Crackers - My letter

Dear Mr. Bruininks,


I have read Paul Zachary Myers’ two blog entries concerning the incident with Webster Cook and the Eucharist. I am concerned for Mr. Myers and would like you to impress upon him the approach of rational action.


While I agree with Mr. Myers (that many overreacted to the original actions of Webster Cook), the professor was extreme in his own reaction. It was not necessary to refer to the Eucharist degradingly as a cracker throughout his posts, regardless of his belief or lack thereof of the Eucharist as the body of Christ – a sacred item. Especially because of said sacred nature, Myers’ eagerness to defile other ‘crackers’ was unjustified.


I am concerned that a professor would—intentionally or by a lapse in thought—be the cause of such an uproar. The Eucharist is central to Catholicism, and, indeed, sacred to those of faith. The fact that it is, physically, only a cracker in insignificant compared to it’s overwhelming religious value. If a university professor cannot understand the importance of context, I am concerned that his actions and teaching in the future will have further unfavorable effects. Also, as Bill Donahue stated, Myers’ blog, accessible from the university’s web site, does not adhere to the university’s code of conduct. Such a code is adopted nearly universally in professional places of work across North America and Myers should be aware of the standard he must uphold as a professional—even in his spare time.


My intention in writing this letter is not to suppress personal opinion, nor is it to exact vengeful punishment for the wrongs done to the religion concerned. I would like to express to Mr. Myers the benefit of reason and moderation as a practical approach, which has the advantage of the greatest support every time. To respond to extremism with more extremism is in bad taste, especially when from the scientific and educational communities.


Sincerely,

(my name)