Speaking of being PC...

[SpoonfulOSugar]

In this particular case, I think cultural appropriation never even entered into the equation. They saw a design they liked so they stole it and I don't think the fact that it had spiritual significance bothered them one bit.

Creative theft is nothing new; in fact, if you're a creative, it's almost at the point where you should expect your work will be appropriated by a company somewhere in the world, without attribution or compensation. Check out http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/. I've been following this site for a few years and the theft is so blatant it's mind boggling.

The problem I have is that the company itself talks about using inspiration from cultures around the world.

*IF* (note that I don't fully know) the current situation is an example of how they draw inspiration, perhaps it should be considered both theft and appropriation.  I don't recognize the label or know enough about it to know whether there is more to it, but I have a feeling someone should be questioning their ethics.

[nausicaa]

 

Or they could change it to a redskin potato.

 

Anyway, the owner of the Washington team has double downed on the name and merchandise. It'll change, eventaully. But the nfl will have to step in or he'll sell the team or die. I enjoyed the jon Stewart show reporting on this issue. I think it aired last year.

 

 

I live in the Washington area but am not a football fan. Still, I'm so embarrassed by the ugly history of our football team. (For those that don't know, the Skins were the last team in the NFL to ever integrate. This wasn't some coincidence, the owner at the time made it clear he didn't want to do it, used racial slurs, and it only happened after major legal efforts on behalf of the NFL.)

The team name's a slur. On top of that, it isn't even like it's referencing something unique to the Washington area, like we're the Powhatans with a Native American mascot. (I still get why that's offensive btw. It's just our current name is so friggin' stupid on so many levels.)

[FundieFarmer]

Eesh. That's a tough one. I understand her frustration. 

However, I take issue that her ire was, in part, based in the fact that the company had "ignored the Inuit dictum not to copy sacred designs." Again, my deepest sympathies, but the company is not Inuit. Expecting them to follow and obey Inuit rules is, quite frankly, asinine. Being upset because they didn't respect the culture? Reasonable. Being upset because they didn't follow another culture's rules? Unreasonable.

[sockinshoe]

Eesh. That's a tough one. I understand her frustration. 

However, I take issue that her ire was, in part, based in the fact that the company had "ignored the Inuit dictum not to copy sacred designs." Again, my deepest sympathies, but the company is not Inuit. Expecting them to follow and obey Inuit rules is, quite frankly, asinine. Being upset because they didn't respect the culture? Reasonable. Being upset because they didn't follow another culture's rules? Unreasonable.

In my opinion, following Inuit rules and getting permission to use the design are not really separate issues. If they had asked her for use of the family design (which belongs to her family), she would have said "no" because the design is not meant to be shared. By not getting permission, and just copying it out of a book, they didn't give the family an opportunity to decide if they would follow Inuit traditions or if they would break with tradition. These garments and designs are associated with spiritual and shamanic power. Stealing them/using them when you have no claim to them is a serious spiritual attack. It's immensely problematic to say "well, I don't believe in shamans and all that stuff, so it doesn't matter if I use the design". Outsiders don't get to decide what cultural artifacts and traditions mean to different cultures. N.B. none of this is an attack on you, FF. It's just pointing out some of the issues associated with using a culture's design without respecting the culture it came from.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

In my opinion, following Inuit rules and getting permission to use the design are not really separate issues. If they had asked her for use of the family design (which belongs to her family), she would have said "no" because the design is not meant to be shared. By not getting permission, and just copying it out of a book, they didn't give the family an opportunity to decide if they would follow Inuit traditions or if they would break with tradition. These garments and designs are associated with spiritual and shamanic power. Stealing them/using them when you have no claim to them is a serious spiritual attack. It's immensely problematic to say "well, I don't believe in shamans and all that stuff, so it doesn't matter if I use the design". Outsiders don't get to decide what cultural artifacts and traditions mean to different cultures. N.B. none of this is an attack on you, FF. It's just pointing out some of the issues associated with using a culture's design without respecting the culture it came from.

Not speaking for @FundieFarmer, but I agree with how I read her statement.  Absolutely there should be respect for other cultures and people should go out of their way to make sure they aren't being disrespectful to another belief system...but that's different (to me) than refraining from doing it because they should respect the dictum of that belief system.

As an example many Catholics tend to not appreciate the rosary being used as costume jewelry or as tattoos signifying gang membership.  I think it would be nice if people didn't do this out of respect to not trivializing an item sacred to another belief system.  But I'd never think anyone should refrain from using it because it violates the tenets of the RCC and is blasphemous (or whatever that would be called?  heresy?  I don't know...) but my point is it would be asinine to expect people to respect that symbol because of Catholic rules if those rules don't apply to them.  It's not asinine to expect them not to be shitty and use symbols that are sacred to other people.

End result is the same - people should refrain from trivializing other cultures - but the reasoning that we should refrain because it's the decent thing to do is logical.  Refraining because it violates a rule in a religion or culture with which you aren't familiar/don't agree is absurd.  

[Maggie Mae]

I live in the Washington area but am not a football fan. Still, I'm so embarrassed by the ugly history of our football team. (For those that don't know, the Skins were the last team in the NFL to ever integrate. This wasn't some coincidence, the owner at the time made it clear he didn't want to do it, used racial slurs, and it only happened after major legal efforts on behalf of the NFL.)

The team name's a slur. On top of that, it isn't even like it's referencing something unique to the Washington area, like we're the Powhatans with a Native American mascot. (I still get why that's offensive btw. It's just our current name is so friggin' stupid on so many levels.)

It's also the chanting and the merchandising and everything that goes along with being a skin's fan. It's awkward to watch or be around. 

And there was this: http://www.adn.com/article/20130628/redskins-nfl-team-deploys-dubious-alaska-native-defense-logo

 

[FundieFarmer]

In my opinion, following Inuit rules and getting permission to use the design are not really separate issues. If they had asked her for use of the family design (which belongs to her family), she would have said "no" because the design is not meant to be shared. By not getting permission, and just copying it out of a book, they didn't give the family an opportunity to decide if they would follow Inuit traditions or if they would break with tradition. These garments and designs are associated with spiritual and shamanic power. Stealing them/using them when you have no claim to them is a serious spiritual attack. It's immensely problematic to say "well, I don't believe in shamans and all that stuff, so it doesn't matter if I use the design". Outsiders don't get to decide what cultural artifacts and traditions mean to different cultures. N.B. none of this is an attack on you, FF. It's just pointing out some of the issues associated with using a culture's design without respecting the culture it came from.

Re bolded 1: I really think that's a stretch. It's only a spiritual attack to the person who believes in it- whatever it may be. This applies to our fundies, and really to anybody with a personal belief system. 

Re bolded 2: I agree. But by that same measure, a cultural artifact or tradition won't always mean the same thing to people outside of the tradition, and those within it can't really expect those without to follow a set of rules to which they don't ascribe. Respect, yes, and I completely agree that stealing the design was wrong. However, I don't think that a spiritual ruler is the way to quantify it.

I think we have an interesting debate here. I don't see using the design as a copyright issue vs an issue of following the Inuit rules to be hand-in-hand. If the designer had asked for permission, the great-grand-daughter could've said no for a myriad of reasons, which may or may not have included the Inuit dictum. As I understood it, the designer using the design did not mean the family broke the dictum- but that the designer did. So to me, it reads as if the woman is angry with the design house for not following a religious or cultural more to which the design house doesn't subscribe. Again, I agree that stealing the design was wrong. It is clearly a highly sentimental item with a lot of religious connotation, but as @HerNameIsBuffy pointed out, religious items have been stolen and used for far more sacrilegious purposes before. I do not believe that measuring the crime against a religious belief system is a valid way to add weight or seriousness to the issue. 

We get angry with the fundies for trying to force people to follow their beliefs, and we find it ridiculous when they tell us we are going to Hell for things we don't believe. I don't really see how this woman's reaction is much different than that. 

[Whoosh]

There was an interesting case in 2014 about something similar to some of this.  A Satanist group had obtained a communion wafer and was planning to use it at a Black Mass (some said it was "stolen", but I am unclear on the details).  The Catholic Archbishop of Oklahoma filed a lawsuit to stop this from happening.  I thought it would be interesting to see how it played out, but it ended when the group returned the wafer willingly.  I don't want to link a source, as most the coverage I recall was remarkably biased one way or the other, but if you are interested at all, google "satanist" or "black mass" and "communion wafer".  Personally, I found the behavior of both sides of that particular issue unfortunate.

[Terrie]

The thing with the rosary is that it is not unique to an individual. This was close to, oh, say, taking someone's grandmother's rosary and using it to reproduce the piece "Piss Jesus." The sacred aspect comes partially from the highly personal nature of the design, and it's important to recognize that by taking the design, they take something that can not be replaced. You need to understand the beliefs to understand why the actions are so disrespectful, and it's hard to explain without explaining the rules.

[FundieFarmer]

I appreciate the explanation and it helps to understand the gravity of the situation. My irritation isn't with the explanation of the rules, but that this woman is clearly angry that a non-Inuit didn't follow Inuit rules. I just really don't think that's reasonable. 

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

The thing with the rosary is that it is not unique to an individual. This was close to, oh, say, taking someone's grandmother's rosary and using it to reproduce the piece "Piss Jesus." The sacred aspect comes partially from the highly personal nature of the design, and it's important to recognize that by taking the design, they take something that can not be replaced. You need to understand the beliefs to understand why the actions are so disrespectful, and it's hard to explain without explaining the rules.

It's not a perfect analogy, true, but my over arching point was that what is sacred to some people will be just a cool looking thing to others and that's where we just need to avoid stepping on each other's toes, when possible.

I think knowing something has sacred meaning to another group should be enough  - we shouldn't expect people to understand the specific beliefs of why something is sacred to understand it's off limits unless you want to offend people.  

There was an interesting case in 2014 about something similar to some of this.  A Satanist group had obtained a communion wafer and was planning to use it at a Black Mass (some said it was "stolen", but I am unclear on the details).  The Catholic Archbishop of Oklahoma filed a lawsuit to stop this from happening.  I thought it would be interesting to see how it played out, but it ended when the group returned the wafer willingly.  I don't want to link a source, as most the coverage I recall was remarkably biased one way or the other, but if you are interested at all, google "satanist" or "black mass" and "communion wafer".  Personally, I found the behavior of both sides of that particular issue unfortunate.

That's not something I would ever google, but a couple of points stood out to me:

• If they wanted to use it in any way it seems like that are imbibing the Eucharist with power...surprising for a group with a very disparate belief system.
• Whether it rose to the definition of legal theft may be up for debate, but there are very few ways to legitimately get your hands on the Eucharist and none of them involve being honest about it's intended use in this scenario - so however they got it there was some deceit involved.

 

[Whoosh]

 

• Whether it rose to the definition of legal theft may be up for debate, but there are very few ways to legitimately get your hands on the Eucharist and none of them involve being honest about it's intended use in this scenario - so however they got it there was some deceit involved.

 

I totally agree with you on the issue of how it was obtained and (whether it should or not) to me that matters a lot.  I should have also said that I while I wasn't totally impressed with some of what the Catholic church did in response to this incident (if those reports were even true), they really never should have been in a position of responding to this in the first place.  

I guess one thing that this incident really illustrates to me is that I would put great weight on what the object is and how it was obtained.  For example, if a religious group tried to claim ownership over something like skirts and tried to dictate how skirts are used, pfft.  Other objects considered sacred by some, like you said in other posts, have a variety of features or whatever that might make them attractive to other groups.  In this incident with the Communion wafer, the motivations or intentions seem pretty clear to me and not at all impressive.  If this was something you could buy off the shelf, that would be one thing.  Clearly, that is not the case with communion wafers.  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

I totally agree with you on the issue of how it was obtained and (whether it should or not) to me that matters a lot.  I should have also said that I while I wasn't totally impressed with some of what the Catholic church did in response to this incident (if those reports were even true), they really never should have been in a position of responding to this in the first place.  

I guess one thing that this incident really illustrates to me is that I would put great weight on what the object is and how it was obtained.  For example, if a religious group tried to claim ownership over something like skirts and tried to dictate how skirts are used, pfft.  Other objects considered sacred by some, like you said in other posts, have a variety of features or whatever that might make them attractive to other groups.  In this incident with the Communion wafer, the motivations or intentions seem pretty clear to me and not at all impressive.  If this was something you could buy off the shelf, that would be one thing.  Clearly, that is not the case with communion wafers.  

Right.  I mean if you break them down they are just finely ground wheat flour and water (and yeah, I had to look that up.  I did some holiday baking over the weekend but alas, no Eucharist.)  So people could make them all day long if they had a penchant for tasteless bread in very small amounts.  What these people ostensibly wanted was the symbolism of actual Eucharist which, according to the tenets of the RCC, only becomes such after being blessed.  A plate of wafers in the rectory are still just wafers until they've been processed.  

When we were kids and played communion we used Necco wafers.  Arguably one of the worst tasting candies out there, but really fit the bill for shape and size.  And as yucky as Necco wafers are still tastier than the Eucharist, imo.  Except the black ones - they are foul!

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

I totally agree with you on the issue of how it was obtained and (whether it should or not) to me that matters a lot.  I should have also said that I while I wasn't totally impressed with some of what the Catholic church did in response to this incident (if those reports were even true), they really never should have been in a position of responding to this in the first place.  

I guess one thing that this incident really illustrates to me is that I would put great weight on what the object is and how it was obtained.  For example, if a religious group tried to claim ownership over something like skirts and tried to dictate how skirts are used, pfft.  Other objects considered sacred by some, like you said in other posts, have a variety of features or whatever that might make them attractive to other groups.  In this incident with the Communion wafer, the motivations or intentions seem pretty clear to me and not at all impressive.  If this was something you could buy off the shelf, that would be one thing.  Clearly, that is not the case with communion wafers.  

Okay - I broke down and googled it.  Honestly, putting my personal bias aside I like what one person said about it being a property rights issue.  There is no legitimate, legal way for them to have gotten it - if it was indeed consecrated.

Kind of like quality procedures, in a weird way.  I've written a ton of QC procedures in my day and the templates are a dime a dozen, but if I saw my procedures out there in use by another company, with my name on them and they are admitting I created them* I don't care how they got them...they didn't get them legitimately and they have no right to use them.

*and yes, apparently I just compared my writing and authorizing quality procedures with the sacred act of blessing the host and I'm a nervous enough Catholic to need to note that I understand they are not the same.  I know my paper work is a tier or two down on scale of sacred acts.  

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Here non consacrated hosts are used to make deserts since centuries.  It's only when an host is consacrated during the Mass that it becomes the Eucharist. The problem with what happened,  IMHO, is that the design itself is considered sacred, it's not only the parka that's sacred, it's the design, the very thing that was taken. A rosary is not considered a sacred item if it's not consecrated or blessed, it's only an object. When I respect the sacrality of that design I do it not because I respect Inuit's dictum but because my culture and the law of my land demand that I respect Inuit's dictum. If I desacrate the Eucharist, or a place of cult such as a Mosque or a Sinagogue, I am pretty sure that I would be persecuted by Italian law for it even if I don't believe in the sacrality of them.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Re bolded 1: I really think that's a stretch. It's only a spiritual attack to the person who believes in it- whatever it may be. This applies to our fundies, and really to anybody with a personal belief system. 

Re bolded 2: I agree. But by that same measure, a cultural artifact or tradition won't always mean the same thing to people outside of the tradition, and those within it can't really expect those without to follow a set of rules to which they don't ascribe. Respect, yes, and I completely agree that stealing the design was wrong. However, I don't think that a spiritual ruler is the way to quantify it.

I think we have an interesting debate here. I don't see using the design as a copyright issue vs an issue of following the Inuit rules to be hand-in-hand. If the designer had asked for permission, the great-grand-daughter could've said no for a myriad of reasons, which may or may not have included the Inuit dictum. As I understood it, the designer using the design did not mean the family broke the dictum- but that the designer did. So to me, it reads as if the woman is angry with the design house for not following a religious or cultural more to which the design house doesn't subscribe. Again, I agree that stealing the design was wrong. It is clearly a highly sentimental item with a lot of religious connotation, but as @HerNameIsBuffy pointed out, religious items have been stolen and used for far more sacrilegious purposes before. I do not believe that measuring the crime against a religious belief system is a valid way to add weight or seriousness to the issue. 

We get angry with the fundies for trying to force people to follow their beliefs, and we find it ridiculous when they tell us we are going to Hell for things we don't believe. I don't really see how this woman's reaction is much different than that. 

Yes, the main issue was that a design was used without permission, period.

The granddaughter has a right to be upset about that.  She could be upset because the family was not compensated, but she also had a right to be upset because she wasn't given the opportunity to say no, which she would have done because of her spiritual beliefs.  It's a bit like a thief stealing something, but not realizing that it had tremendous sentimental value.  The second part of the harm may not have been intentional, but that's the risk you run when you take something that isn't yours.

In this particular situation, though, the company was deliberately using Inuit designs and drawing attention to the fact that they were doing so.  It went beyond "I saw a cool pattern somewhere".  They may not have known the exact significance, but they knew it had some cultural link and significance and they didn't bother to check what that might be.

 

[sockinshoe]

I think the argument that "I'm not Inuit, I don't have to play by their rules" is kind of moot. Any discussion of cultural appropriation is about people not respecting the rules and customs of a culture they are stealing from. Mexican people who get upset about others appropriating sugar skulls are upset because, in the appropriation, the sugar skull is reduced from a culturally significant object to a pretty, edgy, hipstery tattoo. Similarly, indigenous groups dislike seeing things like headdresses and dreamcatchers appropriated because the spiritual and cultural significance of the object is often erased. I'm not Mexican or indigenous, so, to me, a sugar skull or feathered headdress is just a sugar skull or feathered headdress. I don't believe in the religion that gives the object significance. However, I don't dress in those things/make and sell those things because I recognize that it is a misuse of another culture's traditions. You don't have to be Inuit to understand that using sacred Inuit designs is inappropriate, especially designs that are intended to remain in one family. It's not a question of belief, it's a question of respect. And if a fashion designer is unable to respect a culture, they certainly shouldn't be "borrowing" from that culture in their designs.

Also regarding my use of the term "spiritual attack", I was not referring to the designer as willfully spiritually attacking this family; I was trying to articulate the idea that in this culture, this sort of design has protective properties in a spiritual sense. When another person uses this design, it weakens those protections. Imagine a scenario where destroying a Christian cross weakened Jesus' ability to save people/made it harder for ordinary, innocent people to get to heaven. That's the kind of scenario I was trying to describe. 

To be completely honest, (pure conjecture) I think the designer was perusing books on indigenous cultures and was ignorantly swiping any designs that caught their eye in the subconscious (or conscious, what the hell do I know) assumption that these cultures were long gone/dead.

[nausicaa]

I appreciate the explanation and it helps to understand the gravity of the situation. My irritation isn't with the explanation of the rules, but that this woman is clearly angry that a non-Inuit didn't follow Inuit rules. I just really don't think that's reasonable. 

 

Agreed. I do have a question for those who disagree (and I don't mean this to be snarky or shit stirring, I'm honestly interested in your opinions), for Muslims, references to the prophet Mohammed (as well as several other prominent Quranic characters), whether written or spoken, should always be followed by "peace be upon him" or "pbuh" in writing. Do you think that nonbelievers using his name should follow this same rule? (There's also of course the question of depicting him in an illustration.)

Okay - I broke down and googled it.  Honestly, putting my personal bias aside I like what one person said about it being a property rights issue.  There is no legitimate, legal way for them to have gotten it - if it was indeed consecrated.

I'm so interested in the property rights issues with communion now. When the priest gives you the consecrated wafer, isn't it now in your possession and up to you what to do with it? So you are free to pocket it and carry it out of church? Is going up to take communion when you aren't a Catholic legally fraud?

And as for Satanists imbibing an object that isn't part of their religion with so much importance, there are some people who believe the whole Satanist movement is tongue in cheek and LeVey and others are sort of just thumbing their nose at establishment and trying to mix things up.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

<snip>

I'm so interested in the property rights issues with communion now. When the priest gives you the consecrated wafer, isn't it now in your possession and up to you what to do with it? So you are free to pocket it and carry it out of church? Is going up to take communion when you aren't a Catholic legally fraud?

And as for Satanists imbibing an object that isn't part of their religion with so much importance, there are some people who believe the whole Satanist movement is tongue in cheek and LeVey and others are sort of just thumbing their nose at establishment and trying to mix things up.

Finally a religious question I can kinda answer...maybe.  

When you're given the Eucharist* you are receiving the gift of the body and blood of Christ, per the RCC.  So no, it's never in your possession to do with what you will.  The protocol is to either take it on the tongue (which I CANNOT do) or accept it in the palm of your hand and immediately put it in your mouth.  I'm not saying anyone will drop tackle you if you're putting it in your mouth as you walk back to your pew...but it's just not done.  At least not without some scathing looks, because it's not showing proper reverence to the Eucharist.  

I've never seen this happen...ever...but if you were to walk away without consuming it a Priest, Deacon, or whomever would be well within the rights to come and discuss that with you and yes, demand it back.  I assume legally it's yours and if they called the cops you'd probably be allowed to keep it as it's a gift...but from a protocol standpoint it's never something you own.  It's something believers receive into body and spirit.  

Tbh I can no more fathom putting a piece of Eucharist in my pocket than I can of walking into the grocery store completely naked except for a jaunty hat and grin. It's just unthinkable.

Receiving the Eucharist when you're not Catholic* (or are Catholic not in a state of grace) is a sin, although I can't imagine it would meet the definition of fraud in any legal sense.  

*there are exceptions.  Some orthodox sects meet the criteria and there are provisions for other Christians to partake under special circumstances of receiving the Eucharist.  Here's a good link with the details.  http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion

Informally I was taught that it's worse for a Catholic knowingly outside the state of grace to receive communion than for a protestant because we have full knowledge of the gravity of the sin.  Which is why I've never once received it without a tremendous amount of guilt because I evaluate every f'ed up thing I've done since my last communion and I do a lot of f'ed up things all the time.

(See - I have zero problem swearing but I can't in this post...damn guilt.)  (damn, I just swore...damn.  ARGH)

(the term communion for the bread itself doesn't offend me at all as I know it's a common term for protestants, but actually for Catholics the act of communion is separate (although can occur simultaneously) with the sacrament of the Eucharist, so for us it's a verb and not a verb and a noun.  I'm not being a pendant - I just like words and thought this was an interesting linguistic fun fact.)

 

[Maggie Mae]

When we were children, their was an urban legend that if you removed the consecrated host from the church, it would turn to blood. Obviously, someone's little brother's friend's cousin had it happen. Cue all children in the parish attempting to smuggle them out. It's tricky. And then everyone's mom and aunts and teachers yell at you when you get caught. 

Also we used to snack on the unconsecrated wafers in the rectory. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

When we were children, their was an urban legend that if you removed the consecrated host from the church, it would turn to blood. Obviously, someone's little brother's friend's cousin had it happen. Cue all children in the parish attempting to smuggle them out. It's tricky. And then everyone's mom and aunts and teachers yell at you when you get caught. 

Also we used to snack on the unconsecrated wafers in the rectory. 

Most tasteless snack ever.  

[Whoosh]

The property issue is really interesting and I think one reason Buffy (a believer raised Catholic but somewhat following your own path, right?) and I (a non-believer raised Episcopalian) could have somewhat different reactions to this situation (though I think we actually fairly well agree, but I think the law might work a bit differently than what you described).  I am going to use a pretty silly example to illustrate here, so bear with me on that bit.  Also, I am only going to talk about what I know of the Catholic Church vs. the Episcopal Church (which I was raised in).

As Buffy said, in the Catholic Church, the Eucharist, once consecrated, is seen to be the body and blood of Christ.  You are not to receive the Eucharist unless you are a Catholic in a state of grace.  Buffy, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is announced when the Eucharist is offered.  If you are a Catholic in a state of grace, you would simply never, ever consider pocketing the Eucharist.  If you would consider it, you are not in a state of grace and therefore were not offered the Eucharist in the first place.  The expectation and understanding of everyone is that you will incorporate the body and the blood of Christ into your own person at the communion altar (unless that is a Protestant way to say it - again, please correct me if I got it wrong).  

For Episcopalians, Holy Communion or the Eucharist, once consecrated, is seen to be symbolic of the body and blood of Christ.  Some congregations invite all who are baptized into Christianity to receive Holy Communion, while others invite all who seek to know God or all who seek Jesus to receive Holy Communion.  I can't say precisely how it is worded, but it should be clear who is being invited to receive Holy Communion.  Here, the expectation of the Church is that the Eucharist will be incorporated into your own person at the communion altar, but that isn't explicitly stated and someone "seeking God", baptized or not, may not have a clue of that expectation.  

So, removing belief and faith and tradition and ritual and getting down to property law, those differences might matter.  In essence, I think the whole thing can be seen as forming some type of verbal or unwritten contract.  In the Catholic Church, the contract seems pretty clear to me - the Church offers the Eucharist in reliance on the fact that the recipient agrees to complete the unwritten contract by actually swallowing the Eucharist.  In the Episcopal Church, despite the likely expectations of the Church, that expectation is not made explicitly clear to the recipient.  The Episcopal Church simply invites people to "participate", but does not explain what "participation" means.  In contract law, one-party expectations that are ambiguous or unknowable to the second party are not enforceable (and for good reason).  If a court is interpreting the contract, they will try to determine what a reasonable person might understand the agreement to be.  

All that is a set-up for my silly example.  In terms of understanding how the law might view pocketing of the Eucharist, consider an all-you-can-eat buffet.  The offer is not "all you can eat for the week so long as you can fit it in your roll-board carry out container".  The offer is that it is "all you can eat in this sitting" or whatever.  BUT - that needs to be clear.  Thus you will find eleventy million annoying signs and notices explaining that exact policy or offer (or the terms of the contract for sale).  If you try to walk out with a pocket full of lobster tails, that would be theft.

Back to the Eucharist, it is my opinion that pocketing the Eucharist received in a typical Catholic Church ceremony would be considered theft, while pocketing the Eucharist in a typical Episcopalian Church ceremony would not be.  What it boils down to is "what was the contract or the agreement for the exchange".

ETA - Buffy - I feel ya - I don't believe and I am having difficulty speaking of Holy Communion is such a non-reverent or secular manner.  

ETA2 - well geez louise, apparently I had a word or two to say about that.  Sorry! 

[Maggie Mae]

Most tasteless snack ever.  

I think the fact that we assumed we weren't supposed to do so made them taste better.

I haven't been to church since 2002. I can still vaguely remember the strange flavor of the wafer, combined with the horrible smell of Catholic incense and cleaning elements.

[sockinshoe]

Agreed. I do have a question for those who disagree (and I don't mean this to be snarky or shit stirring, I'm honestly interested in your opinions), for Muslims, references to the prophet Mohammed (as well as several other prominent Quranic characters), whether written or spoken, should always be followed by "peace be upon him" or "pbuh" in writing. Do you think that nonbelievers using his name should follow this same rule? (There's also of course the question of depicting him in an illustration.)I'm so interested in the property rights issues with communion now. When the priest gives you the consecrated wafer, isn't it now in your possession and up to you what to do with it? So you are free to pocket it and carry it out of church? Is going up to take communion when you aren't a Catholic legally fraud?

And as for Satanists imbibing an object that isn't part of their religion with so much importance, there are some people who believe the whole Satanist movement is tongue in cheek and LeVey and others are sort of just thumbing their nose at establishment and trying to mix things up.

Re: the Mohammad example: I think here the issue is that this is an exclusive tradition. *Unless* you are a member of this family, you cannot use this design. It's akin to me going to a Catholic church and taking communion, even though I'm not baptized: *unless* you are Catholic, you don't take Catholic communion.

I guess I don't really understand the argument. Are you saying that it's OK to use the pattern because the designer is not Inuit?

[sawasdee]

Back in the day in RC churches  the host was placed on your tongue by the priest, and we were taught that it should dissolve, and our teeth not touch it. I remember the horror of coughing as I left the altar at about the age of 9, and the host flew out of my mouth to the floor. Cue nuns rushing to the aisle, and kneeling to protect it from being trodden on, and the priest descending from the altar to scoop it up. (And cue me )

Now, the communicant takes and places the host into his/her mouth, but I think the reverence for the host remains.

Can't take the RC out of the girl - I kept trying to capitalize the word host.