Ben Collard (his companion during the cited incident) had done anything which merited suspension or expulsion.
This is wonderful news people! I would love to see Donahue’s face when he reads about this. But aside from my vindictive streak, I think this is an excellent decision on the part of the school. Sadly the student government is not quite so reasonable and has scheduled an impeachment hearing to determine his fitness as a student senator on August 28th. Send him your support people!
It’s brilliant news. I note also that the loonies have been trying to get PZ Myers fired, without success.
On another blog, the owner gloatingly lists all the organisations that have called for Myers to be fired:
American Life League
The Catholic League
St. Cloud, MN Diocese
Catholics in the Diocese of Dallas that read Ron Dreher’s column
Christian Anti-Defamation Commission
He tots them up and gets over a million people.
Well, all those people failed.
It’s wonderful news indeed.
I hate to break it to you but Mr. Cook was removed from his position from the SGA on August 29th, so obviously his conduct was deemed unfit by his own peers.
That anyone would condone Mr. Cook’s actions in taking something considered sacred shows complete intolerance towards religious beliefs. I bet if you had something like a car or expensive piece of jewelry stolen you’d be screaming bloody murder but since you do not subscribe to the same belief system then that cancels out its importance. That’s hipocrisy for you.
I would not call his conduct toward said item intolerant. All he initially wished to do was show his friend a host due to his friend’s curiosity. He was then assaulted. I think that he was justified in his reaction and that the entire ensuing brouhaha was overblown and an unnecessary reaction to innocent curiosity.
As to your analogy between material possession and Mr. Cook’s actions I would say that you are patently mistaken. The theft of a car or jewel causes actual harm to the owner. The curiosity of a college student (Cook’s friend) to examine a host did not deserve the physical assault Cook was exposed too and I believe that his reaction was well deserved.
Beliefs need not always be respected, however he did not initially intend any disrespect toward the Catholic Church, and any such disrespect was a direct result of the disrespect shown toward him. Mr. Cook did no physical or monetary damage to anyone. He did nothing to deserve the censure he has received.
I’ll leave you with a bit of wisdom:
The only sin lies in hurting others unnecessarily, all other sin is invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful, just stupid.)