2008 sacred wafer scandal/John Pieret vs. Woozle

Introduction
This is an attempt to map out the territory covered in a long discussion between science blogger John Pieret and Issuepedia editorial despot Woozle in the comments section of the En Tequila Es Verdad blog, where blog author Dana Hunter fired the opening response to Pieret's opening shot (on his blog) in her post.

Ultimately, it should be adapted into a generalized breakdown of the issues surrounding the wafer scandal, but that should go on a separate page; this page is mainly to represent the JP-Woozle debate for reference purposes, though it may bring in points made elsewhere by either of them in order to clarify their positions.

The Debate
Although there are some areas of the debate which have not yet been covered here, this does show the areas which came up the most often.

Agreement
These are points on which there was agreement:
 * The issuance of death threats by supporters of the Catholic church is insane and anyone who made one is "a demented fuckwit and a criminal" (JP's words; Woozle prefers to stick to "guilty of a criminal offense", but wouldn't say no to "demented fuckwit" if pressed).
 * The church has the right to dispose of its property with whatever conditions it chooses.
 * The wafers are given out for the purpose of being eaten as part of the Communion ceremony.
 * Feelings do deserve some consideration on their own. [Mainly NP's point]

Disagreement

 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I submit that the "dictate" accusation is an appeal to guilt, not a valid argument. --Woozle 19:49, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

Relevant Quotes
Any misinterpretation of John's position is completely unintentional. For reference, here are some of the original words which seem most likely to have been misinterpreted as they were being rephrased for clarity:
 * JP1: ...when I saw some of Darwin's notebooks at the American Museum of Natural History a few years back, I nonetheless felt a deep emotional and intellectual connection to the man and his work that was not diminished by the fact that I was fully aware the feeling was arational. Think of all the things we value in our lives far beyond any rational worth they have -- a wedding ring, a deceased parent's picture, an old book. We are a symbol-creating species and, if we have any such thing called "rights," we have as much entitlement to be reasonably secure in our symbols as we have to be secure in our other metaphorical "possessions," such as our "dignity" and our "honor."
 * JP2: The simple fact is that you are placing some special "value" on the notebooks and the original King James Bible based on symbolism. Is the fact that you don't share the symbolism Catholics hold sufficient justification to intentionally damage the things they hold dear knowing the pain it will cause them?