 |
|
|
|
 The "Ghost" burger at Kuma's Corner in Chicago features a "Communion wafer garnish."
October 3rd, 2013
12:50 PM ET
Is the 'Communion burger' in poor taste?By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-editor [twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN'] (CNN) Mmm - sacralicious? A Chicago restaurant is pushing the boundaries of bad taste with its October Burger of the Month. Kuma's Corner, a heavy-metal themed joint with an "Eat beef; bang your head" ethos, says its new burger is an homage to Ghost, a Swedish band that performs satanic songs in Catholic clerical garb. "The Ghost" burger features a "Communion wafer garnish," a white, unleavened disc bearing the imprint of a cross and a crown. Ghost's new album comes complete with grape juice and a mock Communion wafer. Not coincidentally, the Communion burger at Kuma's comes with a red wine reduction. For those unfamiliar with the Christian sacrament, Holy Communion commemorates Jesus' Last Supper. The bread represents his body, Jesus says in the Bible, and the wine his blood. In many Christian traditions, a priest or minister will consecrate the wafers and wine before sharing them with the congregation. Luke Tobias, director of operations for Kuma's, said the restaurant's Communion wafers are not consecrated, and thus, not really holy. "It's more or less a cracker with a cross on it," he said. The restaurant bought the wafers online from an e-Bay-type website. They're not trying to make a big religious statement, Tobias said, just trying to have fun honoring a band they like. "If there is a God, I'm sure he has a sense of humor." Some of God's peoples seem to get the joke, according to Kuma's. A Presbyterian minister who ate the burger yesterday posted a message on Facebook saying that "sacrilege never tasted so good," Tobias said. But other Christians have a beef with Kuma's burger. Tobias said Kuma's phones have been ringing off the hook, with some saying that putting a Communion host on a burger is like waving the American flag over a fire. Jeffrey Young, who runs a podcast and blog called "Catholic Foodie," called the Ghost burger "crass and offensive." "For us, as Catholics, the Eucharist is the body and blood and soul of divinity itself," said Young. "Although the Communion wafer is not a consecrated host, it's still symbolic, and symbols are important." There's one thing that Tobias and Young agree on, however: Communion wafers are not particularly tasty. "From a culinary standpoint," Young said, "it's kind of worthless."
Next entry »Pope calls Italian shipwreck a 'disgrace'
« Previous entry5 questions for NBA star Jeremy Lin
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
We all share in the cultures from which these religions now originate, and all have the same cultural right to use their symbollism as we please.
@ Sara: so you are for prayer in schools and government, then?
What we have a right to do in private and what we do with public money are completely different questions. We have legal, and I believe ethical, rights to spend three hours a day watching Seinfeld reruns. If you have the kids doing that in my local schools I'll object. Parents in the US have the right to teach their kids any political view they want, but ask 10 year olds to memorize Mein Kampf and again, we have a different set of issues. Religions are shared globally, and in private the cultural aspects are free and open to each of us to integrate into our own world views. In public school, supported by public dollars, we have very clear guidelines that restrict the use of religion and, more importantly, reserve school time for education.
@ Sara: Shakespeare is rife with biblical references. his works cannot be understood without at least a rudimentary understanding of Christianity. are you against teaching Shakespeare? or what about the Reformation in European history? or that Papal involvement in European wars? seems you'll be hard pressed to actually teach MOST subjects without a basic engagement with the historical & literary influences alone.
but more to the point: how can you hold the door open to (basically) 'anything i want to believe is ok' and have a moral qualm with teaching other beliefs? either you have an ethical objection (it's not ok to believe ANYTHING you want) or you should allow ANY of those things to be taught – publicly or privately.
Russ,
"Shakespeare is rife with biblical references. his works cannot be understood without at least a rudimentary understanding of Christianity. are you against teaching Shakespeare?"
I am for teaching a basic understanding of major world religions and religious theory in the schools as a completely academic secular class. Religious passages in literature of different types would of course be included. Studying what a prayer is is very different from practicing prayer.
"...Reformation in European history? or that Papal involvement in European wars? seems you'll be hard pressed to actually teach MOST subjects without a basic engagement with the historical & literary influences alone."
I have never recommended not teaching about religions. I recommend teaching ABOUT Naziism and communism, too. Does that mean I recommend schools adopt the rituals and practices of those groups and teach them as truth?
..."how can you hold the door open to (basically) 'anything i want to believe is ok' and have a moral qualm with teaching other beliefs?"
I have never argued that.
"either you have an ethical objection (it's not ok to believe ANYTHING you want) or you should allow ANY of those things to be taught – publicly or privately."
You are making two statements here and claiming the latter follows from the former with no explanation of how it does. First, I don't hold the premise so the whole point, whatever it is, is pretty useless. But even if one did have an ethical system that supported believing anything as equally good (hard to imagine) the difference between public and private use of time and money would still be sustantial.
@ Sara: you said "we... all have the same cultural right to use their symbollism as we please."
help me understand how that is not the same thing as saying "i can do whatever i want and believe whatever i want." if the latter deduction is not true, on what basis can your quote be true?
and you claim to have that "right"... which certainly begs for an underlying basis for ethics. it ironically *excludes* certain possibilities while also claiming for itself ANY prerogative for ANY use. so yes, that does certainly seem self-contradictory, if not outright self-refuting.
Russ,
You wrote:
"Sara: you said "we... all have the same cultural right to use their symbollism as we please."
help me understand how that is not the same thing as saying "i can do whatever i want and believe whatever i want." if the latter deduction is not true, on what basis can your quote be true?"
If you can find a way to use symbollism to fly to Mars, slaughter a cow, or invent a vaccine get back to me with that question. Until then I will assume that use of symbolism is a very small part of availabe action.
For ethical rights I am defining them as those general rules whose existence supports the greatest wellbeing for the greatest number of conscious enti ties.
@ Sara: so you're dodging my question by appealing to pragmatism & utilitarianism. That was also Hitler's line of argumentation. Would you object to his ethical stances? If so, on WHAT basis? In other words, you still have the problem of *whose* definition of "wellbeing" you are using. You've simply kicked the philosophical can down the road and still are avoiding the question.
The point remains: your position is self-contradictory. You can't claim to have a cultural "right" (which presumes an exclusive basis) to ANY use (which by definition is utterly inclusive). And that was my point in the example I gave – you clearly object to prayer in schools, but you've just argued the opposite (we can do whatever we want with 'symbolism').
Russ,
My position is not contradictory. I have defined ethical rights in terms of utilitarianism. This is a definition shared by millions of rule utilitarians, the most common general secular or shared ethic in the world. It is a definition with derived moral consequences. Hitler's policies, by the way, do not meet those standards. If you think they do you can present that argument, but I think you'll meet with almost universal disagreement.
As for your reading of doing anything we want with symbolism, you are being literal not only to the point of absurdity but in contradiction to normal English usage. If I said "You bought an apple, so it is within your right to do anything you want with it" I would hope you would realize that that meant anything legal, such as bakin a pie or smashing it against a tree, and not that you can stick it in a high powered weapon and shoot it at someone's head. Are you having difficulty with that distinction?
@ Sara:
1) utilitarianism
Bentham said that "it is the greatest happiness for the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." and you think Hitler didn't make that same argument in defense of his 'Final Solution'?
you seem to want to hold two opposites together. you want to claim deontological justice w/ a teleological system of ethics. you can't have both and be logically consistent.
2) interpretation of your initial comment
you're dodging again. this is not merely semantics or literal vs. figurative. just answer the question: did you or did you not mean that in the realm of 'symbolism' (by which you intend in particular the religiously sacred?), those who do not adhere to such beliefs should feel free to use and even (in the eyes of those who hold such symbols in high regard) misuse them "as we please"? is that not what you intended to say? seriously, what other meaning could your quote hold? please explain how i have so completely misread your intent in that regard. what criticism were you making if not that?
3) self-contradiction
ironically for you, most utilitarians themselves would argue against your original comment: it would not be pursuant to the greatest happiness of a multi-ethnic (much less openly pluralistic) society to treat what others regard as sacred instead as profane. as others have noted on this blog, would drawing Mohammed be wise? much less pursuing the happiness of the greatest number of people... and yet that is the CLEAR implication of your above comment.
and utilitarian or not, it is STILL inconsistent to claim you can do "as we please" (relativistic) while also claiming a "cultural right" (which necessarily is exclusive – implying to say otherwise is wrong).
Do you really not understand the difference between public and private?
In the private sphere, your practice of religion doesn't involve taxpayer money or the religious beliefs of others.
But, in a public setting, like a school, you run into some basic problems. First, students aren't all Christian, and even the Christian ones are not all the same denomination. Second, more and more Americans are nonbelievers, as are their kids. Finally, there's this little thing called the First Amendment. In a multi-religious society, no one gets to dictate in public settings (like schools) what the "appropriate" religion is.
@ bob: read sara's original post again. i was merely applying her own logic to an incendiary discussion and – by her later remarks – rightly noting that she did not hold that position consistently.
in short, the point was not really prayer in schools. follow her logic.
Russ, bobsmith is right. You are intentionally ignoring distinctions you know full well to exist and building a straw man for your own purposes. If you want to debate with an imaginary person go right ahead, but I'm not interested in playing games.
@ Sara: read my above response to you. I welcome your supposedly non-"straw man" explanation of your above remarks.
I really don't like getting involved what passes for "dialogue" these days, however I can't help but point out that almost every commenter is completely off-topic. Christian beliefs are not the issue here. The issue is respect for one another, and I say that with fully aware that respecting another's beliefs is pretty rare these days. "Respect" means no mocking, no bullying, no poking fun, and no making a buck off of something someone else considers sacred.
so what are your thoughts about all the Christian based laws in this country that disrespect (and oppress) sections of the community?
MAry, yo usaid, "Respect" means no mocking, no bullying, no poking fun, and no making a buck off of something someone else considers sacred."
The problem with not criticizing beliefs that are "held sacred" is that it grants them a false immunity against healthy skepticism. Religious beliefs should be subject to the same rigour as anything else.
Exactly, we allow religion to be the magic cloak of immunity. Come up with any reprehensible idea and declare it "religion" or "sacred". Now it's free from criticism.
Mary – "poking fun" is not disrespect. I suppose it can be done with malice, but more often it is done with humor and, yes, with love. What friendship would be of any value without a little teasing?
If you neighbor considers Mein Kampf asacred text would you feel it wrong to mock. How about if they adopted a religion that involved ritual abuse of children? These are ideas, and all ideas should be open to criticism and the usual rhetorical techniques humans have developed, including hmore and sarcasm. When we start limiting how you can treat an idea, we come dangerously close to censoring ideas themselves. More frighteningly, you allow people to protect any idea they want from criticism, simply by declaring it sacred.
I might respect a believer but there is no reason to respect beliefs that don't have any evidence at all for them. In other words, I would treat a mentally insane person with respect while dismissing their insane thoughts.
I say again: The issue is respect, not if the belief is "worthy" of respect.
What's next... a Mushroom Mohammad Melt?
If they want, yes. These are ideas which should be open to free scrutiny and critique like any other. When we stop analyzing and criticizing ideas we will crumble from the inside.
This says: we don't have a burger good enough for you to talk about w/o a controversy.
If this was a church's way of serving communion, then it would be worthy of debate (1 Cor.5:12).
People name their burgers all sorts of things these days, after patrons, staff, TV shows... There's nothing unique about this.
@ Sara: i don't know of any other such 'communion' burger. whether you are religious or not, this is unique. most restaurants have not been willing to trod on any such perceived "sacred" ground... and hopefully it's because their food was good enough not to need such attention to be noticed.
but as has been said before: "nobody ever went broke underestimating American taste" [pun intended].
I had. Sufi Poet salad a couple of weeks ago and a Dharma Burger within the last two months. Some people make a fuss, some just don't give a cr@p.
@ Sara: so, if i'm hearing you correctly, the theme is 'profaning the sacred.' you are an equal opportunity offender, and simply want ALL the religious to get over themselves in defining what is right & wrong or offensive... and YET why would you be offended that they are offended? why does it bother you that – as you put it – some people DO 'give a cr@p'?
it certainly sounds like you have merely created your own ethical (if not semi-'religious') system by which to judge others for not being as sophisticated as yourself. how is this not the pot calling the kettle black? you would simply replace their religion with your own... and under the guise of apathy that actually cares enough to frequent the *belief* blog.
Sara, was the salad from Life Alive, by any chance?
1. I am not offended. 2. I am fine with people being offended, but put the priority on free discourse of iseas. 3. I am not a relativist, and have absolutist ethics.
LowBel, I was somewhere in Boston, I think.
I'm surprised you are arguing in regards to context. This is a Heavy Metal themed burger joint. There is a heavy metal band (in fact quite a few) that took advatange of christian imagery as part of their motif. Indeed blasphemy was a big part of their stage show. So now a heavy metal burger joint wants to commemorate a heavy metal band – honsetly, it only lends as much offense as you allow it, lighten up.
@ G to the T: you're only reaffirming my points. like I said above...
1) the burger clearly isn't good enough to stand on its own.
2) Christians should expect those outside the Church to misunderstand & misuse what is sacred to Christians. That's why I cited the verse (which you clearly didn't read): "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" (1 Cor.5:12)
Does eating that burger make you a cannibal?
Not anymore so than taking communion – that whole transubstantiation thing does skirt the boundaries of taboo.
"The bread represents his body, Jesus says in the Bible, and the wine his blood."
how can anyone possibly speak about "what jesus said"?!?!
The King James version of the new testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the church of England. There were (and still are) NO original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down 100's of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts with no two alike. The king james translators used none of these anyway. Instead they edited previous translations to create a version their king and parliament would approve. So.... 21st century christians believe the "word of god" is a book edited in the 17th century from the 16th century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century.
So we don't even know if the jesus character existed, much less what he may or may not have said.
Seriously?! Claiming that jesus said certain phrases is utter mind numbing nonsense, and yet christians base their belief on this! The whole religion has more holes in it than swiss cheese! It would be laughable if it wasn't causing the human race so much damage.
I think you don’t know what you are talking about. Look up a few things. Do a Google search or read a book about the development of the Bible. Key words and names: Latin Vulgate, Jerome, Athanasius, Septuagint. As for Jesus actually existing; look up Josephus, Pliney and Tacitus. They are non-Christians sources for the existence of Jesus and the early Christians.
And none of them ever met the desert dweller known as jesus. There are no direct verifiable quotes for anything he's alleged to have said. It's all "he said / she said" and a great big "telephone game."
They only confirm the existence of Christians and what they believed. Not the existence of Jesus himself. Two VERY different things.
I guess Aaron thinks Hercules is real too.
I have eaten a few Satan burgers before, but never a God burger.
I'd go to eat at a hamburger joint called "God Burger"...
It would be kind of cool to have a restaurants with entrees named for gods and side dishes for prophets.
You wouldn't dare do this to a Jewish symbol, but us Catholics are always fair game to be made fun of.
I would dare to do it with a Jewish symbol. I really would.
It's the funny dresses they wear at NAMBLA-Europe (generally referred to as The Vatican)
It's not about a dare. It's about what's more popular in the US. Christianity wins hands down.
And, Judaism does not evangelize
Not to mention, it's poking fun at Jesus' speech at the last supper. Jesus was a jewish man. So it's directly related to the jewish people.
if they preach absurdities, they open themselves up to criticism and ridicule
so, spare us the victim nonsense, mary mary quite contrary
Catholics, on the whole, are a lot more fun! They drink more, they party more, they savor life more – certainly more than the puritanical denomination in this Country. If we had been settled by Catholics instead of Pilgrims, we wouldn't be so up-tight.
Have you seen The Simpsons episode where they showed the catholic heaven and the protestant heaven?
I have not, but it sounds worthy of seeking out.
it is
Where do you think the original idea of the hamburger bun top came from? It's directly modeled after a yamaka...
What a burger place should do is produce a whole series of comedy burgers based on different beliefs.
Claiming victimhood is always a tactic to shut off discussion.
If you're hung up on "profanation," remember it's NOT POSSIBLE to profane an unconsecrated Host. That's basic Latin Church theology. (RC, TEC, ELCA, etc.)
Until the Host and the wine have been duly consecrated by a canonically ordained priest/minister with sacramental faculties therefor, there are NO sacred things to profane, only a tasteless unleavened wafer and a chalice full of often poisonously sweet altar wine.
I should know. I served more Eucharists than I can count, and in an Anglican faith tradition that administers Communion in both kinds. Stop whingeing about being a victim and seeking monsters to slay.
Mmmmmm, blasphemy! Jeebus w/ cheese please. How about crucifix fries? Do they use a nail rather than a toothpick to hold the burger together?
That picture is making me barf.
Yeah, the photography is atrocious. The rest of their website's menu is the same - pictures taken way too close-up. Ugh.
All I know is I'm staying away from taht place when Cannibal Corpse goes on tour...
Nice!
Winning post of the day! Huzzah!
HA! I like you, George! Youse is good peoples.
fits perfectly with all of the infantile, make believe, child's play that forms the basis of the Christian religion.
Where are we going? If this restaurant owner decided to use shredded pieces of the Quaran for decorative garnish.. it would create world war III... When a restaurant uses a religious symbol – sacred to Christians on a hamburger we just say so what???? Cmon... this restaurant must be desperate for business and attention.. using a lamb burger, wine reduction and a communion wafer is really pushing it. SHAME !
You're probably right about that (e.g. Koran garnish). But shouldn't that make you feel good? That Christianity has the maturity to say "tisk, tisk" without issuing bomb threats. I'd say, score one for Christians.
if you don't like it, don't order it
don't take yourself so seriously
A shredded quran would not be very tasty. But I say ridicule all major beliefs at once. You can have a Mohammed burger with his face on it with a side of dharma fries and caffeinated mormon soda. Materialist unconscious cheesecake for desert. Whatever...I'm sure people with a good sense of humor would make similar things that are funny. We all need to get over ourselves with regard to our beliefs. Freedom fries were pretty funny, for instance...even when not intended to be.
They aren't ridiculing a religion – they're taking elements of popular metal bands. Find a popular band with that theme, and they can take those elements.
That's like putting on a t-shirt showing Sinead Ripping the popes picture and saying you're just honoring her music. The band picked their outfits for a very basic reason. You may not use the word "ridicule", but satanizing the Catholic symbolism was hardly meant as a compliment and affirmation of the religion. And yes, "satanic" is their word.
And? If people go nuts and get violent about someone else's free speech, that is their problem. It's not a reason to censor. You really prefer to have everyone censored? Can I shut down a spagetti joint because it makes fun of FSM, all hail his noodly appendage?
If you're hung up on "profanation," remember it's NOT POSSIBLE to profane an unconsecrated Host. That's basic Latin Church theology. (RC, TEC, ELCA, etc.)
Until the Host and the wine have been duly consecrated by a canonically ordained priest/minister with sacramental faculties therefor, there are NO sacred things to profane, only a tasteless unleavened wafer and a chalice full of often poisonously sweet altar wine.
I should know. I served more Eucharists than I can count, and in an Anglican faith tradition that administers Communion in both kinds. Stop whingeing about being a victim and seeking monsters to slay.
Go on and mewl to your corpse god, Deacon. He cannot hear you. He is naught but rot.
Ok people- Zombie Apocalypse, they eat brains.....everyone runs around getting eaten.
but wait a sec...
religious groups don't have brains, so the zombies don't eat them.... the world is left filled with dead zombies and religious fools who like to eat body of a dead man? –
hmm...seems circular enough.. its so crazy it just might be bible fact.
Love it...well said! BTW, for fun Google anything about "christian food products" and the like, and you will Jesus candies and the like. If that's OK, a tasty burger is too. The religionists need to chill out. Did they complain when Hebrew National had fun with their brand and their "higher authority" tongue in cheek ad campaign? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf2j-YzZRAA. No, it was done in fun. Religionists need to learn to have a sense of humor.
Wouldn't it be fun to create and market a "Suck on This" lollipop and slap a Vatican logo on it?
New on the menu at Chick-fil-A is the Teabagger Burger. It's very soft and you don't need any teeth to eat it.
IIt's Sacrilicious!
If the GOP Catholic bishops weren't down and dirty, interfering in politics and committing criminal acts in using their tax-exempt donations for political GOP Dirty Tricks®, I'd feel sorry for them. Lay Catholics will mostly laugh at this because a priest hasn't consecrated them, and they know no insult has been directed at them.
awww boo hooo now we just need a muhammad burger
With lots of bacon, of course...
The difference is that with this burger people will be upset and discuss the issue. If you make a muhammad burger people will die. The muhammadians will kill anyone they feel has offended their religion.
Yup, they so lazy they are about 100 years behind Christianity in ditching the blasphemy laws...
The mistake is that people always tackle these issues one at a time, so it doesn't stand out so clearly who the nuts are. Make 10 or 15 burgers for different religions and political or theoretical beliefs and serve them all at once. Identify the nuts without question by who causes the most trouble.
The very pointed, simple and specific question of what happens to the bread and wine in church when it is consecrated demonstrates how much division there is in the various Christian sects. Roman Catholic and Easter Orthodox churches teach transubstantiation, the actual conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus due to the powers of the priest. Lutherans believe in “consubstantiation,” that one consumes the bread and wine as well as the body and blood, because Jesus is “in, with, and under” the condiments. Anglicanism teaches the so called “Real Presence of Christ” in the Eucharist, which is broadly interpreted to mean a “spiritual presence” of Christ, as their theology explicitly rejects transubstantiation. Methodists hedge their bets, defining the act simply as a “holy mystery.” Most reformed churches (Calvinist, Presbyterian, etc.) are nebulous on the issue, teaching that the faithful benefit from communion because Christ's presence “penetrates their hearts.” Most other Protestants see the entire thing as symbolic.
And that’s the key – when you make the whole thing up, you can say whatever you want. So much of Christian doctrine is all just made up. And I mean that in the purest sense. They pull it out of thin air. To the extent a Christian theologian “researches” anything, they simply look to what earlier theologians said on the issue. To the extent they researched anything, they looked to even earlier theologians and what they said. But, no matter how far back you go, no matter how many theologians you go through and no matter how smart, well read or well intentioned the original fabricator of the issue is, it is all made up.
This is true of the doctrine of Salvation, the Incarnation, the Holy Trinity and every other doctrine in the Christian churches.
Any Christian out there is welcome to prove me wrong.
What did Christ say it was?
Nothing. The sacrament of communion developed well after he was dead.
@ Colin: 1 Cor.11 was written within 20 (if not 15) years of Jesus' death. Paul is citing eyewitness testimony about what Jesus said... while MOST of the eyewitnesses are still alive. If the Lord's Supper was fabricated after the fact, it would not have stood up to scrutiny from those eyewitnesses WITHIN the Church.
Russ, I agree on your time line. I am not talking about the Last Supper, which may or may not have taken place, I am talking about how the sacrament developd and then splintered and re-splintered over the Centuries – well after Jesus' death.
BD, you may as well tell us what you think your dead jew zombie said because there are no factual records.
amen!
Unless you can show us some evidence these hosts were consecrated by a Catholic priest, your post isn't relevant. Can't your church afford to pay for advertizing?
huh?
I don't believe they pulled it out of thin air. I believe they made it up for some political or social purpose. If they pulled it out of thin air, it would be more likely to actually be inspired by God. As it is, there is every reason to believe God had little or nothing to do with it.
Which god?
ready Holy Scripture.. Trinity.. salvation... Eucharist is all there.. theologians dont pull it out of the air... do a little research before you make assumptions and speak about things you have little knowlede about
Really?
Two points. First, just because it is "included in holy scripture" doesn't mean it isn't made up. It just means that the author of that particular book of scripture made it up.
Second, the Trinity is mentioned nowhere in "Holy scripture" if by "holy scripture" you mean the Bible. The authors of the four Canonical Gospels are also inconsistent on the doctrine of the incarnation. John disagrees violently with the Synoptics on the issue. Salvation is mentioned in the Pauline Epistles, but that just means PAul made it up
Trinity is an excuse the church uses to worship multiple dieties.
Your Holy Scripture is not holy to everybody
Judgement is a bad joke designed to fool the gullible.
Looks like you bought into it hook, line and sinker
Well said. It's grand that in this day and age people actually think priests have magic powers to convert bread and wine into jesus and then have people consume it? Wow. Come to church and get some jesus in you. Maybe with the little boys they instruct them a little differently, saying something like "get a little jesus in you – just bend over, and, ahhhh, the second coming."
Jeebus burgers! Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!
... and for an extra donation of just $5 you too can enjoy the Jeebus Combo!