NationStates Jolt Archive

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69154

Death threats for stealing 'Body of Christ'
Student fears personal attacks since swiping wafer from Catholic Mass

A student at the University of Central Florida says he's now getting death threats after he stole and later returned a wafer representing the "Body of Christ" from a Catholic Mass in Orlando.
..
..
The wafer was kept in a Ziploc bag until Cook returned it days later along with an e-mail stating, "I am returning the Eucharist to you in response to the e-mails I have received from Catholics in the UCF community. I still want the community to understand that the use physical force is wrong, especially when based on assumptions. However, I feel it is unnecessary to cause pain for those who are not at fault in this situation."

Cook has reportedly been getting death threats, prompting his friend, who wants to remain nameless, to discuss the situation with local media.

"I was kind of confused because I always thought that Jesus was a pacifist, and they're using violence in order to get back the body of a pacifist," he told WOFL-TV.
..
..
Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented on the case, stating:

"For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage – regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance – is beyond hate speech. That is why the UCF administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion."


So, it's only the muslim extremists who resort to death threats over trivial issues like depicting the founder of their religion as a terrorist... :D


Another source (http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=6945924&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.10.1) puts it even better: We don't know 100% what Mr. Cook's motivation was," said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. "However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it."


Remember kids, the new catholic laws are: Love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek and sue the living daylights off a person who wanted to show Eucharist to a friend. ;)

edit:
The new font seems to make italics pretty similar to normal text. :(

So the new laws are: Love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek and sue the living daylights off a person who wanted to show Eucharist to a friend. ;)
*sighs*

Why is suing people the answer to everything in the US?

Anyway, aye, this is pretty stupid. Ah well.

So some snotty student steals what many people consider to be the body of their saviour, and we're supposed to feel sorry for him?

What he did was incredibly offensive, he's only going to get what's coming to him.

So some snotty student steals what many people consider to be the body of their saviour, and we're supposed to feel sorry for him?

What he did was incredibly offensive, he's only going to get what's coming to him.

Love is in the air... :fluffle:

So, you don't think getting death threats over a wafer is wee bit too much?

So some snotty student steals what many people consider to be the body of their saviour, and we're supposed to feel sorry for him?

What he did was incredibly offensive, he's only going to get what's coming to him.

From what I gather, he didn't steal it. It was given to him, and he took it to show it to a friend. And then he gave it back.
I mean, it would have been eaten anyway, one way or another. So what's the big deal?

From what I gather, he didn't steal it.

And you are 'gathering' this from where, exactly? The very first line of the article says 'stole'.

So some snotty student steals what many people consider to be the body of their saviour, and we're supposed to feel sorry for him?

What he did was incredibly offensive, he's only going to get what's coming to him.

Bwahahah so by 'whats coming to him' you mean you think it is fine for a man to get death threats over a biscuit?

And you are 'gathering' this from where, exactly? The very first line of the article says 'stole'.

Don't you normally recieve the Eucharist so you don't have to steal it?

http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html

The Eucharist is a small bread wafer blessed by a priest. According to Catholics, the wafer becomes the Body of Christ once blessed and is to be consumed immediately after a minister passes it out to churchgoers.

Cook claims he planned to consume it, but first wanted to show it to a fellow student senator he brought to Mass who was curious about the Catholic faith.

"When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him," Cook said. "I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they'd leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth."

Love is in the air... :fluffle:

So, you don't think getting death threats over a wafer is wee bit too much?

It's not my way, but the kid had to have known this little gesture of his was going to ruffle some feathers. From his actions he sounds like the type of guy who needs a good smack anyway.

It's not my way, but the kid had to have known this little gesture of his was going to ruffle some feathers. From his actions he sounds like the type of guy who needs a good smack anyway.
For giving back a special biscuit that someone else stole? Really?

Bwahahah so by 'whats coming to him' you mean you think it is fine for a man to get death threats over a biscuit?

Nah, I mean sometimes snotty little atheists deserve to be punched in the mouth.

-snip-

Sorry, but his story sounds a bit far fetched. If it's true, he's a weirdo. If it's not, then he's deliberately done something he knew to be offensive.

I don't support death threats over something like this, but the fact that he got them shouldn't detract from the fact that he is fundamentally in the wrong.

Nah, I mean sometimes snotty little atheists deserve to be punched in the mouth.

Funny... I thought the guy who took it is Catholic?

Nah, I mean sometimes snotty little atheists deserve to be punched in the mouth.
Uhu... this one did nowt wrong, though.

Bwahahah so by 'whats coming to him' you mean you think it is fine for a man to get death threats over a biscuit?

For giving back a special biscuit that someone else stole? Really?

Firstly, it's a wafer. Secondly, the only source that he got any death threats is the guy himself. Which, given his behaviour, is hardly a trustworthy source.

For giving back a special biscuit that someone else stole? Really?

For interrupting a ceremony that's of great spiritual importance to people so that him and Butthead can snicker at stealing the Priest's cracker? Yeah, I'd say so.

When the sign says don't feed the tigers are you putting your hands through the bars with a bacon roll? I don't see what the guy achieved by provoking Roman Catholics, he's going to get a sore face and he deserves one.

For interrupting a ceremony that's of great spiritual importance to people so that him and Butthead can snicker at stealing the Priest's cracker? Yeah, I'd say so.

When the sign says don't feed the tigers are you putting your hands through the bars with a bacon roll? I don't see what the guy achieved by provoking Roman Catholics, he's going to get a sore face and he deserves one.

Feel the love of the followers of Zombie Jesus. I'm terribly sorry they disrupted your ritual cannibalism in an attempt by one to explain it to the other.

that will learn him for being curious!

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented on the case, stating:

"For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage

am I the only one who is getting ideas from this...

Bwahahah so by 'whats coming to him' you mean you think it is fine for a man to get death threats over a biscuit?

lets not be too hasty, I mean there is some shitty wafer and then there is the last bourbon

he's going to get a sore face and he deserves one.

Christian forgiveness at its finest....

Funny... I thought the guy who took it is Catholic?

The language in the article implies that he's a Lapsed Catholic, as am I. I may not agree with everything about Roman Catholicism, but I know enough of tradition to know what's sacred to Practising Catholics and wouldn't see any point in going out of my way to offend them.

Firstly, it's a wafer. Secondly, the only source that he got any death threats is the guy himself. Which, given his behaviour, is hardly a trustworthy source.

Perhaps you missed what missus Fani commented about it qualifying as a hate-crime?

I wouldn't put death threats beyond the civilized catholics who are clearly taking this better than the muslims would have...

Christian forgiveness at its finest....

Oh God, aren't you just a super atheist at that?

Why don't you post a blog on myspace about how you exposed Christian hypocrisy at it's very core!

Next stop... The Vatican!

In all seriousness, I'm not a good Christian nor am I trying to be, so what you're saying is pointless.

Perhaps you missed what missus Fani commented about it qualifying as a hate-crime?

I wouldn't put death threats beyond the civilized catholics who are clearly taking this better than the muslims would have...

Right, so because they think it's deeply offensive that means they are admitting to sending death threats?

Nah, I mean sometimes snotty little atheists deserve to be punched in the mouth.

Shit you didn't even read the thing huh!

Right, so because they think it's deeply offensive that means they are admitting to sending death threats?
When a local catholic official describes not eating a wafer as a hate crime...

Yes, I wouldn't put death threats beyond the realm of possibility.

Especially considering the tone of this thread, including some of the replies: he's going to get a sore face and he deserves one. or Nah, I mean sometimes snotty little atheists deserve to be punched in the mouth.

That's promoting violence for NOT EATING A WAFER. :eek:

Shit you didn't even read the thing huh!

Of course I read it. The jist of the article is that a student took his little friend into a Chapel to mock the belief set he was rasied in, now he's crying because, shock horror, people got offended. Big fucking deal. It's hardly world news, is it?

Firstly, it's a wafer. Secondly, the only source that he got any death threats is the guy himself. Which, given his behaviour, is hardly a trustworthy source.

Given his behaviour? So taking this thing back to your seat to show a freind who you have taken to see his first communion, is a sign of an untrustworthy man now?

Ohh and the other source was his friend.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69154

Death threats for stealing 'Body of Christ'
Student fears personal attacks since swiping wafer from Catholic Mass

A student at the University of Central Florida says he's now getting death threats after he stole and later returned a wafer representing the "Body of Christ" from a Catholic Mass in Orlando.
..
..
The wafer was kept in a Ziploc bag until Cook returned it days later along with an e-mail stating, "I am returning the Eucharist to you in response to the e-mails I have received from Catholics in the UCF community. I still want the community to understand that the use physical force is wrong, especially when based on assumptions. However, I feel it is unnecessary to cause pain for those who are not at fault in this situation."

Cook has reportedly been getting death threats, prompting his friend, who wants to remain nameless, to discuss the situation with local media.

"I was kind of confused because I always thought that Jesus was a pacifist, and they're using violence in order to get back the body of a pacifist," he told WOFL-TV.
..
..
Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented on the case, stating:

"For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage – regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance – is beyond hate speech. That is why the UCF administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion."


So, it's only the muslim extremists who resort to death threats over trivial issues like depicting the founder of their religion as a terrorist... :D


Another source (http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=6945924&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.10.1) puts it even better: We don't know 100% what Mr. Cook's motivation was," said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. "However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it."


Remember kids, the new catholic laws are: Love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek and sue the living daylights off a person who wanted to show Eucharist to a friend. ;)

edit:
The new font seems to make italics pretty similar to normal text. :(

Okay.

1) Catholics at one parish in one town in one state of one country =/= all Catholics.

2) That said, what he did frankly is considered blasphemous. You may not agree, but under Catholic doctrine, it's believed that through transubstantiation, the wafer *is* mystically transformed into the spiritual body of Christ. To be treated thus disrespectfully is akin to someone taking a dump on the altar of a synagogue, or using a Q'uran for toilet paper. It may not be a big deal to you, but it's an enormous deal to those whose faith is involved.

3) THAT said, no one should have threatened him. Violence is NOT an acceptable method of showing one's ire.

4) Given that the student himself says, "I still want the community to understand that the use physical force is wrong, especially when based on assumptions. However, I feel it is unnecessary to cause pain for those who are not at fault in this situation." I don't see why you would want to tar all Catholics with the same brush. Clearly HE recognizes that it's not all Catholics in that community -- only some -- who are hypocritical dumbasses.

5) At least the ones who are asking for expulsion or whether it qualifies as a hate crime are doing the right thing -- seeking the proper channels for making sure that no one else thinks this is the proper way to make grievances known or prank someone. Those who sent threats should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for harassment and for assault.

...I'm not a good Christian nor am I trying to be...

True

True

Thanks for your input. I'll call if I need you to validate anything else.

*sighs*

Why is suing people the answer to everything in the US?

Anyway, aye, this is pretty stupid. Ah well.

Where in the article did they say they wanted to sue? Or does "making it up as you go" now qualify as honest debate. Tsk, tsk.

When a local catholic official describes not eating a wafer as a hate crime...

Yes, I wouldn't put death threats beyond the realm of possibility.

Especially considering the tone of this thread, including some of the replies: he's going to get a sore face and he deserves one.

That's promoting violence for NOT EATING A WAFER. :eek:

I'm more concerned about the other side of the replies in this thread, the ones that seem to suggest that it's okay to trample over the beliefs of others. Where one group seems to feel that it has moral and intellectual superiority over another, it can only lead to bad things.

Now, I'll probably get 300 replies from people saying "but that's what Christians do!" and then sit back smugly at their brilliant and cutting reply. But, the problem is, they are right; that is what many Christians do. And it's no more right for them than anyone else. But as long as we have one group screaming about a wafer being taken while another group is screaming that it's their right to screw around with their beliefs, there are always going to be these utterly pointless arguments.

It's something they believe in. It's not hurting you. So thinking it's clever to screw around with it is no better than a bully in the playground stamping on the younger kids lunch.

Thanks for your input. I'll call if I need you to validate anything else.

Glad to be of service to a fellow human being

Of course I read it. The jist of the article is that a student took his little friend into a Chapel to mock the belief set he was rasied in, now he's crying because, shock horror, people got offended. Big fucking deal. It's hardly world news, is it?

Well not being an irate Catholic or an irate ex-Catholic that is not how I read it.

I read that he took his freind into church to show him how it goes, and took the biscuit back to his pugh to say 'hey and look this is what our communinon waffers look like'

And I see no crying, more 'shit look what happens if you dare take a bisucit from these places'

And where we are on the suject of offence, you can give offence or you can take it. Not eating a biscuit is not giveing offence, so I can only assume, that some nutters took undue offence over what is no more than a bloke not thinking striaght.

Shame on them, and yes I can see the crying now, it comes from the Catholic's going 'waaah waaaah but he deserves it, waaaah waaaah, he stole the body of Christ'

Nutters!

Okay.

1) Catholics at one parish in one town in one state of one country =/= all Catholics.
That should be bloody obvious to everyone.

However, I haven't seen any catholics - note: I don't know who's a catholic around here - defending his actions or condemning the response of the catholic community leaders.

2) That said, what he did frankly is considered blasphemous. You may not agree, but under Catholic doctrine, it's believed that through transubstantiation, the wafer *is* mystically transformed into the spiritual body of Christ. To be treated thus disrespectfully is akin to someone taking a dump on the altar of a synagogue, or using a Q'uran for toilet paper. It may not be a big deal to you, but it's an enormous deal to those whose faith is involved.

Depicting Mohammed with a bomb turban is blasphemous too.

Yet, I see very few people defending the equally extremist muslim approach...

5) At least the ones who are asking for expulsion or whether it qualifies as a hate crime are doing the right thing -- seeking the proper channels for making sure that no one else thinks this is the proper way to make grievances known or prank someone.
The goal was to show the wafer to a friend who - apparently - wasn't a christian.

Would it have been better for the friend to falsely pretend to be a catholic and take the communion?

Well not being an irate Catholic or an irate ex-Catholic that is not how I read it.

I read that he took his freind into church to show him how it goes, and took the biscuit back to his pugh to say 'hey and look this is what our communinon waffers look like'

And I see no crying, more 'shit look what happens if you dare take a bisucit from these places'

And where we are on the suject of offence, you can give offence or you can take it. Not eating a biscuit is not giveing offence, so I can only assume, that some nutters took undue offence over what is no more than a bloke not thinking striaght.

Shame on them, and yes I can see the crying now, it comes from the Catholic's going 'waaah waaaah but he deserves it, waaaah waaaah, he stole the body of Christ'

Nutters!

Well, not being someone to mock other people's beliefs, that's not how I read it.

He took his little mate to Chapel. He stole what was considered by Roman Catholics to be the body of Christ. He pretended to receive the body of Christ, only to spit it out and show his friend so they could have a good laugh at all of those Religious maniacs!

The guy was raised as a Roman Catholic. He knew what he was doing would cause an insane amount of offense. If I went to Mass and spat out the Eucharist to show it to the person next to me, I wouldn't get death threats, I would just get jumped outside right after Mass.

The crying comes from the kid going; "Waaaah it was just a prank waaaah now some irate Catholic is threatening my life for offending his beliefs waaah."

Live and let live, that's what I say.

If people like you think it's okay to go in and disrupt a Holy Ceremony well then fine, just don't expect everyone to laugh it off and praise your whacky antics. Some people will hurt you.

Depicting Mohammed with a bomb turban is blasphemous too.

Yet, I see very few people defending the equally extremist muslim approach...
Yes, it is. But the trouble is that I'm not seeing anyone defending these alleged death threats.

No one is saying that such threats, if they did happen, are right. What we are saying is that regardless of the response, whether they strung him up or laughed it off, he is in the wrong.

The goal was to show the wafer to a friend who - apparently - wasn't a christian.

Would it have been better for the friend to falsely pretend to be a catholic and take the communion?
Seriously, how naive are you? Why would anyone need to steal a wafer to 'show a friend'? Why would a friend even want him to steal a wafer? Because he's 'interested in being a Catholic'? Not very interested if that's the extent of his actions over it.

Really, think about the likelihood of the cover story before you start singing its praises.

I'm more concerned about the other side of the replies in this thread, the ones that seem to suggest that it's okay to trample over the beliefs of others. It's something they believe in. It's not hurting you. So thinking it's clever to screw around with it is no better than a bully in the playground stamping on the younger kids lunch.

Depicting Mohammed is insulting to muslims - Not depicting Mohammed is not hurting anyone.

Yet people are willing to DEFEND newspapers and artists who publish pictures of Mohammed.

Bit of double standards?

Note, I don't approve of his actions - it was a stupid thing to do - but the response is blown COMPLETELY OUT OF PROPORTION. The issue should have been handled that day in the church and stayed inside there.

Seriously, how naive are you? Why would anyone need to steal a wafer to 'show a friend'? Why would a friend even want him to steal a wafer? Because he's 'interested in being a Catholic'? Not very interested if that's the extent of his actions over it.

Really, think about the likelihood of the cover story before you start singing its praises.
Stealing is a legal issue - Is there a law that states that you have to eat the wafer instead of just taking it with you? The wafer is given to you, and every other participant...does that make it legally yours?

Depicting Mohammed is insulting to muslims - Not depicting Mohammed is not hurting anyone.

Yet people are willing to DEFEND newspapers and artists who publish pictures of Mohammed.

Bit of double standards?

Note, I don't approve of his actions - it was a stupid thing to do - but the response is blown COMPLETELY OUT OF PROPORTION. The issue should have been handled that day in the church and stayed inside there.

Where are the double standards? These aren't just any old 'people' saying he was wrong, it's the Catholics he stole it from! They are as unhappy as the Muslims were over the cartoons.

As for being out of proportion, then yes, if he got death threats, then that is completely wrong and un-Christian. But, like I say, he committed the first wrong.

Stealing is a legal issue - Is there a law that states that you have to eat the wafer instead of just taking it with you? The wafer is given to you, and every other participant...does that make it legally yours?
It's nothing to do with the law, it's to do with faith. He's not going to go to prison over this, if that's what you're asking.

Live and let live, that's what I say.

If people like you think it's okay to go in and disrupt a Holy Ceremony well then fine, just don't expect everyone to laugh it off and praise your whacky antics. Some people will hurt you.

No contradiction in those two statements then.

No contradiction in those two statements then.

There isn't.

I say live and let live, I'm only cautioning people who think trapsing into a Religious Ceremony and offending all of the people there is going to be a gesture welcomed with open arms.

I'd have thought that was common sense, but then there are a lot of idiots out there eh?

That should be bloody obvious to everyone.

However, I haven't seen any catholics - note: I don't know who's a catholic around here - defending his actions or condemning the response of the catholic community leaders.
Really? You haven't read many of my posts, then. *raises hand* And I can;t defend his actions -- I explained why they're wrong -- but neither am I going to sit here and defend SOME PEOPLE who threatened him. Not, as you say, Catholic community leaders -- but some people.

Did the priest call for his crucifixion? No. Did they make threats? No. Have they said that since he disrupted a mass at school they might consider expulsion? Yes -- and if you disrupted a lot of things at school that might be appropriate. Did they say that it might be considered a hate crime? Yes -- in the same way that it would be considered a hate crime if someone intentionally disrupted a service in a mosque or synagogue.

I do find making things up that are not in the article to make your point offensive.



Depicting Mohammed with a bomb turban is blasphemous too.And has what to do with this article, precisely?

Yet, I see very few people defending the equally extremist muslim approach...Well, not to defend those who paint all Muslims with the same brush, but we do have many news stories about nutters who profess the Islamic faith -- who are a minority, to be sure -- who actually take the next step and don't leave it at threats but, oh, saw people's heads off on camera for the internet or blow themselves up in crowded market places. I don't particularly think of those sorts as Muslims so much as cultural terrorists. So I don't REALLY think you can call it "equally extremist"... when you can find an article about a Catholic doing that that isn't several decades old, though, please let me know.


The goal was to show the wafer to a friend who - apparently - wasn't a christian.And as a Catholic, he should have known -- it's drilled into you through all the religious instruction you must take before you can receive -- that was incredibly disrespectful. No one's hands are supposed to touch it, other than the priest's and, depending on the tradition of the church, the recipient's, before it is consumed . It's supposed to be consumed immediately. A better choice would have been to ask for a meeting with the priest and to ask if it's possible to show his friend the wafer before they are blessed... or hey, there are these things called PICTURES that work dandy. Again, though, threats of violence no matter what are NOT justified, but saying that it is "Catholic love" is no different from saying all Muslims are ebil terrorists.

Would it have been better for the friend to falsely pretend to be a catholic and take the communion? That would have been disrespectful as well, given that, rightly or wrongly, Catholics believe only Catholics should receive at mass. It certainly would have been quieter and less likely to cause a ruckus. It's not like we have "Catholic detectors" that go off when a non-believer enters the building.

Had he gone to a Protestant church, in my experience, he would have been invited to participate if he believed that Christ was his savior; they're a bit more laid back.

Really, what you seem to be doing here is the equivalent of "all atheists are evil, soulless Satanists trying to corrupt your children," "All Muslims are ebil terrorists", "All Jews are subhuman greedy bastards who steal children and put their blood in Matzohs!" If that's not what you intended, you should scan the tenor of your first post and correct it. It is NOT "bloody obvious" from your post that you're not applying it to all Catholics, and so it really does appear to be trolling for reactions. I had hoped by discussing it rationally the opposing view could be presented, and instead have been told that NO Catholics have come out against the threats, while it appears that at the moment, no Catholics other than myself have actually responded.

What I do see is a lot of "Yeah, Christians stupid!" from the usual cheerleading squad.

Where are the double standards? These aren't just any old 'people' saying he was wrong, it's the Catholics he stole it from! They are as unhappy as the Muslims were over the cartoons.
Ah, it's ok for the people of the offended religion to act...hmm...as being offended. Or did I misunderstood your point now?

As for being out of proportion, then yes, if he got death threats, then that is completely wrong and un-Christian. But, like I say, he committed the first wrong.

But in the eyes of non-catholics - more accuratley perhaps non-christians - he did no wrong so for us to see a response beyond reprimanding him for poor manners is out of proportionate.

So taking your view, it should be ok for us non-christians to condemn the catholic response or even defend the actions of the culprit.

It's nothing to do with the law, it's to do with faith. He's not going to go to prison over this, if that's what you're asking.
Aye - My point is that theft is not a matter of faith.

The language in the article implies that he's a Lapsed Catholic, as am I. I may not agree with everything about Roman Catholicism, but I know enough of tradition to know what's sacred to Practising Catholics and wouldn't see any point in going out of my way to offend them.

Lapsed Catholic != Atheist

The excuse: I just wanted to show it to a friend falls flat when you think, okay, then why did you bring it back afterwords? If you're a Catholic believer, then eat it, if you're not a Catholic believer, then throw it away... If you are a Peabody looking to stir up a ruckus, you take it back and tell everyone what you did to make sure you offend someone.

If the objective was really just to show a Eucharist wafer to your friend, then go to the Catholic/Christian supply store and buy a box of them, before they are blessed you can eat them with cheese and salsa if you want and no one would have cared.

If people like you think it's okay to go in and disrupt a Holy Ceremony well then fine, just don't expect everyone to laugh it off and praise your whacky antics. Some people will hurt you.

Being a religous man myself no I don't think that at all. As I say i did not read into it all of the ire that you seem to see, or the premeditted malicousness.

Your last sentance though is one that bothers me a great deal, why would I expext to get hurt for disrupting a holy cermony?

Holy cermony, one that is designed to bring one closer to God, should have nothing to do with violence, and though I agree violence does need to be used in some situations, it should never be used by the religouse as a reaction to some sort of blasphome. Do you belive that God thinks blasphome is even a valid thing?

Lapsed Catholic != Atheist

You can be a lapsed Catholic and believe in God. If the guy was Confirmed then he's a lapsed Catholic until he's excommunicated, which will probably be pretty soon.

You can be a lapsed Catholic and believe in God. If the guy was Confirmed then he's a lapsed Catholic until he's excommunicated, which will probably be pretty soon.
Be that as it may he is still not an "Snotty Atheist that deserves to be punched in the mouth"

Your last sentance though is one that bothers me a great deal, why would I expext to get hurt for disrupting a holy cermony?

Holy cermony, one that is designed to bring one closer to God, should have nothing to do with violence, and though I agree violence does need to be used in some situations, it should never be used by the religouse as a reaction to some sort of blasphome. Do you belive that God thinks blasphome is even a valid thing?

No. I don't think we can define God by anything man made. I wouldn't say God even can think, per se. We can't apply our thought processes to a higher form of energy that we have virtually no understanding of.

Sitting in Mass doesn't automatically make you a perfect Christian, a lot of the time far from it. There will have been people sitting there who are anything but pacifists. The other people would have been just as offended, but they obviously wouldn't look to violence.

Either way, that brat is going to get battered for disrupting a Holy Ceremony. I'm just saying that he probably deserves a slap for being so down right disrespectful to other people's beliefs.

Be that as it may he is still not an "Snotty Atheist that deserves to be punched in the mouth"

No, no one deserves to have violence committed against him.

Given the responses of the person you're addressing, though, UT, I can't help but think their only motive here is trying to add fuel to the fire.

Be that as it may he is still not an "Snotty Atheist that deserves to be punched in the mouth"

Yeh.

Be that as it may he is still not an "Snotty Atheist that deserves to be punched in the mouth"

What evidence do you have to come to that conclusion? Or are you simply saying you don't have to have any evidence because no one ever deserves to be punched in the mouth, therefore this fellow doesn't either? I'm just curious.

Did the priest call for his crucifixion? No. Did they make threats? No. I do find making things up in the article that are not there offensive.
A catholic community leader suggests the university should consider measures up to expulsion for what exactly is a matter of poor manners.

And has what to do with this article, precisely?
In this case, AFAIK, the student didn't break any laws.

He took the wafer which was given him and didn't eat it thus only breaking religious code, not legal code.

So why would his actions be more condemnable than the actions of a danish cartoonist?And as a Catholic, he should have known -- it's drilled into you through all the religious instruction you must take before you can receive -- that was incredibly disrespectful.
But not illegal, yes?
A better choice would have been to ask for a meeting with the priest and to ask if it's possible to show his friend the wafer before they are blessed...
I concur, that would have been better - Though being quiet it would not have acted as a better protest against the actions of the church staff.

A quote from the first page: "When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him," Cook said. "I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they'd leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth."

The resulting behaviour could be considered a protest against the use of physical force inside a church - A peaceful demonstration, so to speak.

...or hey, there are these things called PICTURES that work dandy.
I've eaten sacramental bread, the texture and feel are more important for curiosity rather than the looks.

Again, though, threats of violence no matter what are NOT justified, but saying that it is Catholic love is no different from saying all Muslims are ebil terrorists.
Well, perhaps feel the love of some catholics would've been more accurate... But you should know that an argumentative title sells better ;)

It is NOT "bloody obvious" from your post that you're not applying it to all Catholics
Aren't all muslims terrorists, all atheists immoral and all the catholics devoted pope followers?

Besides, isn't it a catholic reaction to an issue that hinges on acknowleding the sanctity of the catholic rite?

Where in the article did they say they wanted to sue? Or does "making it up as you go" now qualify as honest debate. Tsk, tsk.
*sighs*

Sorry for reading what the OP said and commenting upon it, I'll refrain from doing so in the future.

A catholic community leader suggests the university should consider measures up to expulsion for what exactly is a matter of poor manners.
Ah, poor manners now. So then you would just excuse it as poor manners if, say, I came to your wedding, carved out a nice large chunk of cake before you cut it, and walked off with it?

Aye - My point is that theft is not a matter of faith.

Steal a Torah. I'm sure you'll get a very different viewpoint.

Ah, poor manners now. So then you would just excuse it as poor manners if, say, I came to your wedding, carved out a nice large chunk of cake before you cut it, and walked off with it?
No, but I'd excuse it if I had first invited you to the wedding.

Steal a Torah. I'm sure you'll get a very different viewpoint.
It's not stealing if you're first GIVEN a Torah for eating. :P

Ah, poor manners now. So then you would just excuse it as poor manners if, say, I came to your wedding, carved out a nice large chunk of cake before you cut it, and walked off with it?

Offer you some tea to go with it?

I think this all hinges on the death threats. If he actually has received death threats it's a perfect example of religious hypocrisy.

Most western people, including christians, thought that the Muslim hatred of the cartoon of Mohammed were over the top. But this is exactly the same thing. Blasphemy.

Either blasphemy is something that religions need to live with in secular democracies with freedom of speech, or blasphemy is deserving of punishment. I think the religions need to learn how to deal with it.

I find that any of the more extreme parts of a religions that consider me 2nd rate because I am not there religion, is offensive. I live with it. Before a religious person comes on here to defend this. Ask yourself, if I, an atheist, wanted to marry their daughter and she wanted to marry me, would they accept it. Most extreme religions would not.

There's also the hypocrisy of a non-violent religion doing violence, but that happens so often now, that you nearly forget that it's hypocritical.

No, no one deserves to have violence committed against him.

Given the responses of the person you're addressing, though, UT, I can't help but think their only motive here is trying to add fuel to the fire.

I know thats why I am trying to keep a cool head :)

What evidence do you have to come to that conclusion? Or are you simply saying you don't have to have any evidence because no one ever deserves to be punched in the mouth, therefore this fellow doesn't either? I'm just curious.

My point was simply that there is no evidence for him being a "Snotty little atheist" like the poster claimed originally

Ah, poor manners now. So then you would just excuse it as poor manners if, say, I came to your wedding, carved out a nice large chunk of cake before you cut it, and walked off with it?

Sounds like poor manors to me (very very very poor)

Sure as hell don't sound like a hate crime

I think this all hinges on the death threats. If he actually has received death threats it's a perfect example of religious hypocrisy.

Most western people, including christians, thought that the Muslim hatred of the cartoon of Mohammed were over the top. But this is exactly the same thing. Blasphemy.

Either blasphemy is something that religions need to live with in secular democracies with freedom of speech, or blasphemy is deserving of punishment. I think the religions need to learn how to deal with it.

I find that any of the more extreme parts of a religions that consider me 2nd rate because I am not there religion, is offensive. I live with it. Before a religious person comes on here to defend this. Ask yourself, if I, an atheist, wanted to marry their daughter and she wanted to marry me, would they accept it. Most extreme religions would not.

There's also the hypocrisy of a non-violent religion doing violence, but that happens so often now, that you nearly forget that it's hypocritical.
Nice rant, has nothing at all to do with what happened, but nice rant.

No, but I'd excuse it if I had first invited you to the wedding.
Does that matter? I just walked off with your cake. I'm sure your guests, your family, your SO and his/her family and guests will be glad to give excuse as well.

Yes, we get the fact that to you it's a cracker, it is not to the Catholics and doing something that you know ahead of time will be viewed as sacrilege in a church, is just as wrong as some hard core Catholics deciding to crash a gay wedding because they view it as being wrong.

A catholic community leader suggests the university should consider measures up to expulsion for what exactly is a matter of poor manners.
Suggesting that for disrupting a meeting on the university that expulsion might be appropriate does not seem to be any different than what students may face for disrupting, say, commencements or guest speakers. [edit]Ah, I see it wasn't on campus. However, don't people call -- rightly or wrongly -- for others to be removed from their jobs when they commit crimes? If this were to be classified as a hate crime, they might have a reason for asking UCF to remove him. That, however, is not a decision for the Catholic church -- it's a decision for the school to make and I am sure they will do what their lawyers advise them to do.


In this case, AFAIK, the student didn't break any laws. He took the wafer which was given him and didn't eat it thus only breaking religious code, not legal code. It's illegal to have a swastika flag as your nation flag on this site, yes? if he were going to break a house rule, he couldn't have been much more offensive.

So why would his actions be more condemnable than the actions of a danish cartoonist?
I don't know. Why do you keep saying that his actions are? Strawman, perhaps? But to humor you, I'll pose a possible answer: You're the one insisting on equating this with the Danish cartoonist when there's not really a connection but -- the danish cartoonist did not go draw his picture on a mosque wall? He did not distribute fliers at a religious gathering? He did not "protest" within a ceremony.


A quote from the first page: "When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him," Cook said. "I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they'd leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth."
So clearly, he knew it was upsetting. And please, make up your mind: either it was innocently meant, or a protest. You can't have it both ways without being disingenuous. so: either it was a mistake innocently made, or meant to disrupt.

Well, perhaps feel the love of some catholics would've been more accurate... But you should know that an argumentative title sells better ;)


Aren't all muslims terrorists, all atheists immoral and all the catholics devoted pope followers?

Argumentative titles are also dishonest, and please go and check the One Stop Rules Shop. Broad statements stating that all members of group 'x' are 'y' are trolling. Here, I'll even point you at it. (Note: NOT making a official warning, just informing you)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784641&postcount=3

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

Note that posts of opinions you disagree with does not automatically equate with trolling. Disagreements are expected, as long as they are done in a civil manner. Max Barry has made it clear that he welcomes all opinions in civil debate, even those that are highly unpopular or minority-held. Make your case without the invective, if you want to avoid banishment as a Troll.

I honestly think you're an intelligent person who could make the same points without going out of his or her way to get people riled. It's why I'm taking the time to rebut your points calmly.

Besides, isn't it a catholic reaction to an issue that hinges on acknowleding the sanctity of the catholic rite?
It is the reaction of SOME Catholics to what they see as a violation of the sanctity of a Catholic rite.

He took his little mate to Chapel. He stole what was considered by Roman Catholics to be the body of Christ. He pretended to receive the body of Christ, only to spit it out and show his friend so they could have a good laugh at all of those Religious maniacs!

Nowhere in the article does it say that he did it to "have a good laugh". He was trying to show his friend one aspect of Christianity.

And your attitude is exactly what the opening post was actually about: That the Christians in that community, who follow the teachings of a pacifist, are being anything but pacifistic on this issue.

Qi

If the objective was really just to show a Eucharist wafer to your friend, then go to the Catholic/Christian supply store and buy a box of them, before they are blessed you can eat them with cheese and salsa if you want and no one would have cared.

Do they actually have these stores?! I wonder how they taste with guacamole...

*sighs*

Sorry for reading what the OP said and commenting upon it, I'll refrain from doing so in the future.

Eh, sorry if I came off rather snippy, but: a lot of what has been presented simply was not in the attached article.

Do they actually have these stores?! I wonder how they taste with guacamole...

http://www.churchsupplywarehouse.com/catalog_product.asp?ProductId=6922

Go to town. :)

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69154

Death threats for stealing 'Body of Christ'
Student fears personal attacks since swiping wafer from Catholic Mass

A student at the University of Central Florida says he's now getting death threats after he stole and later returned a wafer representing the "Body of Christ" from a Catholic Mass in Orlando.
..
..
The wafer was kept in a Ziploc bag until Cook returned it days later along with an e-mail stating, "I am returning the Eucharist to you in response to the e-mails I have received from Catholics in the UCF community. I still want the community to understand that the use physical force is wrong, especially when based on assumptions. However, I feel it is unnecessary to cause pain for those who are not at fault in this situation."

Cook has reportedly been getting death threats, prompting his friend, who wants to remain nameless, to discuss the situation with local media.

"I was kind of confused because I always thought that Jesus was a pacifist, and they're using violence in order to get back the body of a pacifist," he told WOFL-TV.
..
..
Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented on the case, stating:

"For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage – regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance – is beyond hate speech. That is why the UCF administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion."


So, it's only the muslim extremists who resort to death threats over trivial issues like depicting the founder of their religion as a terrorist... :D


Another source (http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=6945924&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.10.1) puts it even better: We don't know 100% what Mr. Cook's motivation was," said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. "However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it."


Remember kids, the new catholic laws are: Love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek and sue the living daylights off a person who wanted to show Eucharist to a friend. ;)

edit:
The new font seems to make italics pretty similar to normal text. :(


MMM, I am Roman-Catholic, and I don't think this man deserves what people think he should get. I am all for the death penalty, but his crime wasn't that bad.

http://www.churchsupplywarehouse.com/catalog_product.asp?ProductId=6922

Go to town. :)

I think I just found my next holoween costume
http://www.churchsupplywarehouse.com/catalog_product.asp_Q_categoryId_E_45_A_subcategoryId_E_86_A_categoryItemId_E_4278_A_216S_Cassock_E_ 216S_Cassock

Aye - My point is that theft is not a matter of faith.

You did say this, correct?

And then you DID say this, correct?

It's not stealing if you're first GIVEN a Torah for eating. :P

This is why it is difficult to take your argument as a serious one: you are contradicting yourself quite a bit in what looks like trying to excuse the young man who did this and paint all Catholics as being violent meanies.

*sighs*

Why is suing people the answer to everything in the US?

Anyway, aye, this is pretty stupid. Ah well.

We were told at birth that civil lawsuits keep the shootings down, but I believe that it's merely a ploy by lawyers to make money.

The mere threat of a lawsuit tends to keep people from doing things that others don't want them to do. Largely because simply defending yourself costs money, and many people don't have the money to defend themselves. While you have the right to a state appointed attorney in criminal court, you don't in civil court.

Say you want to force a local government to stop banning guns. You sue them, and in a recent case, the people suing won. So the city went back and modified its laws, but as narrowly as possible so to life their ban as little as possible - the people suing are threatening to go back (they have a good chance of winning).

Now you might say, "the merits of the case" but that's not the problem - even though in current form the city will lose their lawsuit. The problem is one of cost, because the people suing have plenty of money. The city, on the other hand, does not. The district attorney for the city of Washington DC said recently that they don't have the money OR the time OR the lawyers to defend against another round of lawsuits.

Which means that they'll have to settle - which means they'll have to give in.

Giving in doesn't establish legal precedence - which is another reason you might give in, because you want the precedence to stay the way it is.

So without actually completing a case, you can force behavior. Most civil cases are settled. So there's a lot of forced behavior out there, with no legislation, no judgment, and no executive action. Just one citizen fucking another.

Sounds like poor manors to me (very very very poor)

Sure as hell don't sound like a hate crime
Hate crime legislation is very vague and turns upon intent, but the point being that he deliberately violated a sacred ceremony that was not in a public place. It doesn't matter if it was sacred to him or not, but that he did so knowing what he did was wrong.

There was a thread about this a few days ago, as I explained to LG then, last year I had the chance to visit Kyoto. Saw many beautiful temples there, some of the artwork and various relics were well over 1,000 years old. To me, these temples are an interesting part of Japanese history, but nothing more than that. At one, I wanted so much to take pictures of one particular set of statues; however, it was forbidden to take ANY photography in there, not because of damage to the statues, but because of the belief that the statues where holy and that a photo somehow damages the holiness of them (Bear with me here, this was a translated sign meaning the gist was gotten but the specifics were confusing). Now, being inside the temple, invited or no, it would have been wrong of me to pull out my camera and start taking photos. I don't believe it, but it's their temple, their belief, and their rules. If I had done so, the monks would have been well within their rights to demand that I leave, return any photos taken, and, given that this was on a school trip, demand that my school take me to task for it.

I'm just saying that he probably deserves a slap for being so down right disrespectful to other people's beliefs.

So you do advocate violence in answer to 'disrespect'? Thats the exact reason we have so many children sticking knives into each other at the moment.

Fuck respect, you want it, you earn it. And disrespecting not another person but the belife they hold still merits a violent response? No mate only mad fuckers think that way.

I totaly, unashamedly, 100%, disrecpect a bigots racist belifes, do I then deserve a slap each and every time I do so?

MMM, I am Roman-Catholic, and I don't think this man deserves what people think he should get. I am all for the death penalty, but his crime wasn't that bad.

What you are a Roman Catholic that belives in the death penalty? what happedn to 'Thout shalt not kill'? Hyporit.

Does that matter? I just walked off with your cake. I'm sure your guests, your family, your SO and his/her family and guests will be glad to give excuse as well.

Yes, we get the fact that to you it's a cracker, it is not to the Catholics and doing something that you know ahead of time will be viewed as sacrilege in a church, is just as wrong as some hard core Catholics deciding to crash a gay wedding because they view it as being wrong.
^ ^ ^ ^
This.

What you are a Roman Catholic that belives in the death penalty? what happedn to 'Thout shalt not kill'? Hyporit.
What's a hyporit? ;):p

What you are a Roman Catholic that belives in the death penalty? what happedn to 'Thout shalt not kill'? Hyporit.

What happened to proper spelling? :)
(4 words)



Well, I'm editing the Bible. Jesus didn't have to deal with Illegals <_<

Nowhere in the article does it say that he did it to "have a good laugh". He was trying to show his friend one aspect of Christianity.

And your attitude is exactly what the opening post was actually about: That the Christians in that community, who follow the teachings of a pacifist, are being anything but pacifistic on this issue.

Qi

Except that Fray has made explicit that he is not a Catholic.

K

Suggesting that for disrupting a meeting on the university that expulsion might be appropriate does not seem to be any different than what students may face for disrupting, say, commencements or guest speakers.
Really? I would think of it more as disrupting class and I see kids do that all the time with little or no consequence (especially when it comes to large lecture halls).
And I'm not sure how much he disrupted things, seeing as it seemed like only a handful of people saw him not eat the cookie and then started sending out angry emails.

It's illegal to have a swastika flag as your nation flag on this site, yes? if he were going to break a house rule, he couldn't have been much more offensive.
He could have walked up to the front of the church, in full view of everyone, thrown the cracker down, crushed it with his foot and spat on it. I think this would be more offensive.

He could have also humped a statue of Mary or something possibly while calling her a whore... I can think of a lot more ways to be hugely offensive in a church than quietly taking a cracker back to your seat after spitting it out and showing it to your friend.

Note: I'm not really defending what he did, but he could have done a lot worse and even expulsion from a school seems to be a bit much, I mean, kicking him out of the church or making him wash windows to make up for it or something maybe.

edit: Also from this article (http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html) it sounds like one of the church officials sort of assaulted him attempting to get the cracker back, which is why he kept it.

What's a hyporit? ;):p

Ahhh thats Peep's special speiling of the word Hippo, that great African beast of the warter!:D

What happened to proper spelling?
(4 words)



Well, I'm editing the Bible. Jesus didn't have to deal with Illegals <_<

Meh I can't speil, I though that was well known here abouts by now.

Ah, I didn't know sorry.


I don't get what's so bad about the Death Penalty...

I think I just found my next holoween costume
http://www.churchsupplywarehouse.com/catalog_product.asp_Q_categoryId_E_45_A_subcategoryId_E_86_A_categoryItemId_E_4278_A_216S_Cassock_E_ 216S_Cassock

You could, but why spend $72 when

http://www.halloweencostumes4u.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?store_code=hal&screen=PROD&product_code=rub55020

You can get it for $17?

You could, but why spend $72 when

http://www.halloweencostumes4u.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?store_code=hal&screen=PROD&product_code=rub55020

You can get it for $17?

I have the money and the first one looks of higher quality :) Who knows how many times something like that can be useful ;)

I have the money and the first one looks of higher quality :) Who knows how many times something like that can be useful ;)



Maybe you could steal one from the Church and get the death penalty....

Ah, I didn't know sorry.


I don't get what's so bad about the Death Penalty...

It too is hypocritical. Either the taking of somebodies life is 'not on' or it is fine. If it is 'not on' then it should equaly be 'not on' for the State.

When you start to think about the reasoning behind the morality of killing another human, you can see this.

Maybe you could steal one from the Church and get the death penalty....

Naw dont want to take one without permission ... if someone hands me one to have for myself then I will gladly take one

haha, I just don't want to kill anybody, it's just the 50 people living in the bedroom apartment

Really? I would think of it more as disrupting class and I see kids do that all the time with little or no consequence (especially when it comes to large lecture halls).
And I'm not sure how much he disrupted things, seeing as it seemed like only a handful of people saw him not eat the cookie and then started sending out angry emails.


He could have walked up to the front of the church, in full view of everyone, thrown the cracker down, crushed it with his foot and spat on it. I think this would be more offensive.

He could have also humped a statue of Mary or something possibly while calling her a whore... I can think of a lot more ways to be hugely offensive in a church than quietly taking a cracker back to your seat after spitting it out and showing it to your friend.

Note: I'm not really defending what he did, but he could have done a lot worse and even expulsion from a school seems to be a bit much, I mean, kicking him out of the church or making him wash windows to make up for it or something maybe.

I want you to think of the most important thing in your life, whatever it is, however ridiculous other people may think it is, whether it's fluffy kitties, or artwork, or whatever.

Now I want you to think of someone deliberately doing something you consider reprehensible -- like stepping on live kittens' heads to kill them on camera, or smearing feces on the artworks.

That's how these people feel about what he did, and calling it a cookie or a biscuit and making that it's no big deal simply because it's not YOUR ox being gored... really, the folks here making remarks about how disrespectful Christians are to other beliefs and engaging in precisely the same behavior -- it's not flattering.

I have the money and the first one looks of higher quality :) Who knows how many times something like that can be useful ;)

Well, in that case, go to town! :)

Maybe you could steal one from the Church and get the death penalty....

:rolleyes:

I want you to think of the most important thing in your life, whatever it is, however ridiculous other people may think it is, whether it's fluffy kitties, or artwork, or whatever.

Now I want you to think of someone deliberately doing something you consider reprehensible -- like stepping on live kittens' heads to kill them on camera, or smearing feces on the artworks.

That's how these people feel about what he did, and calling it a cookie or a biscuit and making that it's no big deal simply because it's not YOUR ox being gored... really, the folks here making remarks about how disrespectful Christians are to other beliefs and engaging in precisely the same behavior -- it's not flattering.
*sighs* And here I was going to say something similar in a nice and sarcastic manner and Kat beats me to it. Shouganai ne? :(:p

Ahhh thats Peep's special speiling of the word Hippo, that great African beast of the warter!:D
Ah! See, I was trying to decide if that was that noble beastie or a horse.

Given how I can't spell either though, I thought it was safer not to try and guess. ;)

*sighs* And here I was going to say something similar in a nice and sarcastic manner and Kat beats me to it. Shouganai ne? :(:p

私はおかしい感じをほとんどの教師"の同じ学校に行ってもらう; あなたの意見をempathy."を忘れていないで表現する;

;)

So, point of the story, Guy shouldn't be killed. Hi fives his buddies, and goes home

He didn't do anything wrong, God forgives all.

I want you to think of the most important thing in your life, whatever it is, however ridiculous other people may think it is, whether it's fluffy kitties, or artwork, or whatever.

Now I want you to think of someone deliberately doing something you consider reprehensible -- like stepping on live kittens' heads to kill them on camera, or smearing feces on the artworks.
I don't think someone can knock a telescope out of the sky... and if someone tries to delete my research, there are automatic backups on my supervisor's machine.

There's a difference with the killing kittens thing though. Killing kittens hurts the kittens physically, in a way that leaves them dead. Stealing a Eucharist (which is so much harder to type than "cookie", btw) only hurts people emotionally, while the woman who tried to pry the Eucharist from this kid's hand was hurting him physically.

And again, this doesn't change the fact that he could have done a lot worse.

That's how these people feel about what he did, and calling it a cookie or a biscuit and making that it's no big deal simply because it's not YOUR ox being gored... really, the folks here making remarks about how disrespectful Christians are to other beliefs and engaging in precisely the same behavior -- it's not flattering.
I'm not the one talking about expelling him from school for taking a Eucharist after someone applied physical force to try to get it away from him. It's not nearly as big a deal as people have made it out to be and I honestly think that if Jesus was watching this spectacle, he'd think that both parties are idiots and this is probably the case.

note: with that last sentence, I'm not calling all Catholics idiots, just the ones demanding expulsion, calling it a hate crime and issuing threats. I am, however, calling the kid an idiot because he probably is.

That's how these people feel about what he did, and calling it a cookie or a biscuit and making that it's no big deal simply because it's not YOUR ox being gored... really, the folks here making remarks about how disrespectful Christians are to other beliefs and engaging in precisely the same behavior -- it's not flattering.

I think what the person did was rude and wrong and it sounded to me as if someone started to do the right thing i.e. quietly stopping them and taking them aside and saying 'if your friend wants to learn about Catholicism come along some other time and we will show you a host an explain all about it'. But what he did, and what people here are doing by calling the host a cookie, is to me at a much lower level than people making deathreats or saying people deserved to be punched. I am quite happy to condemn taking the host, but to me at least it seems that some people here are actually defending, rather than condemning, the threats of violence - that is what I find offensive and disrespectful.

I don't think someone can knock a telescope out of the sky... and if someone tries to delete my research, there are automatic backups on my supervisor's machine.

There's a difference with the killing kittens thing though. Killing kittens hurts the kittens physically, in a way that leaves them dead. Stealing a Eucharist (which is so much harder to type than "cookie", btw) only hurts people emotionally, while the woman who tried to pry the Eucharist from this kid's hand was hurting him physically.

And again, this doesn't change the fact that he could have done a lot worse.


I'm not the one talking about expelling him from school for taking a Eucharist after someone applied physical force to try to get it away from him. It's not nearly as big a deal as people have made it out to be and I honestly think that if Jesus was watching this spectacle, he'd think that both parties are idiots and this is probably the case.

note: with that last sentence, I'm not calling all Catholics idiots, just the ones demanding expulsion, calling it a hate crime and issuing threats. I am, however, calling the kid an idiot because he probably is.

Understood. And yes, both extremes of the kid's bad behavior and people threatening him are wrong.

I think what the person did was rude and wrong and it sounded to me as if someone started to do the right thing i.e. quietly stopping them and taking them aside and saying 'if your friend wants to learn about Catholicism come along some other time and we will show you a host an explain all about it'. But what he did, and what people here are doing by calling the host a cookie, is to me at a much lower level than people making deathreats or saying people deserved to be punched. I am quite happy to condemn taking the host, but to me at least it seems that some people here are actually defending, rather than condemning, the threats of violence - that is what I find offensive and disrespectful.

Well, I would ask you to go back and check who has actually identified themselves as Catholic in this thread and see if it is they -- or if it is others -- who are advocating physical violence and threats.

Well, I would ask you to go back and check who has actually identified themselves as Catholic in this thread and see if it is they -- or if it is others -- who are advocating physical violence and threats.

I don't think I specified who was doing it, so I am not sure why you are suggesting that I do this.

Does that matter? I just walked off with your cake. I'm sure your guests, your family, your SO and his/her family and guests will be glad to give excuse as well.

Well, if I invited you to take the whole cake then I probably wouldn't whine if you took it with you...

Your whole analogy is false because Eucharist is given to you, it's yours to eat.

A more proper analogy would be that I offer you a slice of my wedding cake and you decided to ask for a bag to give it your dog later. It's true I might be slightly offended but I wouldn't feel there's a crime going on or threaten to get you kicked out from university or call it a hate crime.

I don't know. Why do you keep saying that his actions are? Strawman, perhaps?
A comparison, that is all.

For that matter: Do you think it is OK for the muslims to condemn the danish cartoonist and seek for a punishment to him? After all, he only mocked one or two basic tenets of their religion.

So clearly, he knew it was upsetting. And please, make up your mind: either it was innocently meant, or a protest. You can't have it both ways without being disingenuous. so: either it was a mistake innocently made, or meant to disrupt.
I don't have to make up my mind as I see it innocent either way.

If you're going to prosecute him for breach of conduct then you have the burden of proof to show that it was either intentional or not acceptable form of protest over physical force used by the church staff.

Remember, the church staff could have - right there and then - used words and reason instead of physical force over the issue. Had they explained to him that it would be/is an extreme breach of conduct not to eat the wafer offered to you and that there could be consequences beyond the church then I'm sure things wouldn't have escalated to this level of ridiculousness.
It is the reaction of SOME Catholics to what they see as a violation of the sanctity of a Catholic rite.
It is still a catholic reaction is it not? It is clearly not, for example, a protestant or muslim reaction.

I never tried to imply, at least intentionally, that it was the reaction by majority of catholics. If you got that message then I apologize for my poor choice of words... (note the wink-smiley in the first post and how I labeled muslims calling out to get the danish cartoonist as extremists)

However, I'm not regretting the argumentative title one damn bit - After all, you can't expect an average forum goer to act any better than the tabloids ;)

For that matter: Do you think it is OK for the muslims to condemn the danish cartoonist and seek for a punishment to him? After all, he only mocked one or two basic tenets of their religion.

If you don't know the answer to that from my replies in this thread, then I assume either you are not paying attention or you are not interested in anything other than making a very flawed and biased point.

But then, your responses vis a vis innocent mistake and protest pretty much showed that, and prove it's pointless to continue what masquerades as discussion but honestly is poking at people with sticks and then claiming there's no reason they're irritated.

Thus, my remarks in this thread will be confined to those who actually are interested in discussion; as Heinlein reportedly said, “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”

{To paraphrase. Think of something you consider super important being really messed up}
I would think that a religious person should accept all tenets of the religion. If someone messing with the Eucharist is a heinous crime, one has to think of all the Christian stuff. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Turn the other cheek. Jesus is love. Blah, Blah, Blah.

To answer your question though. I am quite vocally (at least on these boards) an atheist. I am incredibly tolerant though. I accept that words are just words. Unless you cause permanent damage to something, no matter how offensive you are, I'll just let it go. I doubt I'll want to see or talk to you again if you are a complete tool, but I wont issue death threats to you. And I have no religion telling me I shouldn't be violent.

I'm trying to think of some relevant examples. It's a stretch. Piss on my fathers grave. I'll think you are a loser, but it doesn't change what that symbolises and I wont want to see you dead. Just as what that guy did with the eucharist doesn't change what it symbolises.

Nah, I mean sometimes snotty little atheists deserve to be punched in the mouth.

So now you're going to be biased and say he's an atheist? I'm pretty sure atheists don't go around attending mass, and I'm pretty sure that to say he's snotty just because you think he's an atheist is extremely close-minded. Atheists have perfectly respectable opinions, just like any religious people do.

To paraphrase. Think of something you consider super important being really messed up}
I would think that a religious person should accept all tenets of the religion. If someone messing with the Eucharist is a heinous crime, one has to think of all the Christian stuff. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Turn the other cheek. Jesus is love. Blah, Blah, Blah.

To answer your question though. I am quite vocally (at least on these boards) an atheist. I am incredibly tolerant though. I accept that words are just words. Unless you cause permanent damage to something, no matter how offensive you are, I'll just let it go. I doubt I'll want to see or talk to you again if you are a complete tool, but I wont issue death threats to you. And I have no religion telling me I shouldn't be violent.

I'm trying to think of some relevant examples. It's a stretch. Piss on my fathers grave. I'll think you are a loser, but it doesn't change what that symbolises and I wont want to see you dead. Just as what that guy did with the eucharist doesn't change what it symbolises.

Have we not established that I believe death threats and violence are wrong yet? No?
Have we not established that respecting other people's beliefs and not going out of our way to bash them is A Good Idea(tm)?
Do you see me issuing death threats or saying ANYTHING against Atheists, Muslims, or anyone else here?
Do you see me saying there was any justification for threatening physical or lethal harm?

Would you really think it was hunky dory if someone dug up your father's coffin, opened it, and shat on his face? You'd really ONLY think the person was a loser? You'd really think that act didn't say what they thought of your father's life? You wouldn't want to see the person need to take some consequence for it, whether as a criminal or civil matter? You wouldn't be angry enough to consider violence -- even if you'd never use it?

If you say you wouldn't be that upset, congrats -- you've transcended humanity. Your sainthood's in the mail.

This whole issue is really rather silly.

The guy who took the wafer is a moron, and (assuming he's a Catholic) really, really should have known better. The people who sent him death threats are morons and (regardless of their religious beliefs) really, really should have known better.

I do think calling this a "hate crime" is pretty silly in this case, since it really sounds like the fellow in question, while being an idiot and doing something he should have known would offend, was not doing it with the specific intent to offend. Common sense should have told him that if he wanted to play with communion wafers, he should have asked the priest outside of mass if he could have an unconsecrated one, but lacking in common sense is not a crime.

I think the church would be well within its rights to either forbid him to attend mass there in future or require some sort of penance from him, but I don't honestly see this as an issue in which his university or the law needs to get involved.

But then, your responses vis a vis innocent mistake and protest pretty much showed that..
It can be both.

Getting annoyed after someone made a mistake - broke a religious tenet - thinking you can show the wafer to a friend after it is voluntarily given to you and afterwards because of the physical force used by the church staff decided to make a protest over the issue...is weird.

Or it can be neither...

He did it to spite the church or because he decided to act like an ass - So what? He succeeded in it, it is still not in my eyes a punishable act beyond possibly a church ban. Perhaps the pope should excommunicate him, eh?


I think the gripe I have with the issue is that I don't understand why some of the leading catholics of the community are seeking punishment beyond the church for the misguided fool - After all, he did not break any laws but "only" church traditions....

..or did he perhaps break the civil law along with church law? Is not eating Eucharist that is voluntarily given to you a criminal offence? :eek:

I can see how extremists would seek to threaten him with physical violence, that is completely "understandable" and fundamental problem with humans, what I don't understand is the reaction of the "moderates"...

This whole issue is really rather silly.

The guy who took the wafer is a moron, and (assuming he's a Catholic) really, really should have known better. The people who sent him death threats are morons and (regardless of their religious beliefs) really, really should have known better.

I do think calling this a "hate crime" is pretty silly in this case, since it really sounds like the fellow in question, while being an idiot and doing something he should have known would offend, was not doing it with the specific intent to offend. Common sense should have told him that if he wanted to play with communion wafers, he should have asked the priest outside of mass if he could have an unconsecrated one, but lacking in common sense is not a crime.

I think the church would be well within its rights to either forbid him to attend mass there in future or require some sort of penance from him, but I don't honestly see this as an issue in which his university or the law needs to get involved.
^^^^
This too, but we'll see how it shakes out.
The university would be well within their rights to say, "We didn't see him violating our rules, so no, he stays."
Whether it is actually a hate crime -- well, I suppose law enforcement would have to decide it it was simple stupidity or meant to disrupt because of the religious practices of the church, and for the legal authorities to decide whether it was even prosecutable, were the church to insist on making the complaint.

Personally, I don't think they have much chance of proving that, but they do have the right to pursue it.

The excuse: I just wanted to show it to a friend falls flat when you think, okay, then why did you bring it back afterwords? If you're a Catholic believer, then eat it, if you're not a Catholic believer, then throw it away... If you are a Peabody looking to stir up a ruckus, you take it back and tell everyone what you did to make sure you offend someone.

If the objective was really just to show a Eucharist wafer to your friend, then go to the Catholic/Christian supply store and buy a box of them, before they are blessed you can eat them with cheese and salsa if you want and no one would have cared.

While all of that is true, I must say that nobody is perfect. Therefore, he couldn't have been expected to be. Suppose at the moment he wasn't thinking clearly, just being a little silly, like most of us are. No normal person would stand around and think 'Hey, maybe if I don't eat a wafer I'll get death threats and start a completely pointless debate on a forum somewhere!'

My point is, if you're at all human, you can empathize with human error, and because it's not a serious matter (because a wafer is certainly nothing to kill someone over) we really should just dismiss it. A sensible person DOES MAKE MISTAKES, but they are able to learn from them.

^^^^
This too, but we'll see how it shakes out.
The university would be well within their rights to say, "We didn't see him violating our rules, so no, he stays."
Whether it is actually a hate crime -- well, I suppose law enforcement would have to decide it it was simple stupidity or meant to disrupt because of the religious practices of the church, and for the legal authorities to decide whether it was even prosecutable, were the church to insist on making the complaint.

Personally, I don't think they have much chance of proving that, but they do have the right to pursue it.

Oh, certainly. I think it's silly for them to pursue it, but it's obviously within their rights.

Assuming he doesn't end up being charged with any crime, though (as seems likely), I would be very much troubled if his university expelled him, since at that point he would be getting in trouble not for committing any criminal act or for breaking any campus rules, but simply for non-criminally acting like an ass in his private life, which sets up one heck of a slippery slope.

hey poli, your name would be funny to announce during communion...

Your whole analogy is false because Eucharist is given to you, it's yours to eat.
There you go. It's yours to eat, not to take home and show off. I hope you don't deliberately try not to understand.

But to offend somebody else who had offended you, what's the point in that?

hey poli, your name would be funny to announce during communion...
"Poli wanna cracker?"

Nowhere in the article does it say that he did it to "have a good laugh". He was trying to show his friend one aspect of Christianity.

And your attitude is exactly what the opening post was actually about: That the Christians in that community, who follow the teachings of a pacifist, are being anything but pacifistic on this issue.

Qi

It doesn't have to say they were going in for a good laugh, it's heavily fucking implied.

Why else would he go into a Chapel, pretend to receive Communion and then spit it out into his hands to show his friend? They were mocking Religious beliefs. My attitude is irrelevant, I'm only stating that mocking someone's beliefs usually doesn't get a positive reaction.

At least we've come on a bit, a couple of hundred years ago the guy would've been quartered.

Qi

It's sad though when it would take someone actually following through on the death threat and killing him before the world realizes all religions in the world have rather unstable extremists in their midsts.

Which is why I don't like the "as long as nobody gets killed" copout. It's an unfortunately effective way of justifying double standards. As long the fruitcakes haven't actually killed anyone, they get to behave the same as the Evil Other of the Day and very few bother to point this out. It's the same kind of convenient willful ignorance that overlooks disgruntled workers and potential school shooters.

As it stands as long as nobody gets killed only t3h 3b1l m0zl3mz have the intolerant thin-skinned violent religious people, ALF and ELF aren't terrorist organizations, so on and so forth.

This whole issue is really rather silly.
Yes, yes it is.

This story has been rumbling away for a while, as mentioned in this OP (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=560264), and it's been given a fresh lease of life by the fact that a University of Minnesota professor (in a blog post (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php) that he claims to have been meant as satirical) said that, if someone were to send him a consecrated cracker he'd show them what desecration really looked like.

Needless to say, this provoked a bit more protest, notably from the Catholic League, who are predictably 'outraged' (http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459). He has also now allegedly received death threats.

Fair enough, it wasn't the wisest action by the student in the first place, nor was Myers' post ever likely to lead to anything but more frothing from the more reactionary members of the Catholic community, but death threats? calling it a hate crime?

Some people seem to be incapable of maintaining perspective. Regardless of any beliefs held by any of the people in this affair, the objective fact remains that it's a biscuit.

It's sad though when it would take someone actually following through on the death threat and killing him before the world realizes all religions in the world have rather unstable extremists in their midsts.

Which is why I don't like the "as long as nobody gets killed" copout. It's an unfortunately effective way of justifying double standards. .


I actually agree with you here. Death threats are a serious thing, especially since they frequently lead up to death. Unanswered, unavowed death threats actually serve to justify the violence in the mind of the fanatic- the idea in the fanatic's head being: since nobody objected to the threat, they must be supporting it, so I'll be a hero if I'm the one to do it.

Whether the threat comes from a few hard core Catholic fruitcakes, or, let's say, a hundred thousand "t3h 3b1l m0zl3mz" demonstrating, or even the head of an "3b1l m0zl3m" nation seeking to acquire nuclear missiles, it must be taken seriously.

In proportion to the actual threat of harm, of course. If the death threat in the first case turns out to be 85 year old Mary Margaret O'Conner who's off her meds again, there is an appropriate response, and if the threat in the second case is 15% of the population of Pakistan, another entirely different one.

I don't WANT to feel the Catholic love. Then again, that's unlikely; I'm not a pubescent altar boy.

There you go. It's yours to eat, not to take home and show off. I hope you don't deliberately try not to understand.
Well, NOT eating it can hardly constitute a legal offence.

Yes, yes it is.

This story has been rumbling away for a while, as mentioned in this OP (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=560264), and it's been given a fresh lease of life by the fact that a University of Minnesota professor (in a blog post (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php) that he claims to have been meant as satirical) said that, if someone were to send him a consecrated cracker he'd show them what desecration really looked like.

Needless to say, this provoked a bit more protest, notably from the Catholic League, who are predictably 'outraged' (http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459). He has also now allegedly received death threats.

Fair enough, it wasn't the wisest action by the student in the first place, nor was Myers' post ever likely to lead to anything but more frothing from the more reactionary members of the Catholic community, but death threats? calling it a hate crime?

Some people seem to be incapable of maintaining perspective. Regardless of any beliefs held by any of the people in this affair, the objective fact remains that it's a biscuit.

Oh, geez, I didn't see the Pharyngula post before. I have often enjoyed reading PZ's take on things, but on this issue he's just being a complete ass. Obviously, that doesn't warrant death threats, but I think it most certainly does warrant politely furious letters from Catholics (and, for that matter, from nice scientific agnostic theists like myself who think deliberately and nastily insulting an entire religion is beyond tacky).

And, just to clear things up - yeah, the objective fact is that the host is just a cracker. The objective fact is that the shroud of Turin is just an old piece of cloth. The objective fact is that you are just a collection of cells, none of which has any particular worth to you or anyone else in and of itself. The objective fact is that each of those cells is just a collection of molecules, and that each of those molecules is just a collection of atoms indistinguishable from those in a pile of dirt - and yet, somehow, I don't think anyone in their right mind is going to argue that stomping on a human's face and stomping on a clump of dirt are equally offensive actions, even though, objectively speaking, we can reduce them to being described in equal terms. As thinking, feeling beings, we all ascribe worth to things far beyond the objective, and to claim that, okay, it's reasonable for person X to consider the CD that their novel is saved on to be worth more than just a blank CD, but not reasonable for person Y to consider a cracker that has been used in a religious ceremony which (in their belief) imbues it with the essence of their Lord to be worth more than a Wheat Thin is not in any way reasonable.

As pointed out before, the only proof of any death threats is this person's word. A person who, by his actions, has shown himself to be dishonest and disrespectful.

Furthermore, his story is full of holes. The Eucharist is way to fragile to have anyone 'pry' it out of your hand without it being broken. Also, it almost immediately begins to melt when it is put in your mouth, so I highly doubt that he was able spit it out and not have it damaged, too damaged to 'educate' anyone on what it looks like.

Speaking of which, the most offensive part of this, for me, is not that he tried to take it back to his seat, as he claims. It is that he spit the Body of Christ out of his mouth. I am just appalled at this.

Anyone who is saying that all he did was have bad manners or that it is only a wafer or cookie has no idea what they are talking about and should probably refrain from making ignorant and disrespectful comments about the beliefs of others. We are supposed to be TOLERANT, remember? Mocking Catholic beliefs is 'celebrating diversity', is it?

Depicting Mohammed is insulting to muslims - Not depicting Mohammed is not hurting anyone.

Yet people are willing to DEFEND newspapers and artists who publish pictures of Mohammed.

Bit of double standards??

Sorry I have to disagree with you there. We have a thing called the free press. We may print pictures of Mohammed, but we would hardly go into a mosque, rip out a page of the Qu'ran to show to one of our friends. Big difference. Or steal the food offered up to Buddha or maybe a buddha statue, because they were curious.
And I know everyone's saying that this guy was just curious about the wafer....but there is a time and a place. If he was genuinely interested in learning about it, make a time with the priest after church where he can explain/show it to you. Don't interupt the fucking service. And don't participate if you don't know what you're doing.

This guy was in the wrong 100%. The Catholics have a right to be pissy with him. But the reaction described, the death threats, completely overshadows the fact that they were treated badly. By being so inappropriate and immature about it, they've lost any sympathy that they may have got from me....

As a christian, I'm sorry to say that this is often very typical of christians. We just don't know how to pick our battles.

2) That said, what he did frankly is considered blasphemous. You may not agree, but under Catholic doctrine, it's believed that through transubstantiation, the wafer *is* mystically transformed into the spiritual body of Christ. To be treated thus disrespectfully is akin to someone taking a dump on the altar of a synagogue, or using a Q'uran for toilet paper. It may not be a big deal to you, but it's an enormous deal to those whose faith is involved.

I thought transubstantiation only occurred when the wafer was actually consumed. What if someone accidentally drops a wafer and it breaks? Or spills some wine?

For interrupting a ceremony that's of great spiritual importance to people so that him and Butthead can snicker at stealing the Priest's cracker? Yeah, I'd say so.

When the sign says don't feed the tigers are you putting your hands through the bars with a bacon roll? I don't see what the guy achieved by provoking Roman Catholics, he's going to get a sore face and he deserves one.

If you EVER see fit to condemn Muslims for "overreacting" to cartoons, I'll link this post on the thread and the discussion will be over in less than a round.

I thought transubstantiation only occurred when the wafer was actually consumed. What if someone accidentally drops a wafer and it breaks? Or spills some wine?

Transubstantiation occurs before the wafer and wine are consumed. I know that fifty years ago, if a wafer were dropped or wine were spilled there would have been a large...something. At the very least, the parish would have to go through the prayers of the Eucharist again. I'm not sure if it's still like that.
Of course, the average Mass-attendee has the wafer for a grand total of two seconds. I doubt many are dropped. :)

Ya know, Catholics offend me all the time and I've yet to make a death threat. And if stealing a communion wafer qualifies as a hate crime, then surely telling gays, adulterers and other assorted sinners that they'll burn in hell forever is hate speech.

Ya know, Catholics offend me all the time and I've yet to make a death threat. And if stealing a communion wafer qualifies as a hate crime, then surely telling gays, adulterers and other assorted sinners that they'll burn in hell forever is hate speech.

Really? How do they offend you? Does their straw irritate your sinuses?

Oh, geez, I didn't see the Pharyngula post before. I have often enjoyed reading PZ's take on things, but on this issue he's just being a complete ass. Obviously, that doesn't warrant death threats, but I think it most certainly does warrant politely furious letters from Catholics (and, for that matter, from nice scientific agnostic theists like myself who think deliberately and nastily insulting an entire religion is beyond tacky).

And, just to clear things up - yeah, the objective fact is that the host is just a cracker. The objective fact is that the shroud of Turin is just an old piece of cloth. The objective fact is that you are just a collection of cells, none of which has any particular worth to you or anyone else in and of itself. The objective fact is that each of those cells is just a collection of molecules, and that each of those molecules is just a collection of atoms indistinguishable from those in a pile of dirt - and yet, somehow, I don't think anyone in their right mind is going to argue that stomping on a human's face and stomping on a clump of dirt are equally offensive actions, even though, objectively speaking, we can reduce them to being described in equal terms. As thinking, feeling beings, we all ascribe worth to things far beyond the objective, and to claim that, okay, it's reasonable for person X to consider the CD that their novel is saved on to be worth more than just a blank CD, but not reasonable for person Y to consider a cracker that has been used in a religious ceremony which (in their belief) imbues it with the essence of their Lord to be worth more than a Wheat Thin is not in any way reasonable.
I also often enjoy PZ's writing and, for what it's worth, agree that he's chosen a poor course of action in this matter.

However, I do not accept that "the objective fact remains that it's a biscuit" should necessarily allow a reduction to "stomping on a human's face and stomping on a clump of dirt" being "equally offensive actions". This is clearly absurb. You're right, nobody in their right mind would equate the two, largely because one of the actions involves direct, physical harm to another human being. I used the phrase simply to provide a contrast with the death threats and the rest. Perhaps I shouldn't have.

Scratch the word "objective" from my comment, if it makes things simpler.

Whether he intended it as satire or not, it was clumsy and ill-advised. However, Myers' stance does serve to highlight the underlying societal issue that most of the so-called "new atheists" have been banging on about for years. Religious groups continually attempt to get society to treat their beliefs with the same reverence that they themselves do, and yet we are also supposed to accept that none of us has the right not to be offended. It is a biscuit/cracker. By any rational observation it was given freely to Webster Cook and, regardless of what people expected him to do with it, from that point on it was his to do with as he pleased. He chose to take it away.

That should have been the end of it, but no. Instead we have a whole load of people spouting off about him having "kidnapped Jesus", committed some form of "hate crime" and purportedly sending death threats to Cook and, latterly, to Myers. It's impossible to ignore the absurdity of some of the vitriol (on both sides). There are people who are, in effect, stating publicly their anguish that their omnipotent deity (literally, as per the dogma surrounding transubstantiation) was being held against his will by a small plastic bag. It all just seems a little disproportionate.

Just for giggles, try re-reading all the news stories and replace every mention of Catholicism with some word that you've made up for a fictional cult. Now imagine a newspaper (as suggested by a commentator on one of the many blogs I've read this story on) running the headline "Wacky cult demands return of magic biscuit". It's nonsense, I know, but to treat the story any more seriously just because it happens to involve a long-established religion is just "tyranny by majority" in its worst form.



Edit: I should maybe make clear that I don't believe the Catholic League, or the other people who are up in arms about this, are an accurate representation of Catholics in general. A couple of my Catholic friends would be quick to put me in my place if I did :)

It doesn't have to say they were going in for a good laugh, it's heavily fucking implied.

Why else would he go into a Chapel, pretend to receive Communion and then spit it out into his hands to show his friend? They were mocking Religious beliefs. My attitude is irrelevant, I'm only stating that mocking someone's beliefs usually doesn't get a positive reaction.

Here is your standard issue Tinfoil Hat. Protects againts conspiracy theories and stops the government from spying on your thoughts. I hope you put it to good use, as I see it's needed!

At least we've come on a bit, a couple of hundred years ago the guy would've been quartered.

Qi

Yeah, instead of killing him on the spot he gets threatened to be killed. Way to go progress!

Now to the issue at hand... The people in that community are overreacting, as well as behaving in conflict to the teachings of their religions.

The guy wanted to show a damn biscuit to his friend. Yes, he could have bought one from shops if he a) knew it was possible and b) was ready to actually spend money on some stupid biscuits that - assuming they are the same deal I've eaten in communions in my local protestant churches - are a choke threat.

Be that as it may, he decided to take the cracker to his seat, and gets assaulted for it? What the heck were people even paying enough attention to him to notice that he didn't eat his cracker?

As for the people sending death threats... Some fine examples of christian hypocricy. Mind I'm not saying all christians are hypocrits by that sentence. I mean these people who are both doing and threatening to do stuff their religion prohibits (threaten to kill, judging others). I've seen a lot of christian hypocricy in my days but these people are among the top 5-10 at the least.

Anyone notice this whole thing sounds like the basis for a South Park episode?

Think about it.

However, I do not accept that "the objective fact remains that it's a biscuit" should necessarily allow a reduction to "stomping on a human's face and stomping on a clump of dirt" being "equally offensive actions". This is clearly absurb. You're right, nobody in their right mind would equate the two, largely because one of the actions involves direct, physical harm to another human being. I used the phrase simply to provide a contrast with the death threats and the rest. Perhaps I shouldn't have.
What? You have two groups of atoms, with virtually the same chemical make-up, and yet to compare stomping on both as "equally offensive actions" is "absurd." Why are human faces superior to dirt? Or wafers, for that matter?

So she stole a crappy wafer? A single one? They realize that they give out dozens, if not hundreds of those at each mass right?
How does one steal something they give away for free? It's like stealing a penny from the parking lot. Or the second item in a buy one get one free deal.

What? You have two groups of atoms, with virtually the same chemical make-up, and yet to compare stomping on both as "equally offensive actions" is "absurd." Why are human faces superior to dirt? Or wafers, for that matter?
I thought it was pretty much the definition of a reductio ad absurdum, which is why I see it as absurd. Your mileage may vary, as they say. ;)

Edit: I should maybe make clear that I don't believe the Catholic League, or the other people who are up in arms about this, are an accurate representation of Catholics in general. A couple of my Catholic friends would be quick to put me in my place if I did :)
"A couple of your Catholic friends." This sounds like when people try to prove they aren't racist by claiming to have "tons of black friends." You're just a "religion realist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_realism)." :)

I thought it was pretty much the definition of a reductio ad absurdum, which is why I see it as absurd. Your mileage may vary, as they say. ;)
I see; I misinterpreted your argument.

Although, I will stand by my second question: what is superior about human faces that to step on one is wrong, but to step on small piece of flat bread is no big deal?

"A couple of your Catholic friends." This sounds like when people try to prove they aren't racist by claiming to have "tons of black friends." You're just a "religion realist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_realism)." :)
Ooo, and now an attack on my character. Whatever will be next? :p

I only have three friends who identify themselves as Catholic (as in, who regularly attend mass). Two of them have already agreed with my point of view on this story (we've been talking about it all week) and the third is in Tanzania, and kind of hard to reach at the moment :(

If you want to keep going though, I might say that I have no black friends. That's right, none. I suppose that must make me a racist in the sort of pitiful little pigeonholes you seem so intent on trying to stuff me into. Thankfully, reality works a little better than that.

I see; I misinterpreted your argument.
No worries, it's a little muddled now that I've read it again (it's late). Having just re-read my subsequent post I can see that my use of words is not getting any better, either. Ah well. :)
Although, I will stand by my second question: what is superior about human faces that to step on one is wrong, but to step on small piece of flat bread is no big deal?
For me, as I stated, it's the difference between there being direct physical harm caused to someone, as opposed to there not being physical harm caused to someone.

AAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!

For the love of bunnies!! It NOT 'just' a biscuit or cookie!

YOU may think that it is but that does not negate the fact that is considered something entirely different by the people in that church -- well, all save for the person who spit the Body of Christ out of his mouth.

If you are not a Catholic, or a religious studies scholar, you don't know what you are talking about. You just don't.

AAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!

For the love of bunnies!! It NOT 'just' a biscuit or cookie!

YOU may think that it is but that does not negate the fact that is considered something entirely different by the people in that church -- well, all save for the person who spit the Body of Christ out of his mouth.

If you are not a Catholic, or a religious studies scholar, you don't know what you are talking about. You just don't.

Until it's undergone the eucharist (aka transubstantiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation)), it IS just a biscuit. Had the stolen wafer been blessed yet? If not, just a biscuit.

EDIT: As it happened during a Mass, it had indeed been blessed and transubstantiated. However, if the person receiving it believes it's just a wafer, according to the tenets of the Catholic faith (which allows that if you confess to someone not a priest, but you believed he was a priest, then you're absolved), then guess what? It was just a wafer.

AAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!

For the love of bunnies!! It NOT 'just' a biscuit or cookie!

YOU may think that it is but that does not negate the fact that is considered something entirely different by the people in that church -- well, all save for the person who spit the Body of Christ out of his mouth.
See, this is where we could easily end up going in circles for ever.

It is just a biscuit, to me. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that it would be "just a biscuit" to the majority of people on the planet. Honestly, other than the people who saw it being "blessed" it'd be hard to find anyone who'd be in any position to make the claim that it was anything but.

If you are not a Catholic, or a religious studies scholar, you don't know what you are talking about. You just don't.
I'm not a Catholic. If by "religious studies scholar" you include people who have devoted a substantial amount to time to learning about various religious beliefs then I would most certainly qualify.

It looks like you're simply claiming that Catholics have some kind of monopoly on "Truth", and that only they -- or people who have spent time studying them -- can possibly know what they're talking about and that, frankly, is a bit silly.

its symoblic rather than actual value. The kids should have known better. This is different then stealing someones drinking bottle.

AAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!

For the love of bunnies!! It NOT 'just' a biscuit or cookie!

YOU may think that it is but that does not negate the fact that is considered something entirely different by the people in that church -- well, all save for the person who spit the Body of Christ out of his mouth.

If you are not a Catholic, or a religious studies scholar, you don't know what you are talking about. You just don't.

I defy you to explain how one can still a church wafer - something they hand out free to anyone who walks up.

Until it's undergone the eucharist (aka transubstantiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation)), it IS just a biscuit. Had the stolen wafer been blessed yet? If not, just a biscuit.

EDIT: As it happened during a Mass, it had indeed been blessed and transubstantiated. However, if the person receiving it believes it's just a wafer, according to the tenets of the Catholic faith (which allows that if you confess to someone not a priest, but you believed he was a priest, then you're absolved), then guess what? It was just a wafer.

Read the article again. (He is Catholic, not a good one, but a Catholic nonetheless)

Then read my post again. (I stated that whether or not you (or he) believes it is just a cookie, everyone in that church believed otherwise)

And, I will state again that if you are not Catholic, you just don't, and probably can't, 'get it.' You can not understand the to what extent his actions were more than bad manners or disrespectful.

I also often enjoy PZ's writing and, for what it's worth, agree that he's chosen a poor course of action in this matter.

However, I do not accept that "the objective fact remains that it's a biscuit" should necessarily allow a reduction to "stomping on a human's face and stomping on a clump of dirt" being "equally offensive actions". This is clearly absurb. You're right, nobody in their right mind would equate the two, largely because one of the actions involves direct, physical harm to another human being. I used the phrase simply to provide a contrast with the death threats and the rest. Perhaps I shouldn't have.

Scratch the word "objective" from my comment, if it makes things simpler.

I used a somewhat extreme example to make the point, but I can make it less extreme. What makes a manuscript for a book different from a sheaf of paper covered in random letters? What makes a flag different from an ordinary rectangle of cloth? What makes your best friend different from a random stranger with the same vital statistics picked out of a crowd? From a purely rational perspective, you should care no more about the first item in each comparison than about the second - and yet almost anyone would, because as human beings we attach value to things beyond what is purely objective and rational. You do it, I do it, PZ Myers does it, and I can't honestly see any reason to condemn or insult observant Catholics for doing it.

Whether he intended it as satire or not, it was clumsy and ill-advised. However, Myers' stance does serve to highlight the underlying societal issue that most of the so-called "new atheists" have been banging on about for years. Religious groups continually attempt to get society to treat their beliefs with the same reverence that they themselves do, and yet we are also supposed to accept that none of us has the right not to be offended.

And when that happens, it's stupid as heck, I agree. I don't think that's quite what's going on in this case, though.

It is a biscuit/cracker. By any rational observation it was given freely to Webster Cook and, regardless of what people expected him to do with it, from that point on it was his to do with as he pleased.

Nonsense. By any rational observation it was given to him as part of a ceremony, specifically the sacrament of Holy Communion. My high school awarded various awards to students, which involved going up onstage to receive trophies which the school had owned for years, with students' names engraved on them dating back to the early 1900s in some cases. Everyone knew that, upon being presented the trophy, you held onto it until the end of the ceremony and then gave it back to be engraved with your name and passed on to the next year's winner. By your logic, just because I got handed the English Cup onstage it would have been perfectly reasonable for me to take it home and expect no one to object.

He chose to take it away.

That should have been the end of it, but no.

Here, we disagree. He deliberately did something against the rules of the church, and I have no objection whatsoever to the church (or even the Church) punishing him for it by banning him from the congregation or demanding penance before he could return.

Instead we have a whole load of people spouting off about him having "kidnapped Jesus", committed some form of "hate crime" and purportedly sending death threats to Cook and, latterly, to Myers. It's impossible to ignore the absurdity of some of the vitriol (on both sides). There are people who are, in effect, stating publicly their anguish that their omnipotent deity (literally, as per the dogma surrounding transubstantiation) was being held against his will by a small plastic bag. It all just seems a little disproportionate.

And here we agree again. :)

Just for giggles, try re-reading all the news stories and replace every mention of Catholicism with some word that you've made up for a fictional cult. Now imagine a newspaper (as suggested by a commentator on one of the many blogs I've read this story on) running the headline "Wacky cult demands return of magic biscuit". It's nonsense, I know, but to treat the story any more seriously just because it happens to involve a long-established religion is just "tyranny by majority" in its worst form.

It makes no difference to me, honestly. I have no particular fondness for the Catholic Church, but I also have no particular fondness for anyone who deliberately causes offense for the sake of causing offense. I'd be no more impressed with the initial idiot's behavior had he deliberately made a mockery of some crazy cult's crazy sacred objects. To be clear, I don't think religion should be in any way immune from mockery or criticism - but I don't see the point in really nastily insulting a whole group of people over something that's really, really important to them and causes no harm to anyone else. If you really, deeply, passionately believe that God manifests Himself as a stuffed teddy bear named Bobo, I'd be a real bitch if I went and tore Bobo up just for shits and giggles, even if I think your belief is silly.

See, this is where we could easily end up going in circles for ever.

It is just a biscuit, to me. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that it would be "just a biscuit" to the majority of people on the planet. Honestly, other than the people who saw it being "blessed" it'd be hard to find anyone who'd be in any position to make the claim that it was anything but.


I'm not a Catholic. If by "religious studies scholar" you include people who have devoted a substantial amount to time to learning about various religious beliefs then I would most certainly qualify.

It looks like you're simply claiming that Catholics have some kind of monopoly on "Truth", and that only they -- or people who have spent time studying them -- can possibly know what they're talking about and that, frankly, is a bit silly.


We are going in circles if I have to repeat myself.

And please do not put words in my mouth. I do not think Catholics have a monopoly on the 'truth'. But, yes, only Catholics, or someone who has an intimate knowledge of the Catholic religion, can possibly know what that the Host means in the heart of a Catholic. You, thinking it is just a wafer proves my point. It is not just a wafer to Catholics.

I encourage everyone to write to the student's university and urge them not to discipline him or in any way jepordize his future over this. Hate crime my ass.

Steal a Torah. I'm sure you'll get a very different viewpoint.

I'm unsure what your perceptions of jewish customs are, but I assure you, at no point is anyone in the congregation given the torah. At certain events (bar mitzvah for example) one can be called to read from it and handle it, but title is never passed.

And since the post you replied to stated that taking the waffer is not theft, which it is not, and you respond by saying "steal a torah", which very much IS theft, I'm really not sure of your point.

Taking the waffer given to you, while perhaps poor manners, is not theft. So why, when it is pointed out that it is not theft, you use an example that actually quite literally IS theft, is beyond me.

Nonsense. By any rational observation it was given to him as part of a ceremony, specifically the sacrament of Holy Communion. My high school awarded various awards to students, which involved going up onstage to receive trophies which the school had owned for years, with students' names engraved on them dating back to the early 1900s in some cases. Everyone knew that, upon being presented the trophy, you held onto it until the end of the ceremony and then gave it back to be engraved with your name and passed on to the next year's winner. By your logic, just because I got handed the English Cup onstage it would have been perfectly reasonable for me to take it home and expect no one to object.

I wonder...did anyone expect him to give it back after he ate it?

I wonder...did anyone expect him to give it back after he ate it?

I must admit to being more than a little baffled at the whole "bringing it back" aspect of this story. I have no idea what the official way to deal with a half-dissolved Body of Christ that's been stored in a Ziploc baggie for a week might be. :p

(My point still stands, though - he was given the host for the express purpose of using it in a specific way within a ceremony. Legally, he may not (and in my opinion, should not) be able to be held at fault for putting it to a different use, but the folks who gave it to him can certainly hold him accountable.)

Have we not established that I believe death threats and violence are wrong yet? No?
And I never said you did. Why do so many people on this board see everything as a personal attack. If I respond to you,does that mean every following comment is about you and specifically you. Carefully read what I said. There was never a reference to you. I used your post as a starting point.
Have we not established that respecting other people's beliefs and not going out of our way to bash them is A Good Idea(tm)?
Yes, it's a good idea. But if someone doesn't do this, then it is a tad hypocritical of some people (and just so we have no confusion, I'm not saying you) who follow a religion of peace to issue death threats.

Would you really think it was hunky dory if someone dug up your father's coffin, opened it, and shat on his face?You'd really think that act didn't say what they thought of your father's life? You wouldn't want to see the person need to take some consequence for it, whether as a criminal or civil matter? You wouldn't be angry enough to consider violence -- even if you'd never use it?
This is a tad more personal and directed specifically at one individual, so I think there is a big difference. Even though you are comparing getting a papercut to someone cutting your arm off, I'll go with it. I wouldn't issue death threats. I'd refer him to the relevant authorities.
I wouldn't consider violence. The act is already done. My beating him up wont change what has happened. A grave is just that. A dead body isn't a person. His actions change nothing in regards to my thoughts on my father.
If I could catch him in the act, I would attempt to restrain him to stop his actions, nothing more. I don't believe in vengeance, at least for acts that cause no lasting damage.

If you say you wouldn't be that upset, congrats -- you've transcended humanity. Your sainthood's in the mail.
Cool. I don't think I want to give my address over the internet. I'm sure I need a few more miracles to qualify anyway. One of them can be you sending my sainthood in the mail. I'm psychically sending you my address.

Read the article again. (He is Catholic, not a good one, but a Catholic nonetheless)

Then read my post again. (I stated that whether or not you (or he) believes it is just a cookie, everyone in that church believed otherwise)

And, I will state again that if you are not Catholic, you just don't, and probably can't, 'get it.' You can not understand the to what extent his actions were more than bad manners or disrespectful.
Yeah, when people I invite to come into my house do something that disrespects me by saying they don't like the food I'm serving, I totally throw them out of my house and threaten to kill them.

I thought transubstantiation only occurred when the wafer was actually consumed. What if someone accidentally drops a wafer and it breaks? Or spills some wine?
They eat it still. I remember back in the olden days (when I still went to Mass), a person dropped the Holy Eucharist during Communion (which caused quite a commotion). The priest had to pick it up from the floor and eat it. And when we were taught how to properly receive the Holy Eucharist, if we were to receive it by hand, we must ensure there are no more crumbs remaining in our hands.

I don't know about wine... er, lick it from the floor?

Well, NOT eating it can hardly constitute a legal offence.
Did I say it is a legal offense?

What I'm saying is that that's why offensive. It is offensive to many Catholics, but it won't constitute a legal offense.

And, I will state again that if you are not Catholic, you just don't, and probably can't, 'get it.' You can not understand the to what extent his actions were more than bad manners or disrespectful.
Ya, many people here don't seem to get why it's offensive. Arguing here is rather pointless. I'll leave it to Katganistan.

(My point still stands, though - he was given the host for the express purpose of using it in a specific way within a ceremony. Legally, he may not (and in my opinion, should not) be able to be held at fault for putting it to a different use, but the folks who gave it to him can certainly hold him accountable.)
Yup. I agree with this.

Yeah, when people I invite to come into my house do something that disrespects me by saying they don't like the food I'm serving, I totally throw them out of my house and threaten to kill them.
*makes mental note not to go to Dakini's house*

Read the article again. (He is Catholic, not a good one, but a Catholic nonetheless)

Then read my post again. (I stated that whether or not you (or he) believes it is just a cookie, everyone in that church believed otherwise)

And, I will state again that if you are not Catholic, you just don't, and probably can't, 'get it.' You can not understand the to what extent his actions were more than bad manners or disrespectful.

Horseshit. I can "get it" just by knowing what transubstantiation is. I've spent the last three years teaching at a Catholic university. I've had dogma and catechism as part of my daily routine. I don't have to be a Catholic to know what it means. It means taking SOME things too seriously and others not seriously enough, like any religion. As religions go, Catholicism isn't too bad, but it's no paragon, either.

Point being, until that blessing, it's a wafer. It happened during the Eucharist, so it was, according to dogma, the Body of Christ. That means the kid did something impolite and childish, and from what I can read tried to invent death threats to cover his shame with imagined victimhood. This is not uncommon behavior in those who commit stupid acts and are caught.

I think everyone involved needs to take a deep breath, relax, and get on with life. Let the kid atone if he's a practicing Catholic. If he's not, invite him back to the fold with open arms and invite him to atone. If he doesn't want to, excommunicate him if that makes the congregation feel better. I know it would for those who can't swallow the whole "vengeance is MINE, sayeth the Lord", but hey.

Being Catholic myself, I have repeatedly heard another important reason from many priests, educators, etc. as to why taking the Eucharist was wrong and why the people in the church when it happened acted as they did.

The reason is that it sometimes happens that Satanists and the like will sometimes go into the Mass posing as practicing Catholics and take the Eucharist out of the church to desecrate it further as a practice in their own religion, which makes sense considering Satan is the antithesis of God, not to mention pure evil, and such a practice would probably be encouraged in devil worship.

Now, it is not known whether this particular person or his friend would be such people, but in order to protect the Eucharist from such treatment, the other people in the church did what they did.

As to the death threats, whether they are real or not, such threats are reprehensible. God is forgiving, and such behavior should not be tolerated within the congregation.

Hopefully this provides some fresh perspective.

Did I say it is a legal offense?

What I'm saying is that that's why offensive. It is offensive to many Catholics, but it won't constitute a legal offense.

Hence the punishment should stay within the church, no?

Not eating a wafer that is given to you is not theft, at worst its bad manners and utter failure to respect a religious tenet which should be punished by the church...Heck, they can even excommunicate the lad if they think it's an unforgivable sin.

There should be NO civil consequences, let alone people decrying the act as hate crime and demanding completely irrelevant punishments like being kicked out from the university.

note: I can understand death threats and threats of physical violence, while extremely stupid they're part of fanaticisim: You can get them very easily if you do something controversial (:p), it's the so called moderate response that goes way over my head here.....It's like the local catholic communities based on their vocal members, spokespersons nonetheless, are ready to lynch - hate crime? expulsion? - the poor kid for breaching the rules of religious conduct.

please do not put words in my mouth. I do not think Catholics have a monopoly on the 'truth'. But, yes, only Catholics, or someone who has an intimate knowledge of the Catholic religion, can possibly know what that the Host means in the heart of a Catholic.
I'll just quote this and say no more about it, since I believe that it speaks for itself. Honestly, I've had no need to put words into your mouth.

I used a somewhat extreme example to make the point, but I can make it less extreme. What makes a manuscript for a book different from a sheaf of paper covered in random letters? What makes a flag different from an ordinary rectangle of cloth? What makes your best friend different from a random stranger with the same vital statistics picked out of a crowd? From a purely rational perspective, you should care no more about the first item in each comparison than about the second - and yet almost anyone would, because as human beings we attach value to things beyond what is purely objective and rational.
From my own perspective, which may or may not be seen as purely rational, these analogies are also false. A book manuscript or a flag represent creative works that are recognisable as such, and recognisable as being distinct from random gibberish or a scrap of cloth by anyone who sees them. Purely objectively, there is no difference between my friend and a random stranger on the street, I agree. What makes them different is my subjective opinion, no more and no less. A fairer analogy along your chosen lines would be me demanding that the world at large treat this friend of mine with more respect than a random stranger, just because they happened to be a friend of mine. That wouldn't happen, nor would I expect it to, since he's just a biscuit as far as the wider world is concerned.

Yes it was disrespectful, but that is no need for violence of any-kind. Im not saying what he did wasn't wrong, Im saying he did it with what seemed like a lack of malice (ie not with the intention of causing harm of the backlash he has received) and therefore the reaction he has received seems from my point of view way over the top.

Horseshit. I can "get it" just by knowing what transubstantiation is. I've spent the last three years teaching at a Catholic university. I've had dogma and catechism as part of my daily routine. I don't have to be a Catholic to know what it means. It means taking SOME things too seriously and others not seriously enough, like any religion. As religions go, Catholicism isn't too bad, but it's no paragon, either.

No, you can't. It is incredibly arrogant to say that because you have knowledge of transubstantiation, which you clearly do, you understand what it means to the people of the parish. It's just like whenever people tell you they "know how you feel" when something traumatic happens in your life. They may feel sympathy, but they don't really know how you feel when your dog dies, or your husband leaves you, or your house burns down.

I thought transubstantiation only occurred when the wafer was actually consumed. What if someone accidentally drops a wafer and it breaks? Or spills some wine?

You leave it for the priest to deal with. You're not supposed to touch it if it becomes deconsecrated like that.

Read the article again. (He is Catholic, not a good one, but a Catholic nonetheless)

Then read my post again. (I stated that whether or not you (or he) believes it is just a cookie, everyone in that church believed otherwise)

And, I will state again that if you are not Catholic, you just don't, and probably can't, 'get it.' You can not understand the to what extent his actions were more than bad manners or disrespectful.

It's kind of like me walking into your comic collection, pulling out your pristinely boarded and bagged Action Comics#1 (first appearance ever of Superman), and drying my hands with it.

What's the big deal? It's JUST a comic book.

I'm unsure what your perceptions of jewish customs are, but I assure you, at no point is anyone in the congregation given the torah. At certain events (bar mitzvah for example) one can be called to read from it and handle it, but title is never passed.

And since the post you replied to stated that taking the waffer is not theft, which it is not, and you respond by saying "steal a torah", which very much IS theft, I'm really not sure of your point.

Taking the waffer given to you, while perhaps poor manners, is not theft. So why, when it is pointed out that it is not theft, you use an example that actually quite literally IS theft, is beyond me.

No, the statement I replied to is "theft is not a matter of faith", and my response was that if you thought stealing a religious object would be treated the same as stealing something else, steal a Torah and find out.

So, you don't think getting death threats over a wafer is wee bit too much?

I agree. (Well the death threats worked. At least it shows he's not completely stupid.) I think people are over-reacting. Cook didn't do any damage to the Eucharist and he returned it safely (after a lot of persuasion). People should leave him in peace. If he does it again, then I think we have reason to act... but even then we should not use violence (just scare the living sh*t out of him).

I agree. (Well the death threats worked. At least it shows he's not completely stupid.) I think people are over-reacting. Cook didn't do any damage to the Eucharist and he returned it safely (after a lot of persuasion). People should leave him in peace. If he does it again, then I think we have reason to act... but even then we should not use violence (just scare the living sh*t out of him).

No, scaring the living shit out of him is a crime, assault.

Using the courts is the proper way to deal with it.

A fairer analogy along your chosen lines would be me demanding that the world at large treat this friend of mine with more respect than a random stranger, just because they happened to be a friend of mine. That wouldn't happen, nor would I expect it to, since he's just a biscuit as far as the wider world is concerned.
Then you would agree then that if, say, I dug up a loved one of yours, chopped up the body, and used the resulting meat to slop my hogs; you would understand that to the rest of the world at large the corpse of that loved one is just so much rotting meat and your have no right to expect that it be treated with respect and kept from such dessication.

There should be NO civil consequences, let alone people decrying the act as hate crime and demanding completely irrelevant punishments like being kicked out from the university.
Wrong, as for the hate crime, that depends upon the motive. Now, if he did indeed plan to show it to a friend, that is one thing. If he did it to disrupt the church I see it as no different from neo-Nazi skinheads using graffiti to scrawl rude words on a synagogue. As for the university, he admits that he was there partially as a representative of the student government, where he had previously expressed qualms about student monies being used for religious groups. If that was the case, he falls under student rules of conduct, ESPECIALLY as a student representative.

As for the university, he admits that he was there partially as a representative of the student government, where he had previously expressed qualms about student monies being used for religious groups. If that was the case, he falls under student rules of conduct, ESPECIALLY as a student representative.

That would certainly change things regarding whether or not expulsion is appropriate -- as a representative of the school, he acts in their place.

That would not be something with which a University would wish to be associated.

Then you would agree then that if, say, I dug up a loved one of yours, chopped up the body, and used the resulting meat to slop my hogs; you would understand that to the rest of the world at large the corpse of that loved one is just so much rotting meat and your have no right to expect that it be treated with respect and kept from such dessication.
I understand the angle that this sort of question is trying to work but, again, it falls flat. The rest of the world does not, in the main, treat the dead as food slops for its domesticated animals. It also fails to make allowance for the fact that I would have to 'give' you a body in the first place for the analogy to even come close to the sort of thing that I was objecting to earlier.

If you EVER see fit to condemn Muslims for "overreacting" to cartoons, I'll link this post on the thread and the discussion will be over in less than a round.
If I every see some of the posters in here complaining about Fred Phelps's group being at a funeral I'll be glad to link to this thread again.

I understand the angle that this sort of question is trying to work but, again, it falls flat. The rest of the world does not, in the main, treat the dead as food slops for its domesticated animals. It also fails to make allowance for the fact that I would have to 'give' you a body in the first place for the analogy to even come close to the sort of thing that I was objecting to earlier.
The world as a main does not treat religious objects as anything other than worth veneration. But, yes, you abandoned the body in a hole the ground. It doesn't matter if you gave it to me or not. You agree then that I can chop up your dead grandmother for hog slops. It might be rude of me, but objectively now she is just rotting meat.

As for the university, he admits that he was there partially as a representative of the student government, where he had previously expressed qualms about student monies being used for religious groups. If that was the case, he falls under student rules of conduct, ESPECIALLY as a student representative.
I'd managed to miss this particular tidbit of information, so thanks.

It doesn't change my opinion -- that the backlash and outrage has been disproportionate, and that it's another example of a religion expecting non-believers to accord their beliefs with undue reverence -- but it certainly reinforces my earlier comments that Webster Cook has acted foolishly.

That would certainly change things regarding whether or not expulsion is appropriate -- as a representative of the school, he acts in their place.

That would not be something with which a University would wish to be associated.
Indeed.

The world as a main does not treat religious objects as anything other than worth veneration
I suppose that is really contingent on what sort of things you are classifying as "religious objects". If you see a biscuit lying on the ground, how would you know whether it was just a biscuit or whether it's sacred?
But, yes, you abandoned the body in a hole the ground. It doesn't matter if you gave it to me or not.
Of course it matters! That's the entire crux of the "it's not a theft" argument. This wafer was given over to someone, freely. By contrast, a corpse that has been buried has been specifically laid to rest, not given to someone to eat. I see no value in you, or anyone else, attempting to drag out emotive analogies like this one. *shrug*
ou agree then that I can chop up your dead grandmother for hog slops. It might be rude of me, but objectively now she is just rotting meat.
I don't agree, for the reasons I've stuck to throughout this thread (I suspect that both of my grandmothers have long passed the "rotting meat" stage, though, just for future reference)

It doesn't change my opinion -- that the backlash and outrage has been disproportionate, and that it's another example of a religion expecting non-believers to accord their beliefs with undue reverence -- but it certainly reinforces my earlier comments that Webster Cook has acted foolishly.
He did it IN A CHURCH! Whether or not you subscribe to the belief system or not, it is NOT asking for undue reverence to ask that rules of behavior be followed in a private place for a private function. It is NOT asking for undue reverence for people to not behave as assholes quite honestly, any more than YOU asking that guests at your wedding don't make off with the cake or that I don't dig up your grandma for pig food.

This is not a case of the Catholics attempting to get laws passed to enshrine their faith. This is not a case of the Catholic League telling people to boycott a movie because it shows Catholicism in a bad light and therefore attempting to exert undue influence, this is about certain standards of behavior AND respecting others. Just because you disagree with something or someone does not give you license to be an asshole about it or them.

He did it IN A CHURCH! Whether or not you subscribe to the belief system or not, it is NOT asking for undue reverence to ask that rules of behavior be followed in a private place for a private function. It is NOT asking for undue reverence for people to not behave as assholes quite honestly, any more than YOU asking that guests at your wedding don't make off with the cake or that I don't dig up your grandma for pig food.

This is not a case of the Catholics attempting to get laws passed to enshrine their faith. This is not a case of the Catholic League telling people to boycott a movie because it shows Catholicism in a bad light and therefore attempting to exert undue influence, this is about certain standards of behavior AND respecting others. Just because you disagree with something or someone does not give you license to be an asshole about it or them.
You seem to be getting your panties a little twisted with all that shouting. Which part of my consistent agreement that the student was in the wrong are you having trouble with?

I suppose that is really contingent on what sort of things you are classifying as "religious objects". If you see a biscuit lying on the ground, how would you know whether it was just a biscuit or whether it's sacred?
Gee, if it's on a communion plate and has been blessed by a priest, it MIGHT just be special. Now, I don't know about you, but I can tell the difference between something handed out at a ceremony and the donuts served afterwards.

Of course it matters! That's the entire crux of the "it's not a theft" argument. This wafer was given over to someone, freely. By contrast, a corpse that has been buried has been specifically laid to rest, not given to someone to eat. I see no value in you or anyone else, attempting to drag out emotive analogies like this one. *shrug*
Bull, you stuck it in the ground. You abandoned it. As you said above, if I find it lying on the ground, how am I to know? It's pig food, no matter what it means to you personally. The emotive part is the heart of the argument, to Catholics that biscuit is important, as important to them as the bodies of your loved ones would be to you. Kat had it right when she said it is so easy to say, "Well, they're just over reacting and it's just a cracker" when it isn't worth anything to YOU. But, when it is... Be honest now, how would you feel to find out I had taken the body of a loved one and made it into pig food? Or, not even that, I took the body just to show a friend of mine who was curious to see what a rotting body would look like. You did leave it lying around after all, and to me that pile of dead meat means nothing at all. I was just doing it for my friend's education, so why are you so upset?

You seem to be getting your panties a little twisted with all that shouting. Which part of my consistent agreement that the student was in the wrong are you having trouble with?
Then if he was wrong, he should be dealt with the way he has been by seeing if there was criminal intent and if he violated the student code of conduct of his university. I've already stated that death threats are not acceptable. But this is not an undue response or a request that beliefs be given undue respect, just that people try not to be assholes to each other.

Bull, you stuck it in the ground. You abandoned it. As you said above, if I find it lying on the ground, how am I to know? It's pig food, no matter what it means to you personally. The emotive part is the heart of the argument, to Catholics that biscuit is important, as important to them as the bodies of your loved ones would be to you. Kat had it right when she said it is so easy to say, "Well, they're just over reacting and it's just a cracker" when it isn't worth anything to YOU. But, when it is... Be honest now, how would you feel to find out I had taken the body of a loved one and made it into pig food? Or, not even that, I took the body just to show a friend of mine who was curious to see what a rotting body would look like. You did leave it lying around after all, and to me that pile of dead meat means nothing at all. I was just doing it for my friend's education, so why are you so upset?
I don't know how it works where you live, but all of the loved ones that I have arranged burial for are interred in ground that I own. That immediately makes any removal a theft.

Then if he was wrong, he should be dealt with the way he has been by seeing if there was criminal intent and if he violated the student code of conduct of his university.
Yep, I have no argument with that.

I don't know how it works where you live, but all of the loved ones that I have arranged burial for are interred in ground that I own. That immediately makes any removal a theft.
Not at all, it is abandoned property.

Have you visited them within the past 5 years? Maintained it?

How am I to know?

Again, the point is that it is much, much harder to stomach what you are saying when it is something that you care about.

Not at all, it is abandoned property.

Have you visited them within the past 5 years? Maintained it?

How am I to know?
It's most certainly not an abandoned site and, yes, I've visited the graves inside the last 5 years. It's made easy by the fact that they're almost all inside a 50 metre radius in the town cemetery, and by the fact that I've had to add a new one fairly recently. The headstones and grass areas are maintained by the cemetery staff, and that sort of gives the game away for people who might otherwise be confused as to whether they were graves or long-term pig-food storage.

Then if he was wrong, he should be dealt with the way he has been by seeing if there was criminal intent and if he violated the student code of conduct of his university.

How do you get criminal intet out of this is completely beyond my reasoning.

The wafer was GIVEN to the student - How can it be theft or criminal not to eat it?

It might be disrespecting but so what? It's a church matter and - in case he was student representative - university disciplinary matter. However, getting expelled from the university has the potential of destroying a life and is thus beyond reasonable punishment for NOT EATING A WAFER, which itself might have been a protest against the physical force used by staff (or not, we don't know).

How do you get criminal intet out of this is completely beyond my reasoning.
To be fair, I haven't noticed NERVUN claiming that this was a criminal act. In fact, the entire point of that post of his that you've quoted was that he should be dealt with as appropriate "by seeing if there was criminal intent and if he violated the student code of conduct of his university".

To be fair, I haven't noticed NERVUN claiming that this was a criminal act. In fact, the entire point of that post of his that you've quoted was that he should be dealt with as appropriate "by seeing if there was criminal intent and if he violated the student code of conduct of his university".

True, but that bit: "if there was criminal intent" still implies that the possibility is there, however with the few facts that we have at hand I cannot see how not eating a wafer could qualify as a crime.

I'm looking to understand what even remotely criminal intent could lie behind the act of choosing not to eat a wafer.

Well, not being someone to mock other people's beliefs, that's not how I read it.

He took his little mate to Chapel. He stole what was considered by Roman Catholics to be the body of Christ. He pretended to receive the body of Christ, only to spit it out and show his friend so they could have a good laugh at all of those Religious maniacs!

The guy was raised as a Roman Catholic. He knew what he was doing would cause an insane amount of offense. If I went to Mass and spat out the Eucharist to show it to the person next to me, I wouldn't get death threats, I would just get jumped outside right after Mass.

The crying comes from the kid going; "Waaaah it was just a prank waaaah now some irate Catholic is threatening my life for offending his beliefs waaah."

Live and let live, that's what I say.

If people like you think it's okay to go in and disrupt a Holy Ceremony well then fine, just don't expect everyone to laugh it off and praise your whacky antics. Some people will hurt you.

What the fuck kinda church did you go to?

Firstly, it's a wafer. Secondly, the only source that he got any death threats is the guy himself. Which, given his behaviour, is hardly a trustworthy source.

Yes always go to a thief who steals and mocks religion as good source for threat assessment.

True, but that bit: "if there was criminal intent" still implies that the possibility is there, however with the few facts that we have at hand I cannot see how not eating a wafer could qualify as a crime.

I'm looking to understand what even remotely criminal intent could lie behind the act of choosing not to eat a wafer.

From the short article I read, I thought the alleged crime was hate speech, or something like that. I think it is certainly possible taking a consecrated wafer could be part of a hate crime, although in this particular instance it certainly doesn't seem that way.

And as an aside, he didn't really choose to "not to eat the wafer," as people have been saying. The article mentions he put it in his mouth and then took it out again when he was in the clear. His intent wasn't criminal, but it was certainly...surreptitious? Is that the right word?

Yes always go to a thief who steals and mocks religion as good source for threat assessment.

There's a law against accepting freely given wafer and not eating it? Strange.

There's a law against accepting freely given wafer and not eating it? Strange.

Ifreann don't you understand? When you're irrationally mad at someone, it's ok to use words that don't actually mean what you pretend they mean.

You rapist.

Ifreann don't you understand? When you're irrationally mad at someone, it's ok to use words that don't actually mean what you pretend they mean.

You rapist.

D'oh, how could I forget.

"taking the Body of Christ hostage"

this is awesome. when i write the ransom note, i'll include a tiny corner of the wafer to show just how deadly serious i am.
ka-fucking-ching!

"taking the Body of Christ hostage"

this is awesome. when i write the ransom note, i'll include a tiny corner of the wafer to show just how deadly serious i am.
ka-fucking-ching!

Or if you want to go for the supervillain shock value, you can send an mp3 file of the wafer being held over a goblet of wine.

Don't forget the scrambled voice.

"If the payment is not delivered within 24 hours then you'll see your Saviour at the bottom of the Cabernet.."

How do you get criminal intet out of this is completely beyond my reasoning.

The wafer was GIVEN to the student - How can it be theft or criminal not to eat it?
Under Florida's hate crime laws.

But, in any case, you seem to assume that once you are given something that you can do with as you will. It must be nice to live in your world where misappropriation of funds and equipment does not exist.

It might be disrespecting but so what? It's a church matter and - in case he was student representative - university disciplinary matter. However, getting expelled from the university has the potential of destroying a life and is thus beyond reasonable punishment for NOT EATING A WAFER, which itself might have been a protest against the physical force used by staff (or not, we don't know).
It wasn't not eating a cracker, it was deliberately disrupting a religious ceremony in a place of worship and, yes, acting in a way that is against the university's student conduct code while representing the university. If it was an underage student athlete who got drunk off his ass and made a public scene while on a university away game, he would face disciplinary actions as well.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69154

Death threats for stealing 'Body of Christ'
Student fears personal attacks since swiping wafer from Catholic Mass

A student at the University of Central Florida says he's now getting death threats after he stole and later returned a wafer representing the "Body of Christ" from a Catholic Mass in Orlando.
..
..
The wafer was kept in a Ziploc bag until Cook returned it days later along with an e-mail stating, "I am returning the Eucharist to you in response to the e-mails I have received from Catholics in the UCF community. I still want the community to understand that the use physical force is wrong, especially when based on assumptions. However, I feel it is unnecessary to cause pain for those who are not at fault in this situation."

Cook has reportedly been getting death threats, prompting his friend, who wants to remain nameless, to discuss the situation with local media.

"I was kind of confused because I always thought that Jesus was a pacifist, and they're using violence in order to get back the body of a pacifist," he told WOFL-TV.
..
..
Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented on the case, stating:

"For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage – regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance – is beyond hate speech. That is why the UCF administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion."


So, it's only the muslim extremists who resort to death threats over trivial issues like depicting the founder of their religion as a terrorist... :D


Another source (http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=6945924&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.10.1) puts it even better: We don't know 100% what Mr. Cook's motivation was," said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. "However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it."


Remember kids, the new catholic laws are: Love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek and sue the living daylights off a person who wanted to show Eucharist to a friend. ;)

edit:
The new font seems to make italics pretty similar to normal text. :(

As a Catholic conservative I am more offended and disgusted by people threatening the man than his stealing of the Eucharist to protest the Catholic faith.

You so-called "Catholics" are just proving his point! If you really wanted to make him see reason, forgive him and move on with your lives!

Love triumphs hate, everytime.

It's most certainly not an abandoned site and, yes, I've visited the graves inside the last 5 years. It's made easy by the fact that they're almost all inside a 50 metre radius in the town cemetery, and by the fact that I've had to add a new one fairly recently. The headstones and grass areas are maintained by the cemetery staff, and that sort of gives the game away for people who might otherwise be confused as to whether they were graves or long-term pig-food storage.
Then how can you not tell the difference between a consecrated religious artifact on a communion tray in a church during communion with the priest handing it out, people around you following the ritual, and hearing the words "receive the host of Christ" (Or whatever it is that Catholics say) and a Ritz Cracker you found on the ground outside?

Thus does your argument fall apart. If you have shown care for the bodies of your loved ones, that, yes, I should not think of them as free pig food because obviously you do CARE for them, even if to me they mean nothing. Just as obviously the Catholics here do CARE for the communion wafer and show it. So why then do you insist that this somehow means that it is naught but a cracker and you can do with as you will?

No, you can't. It is incredibly arrogant to say that because you have knowledge of transubstantiation, which you clearly do, you understand what it means to the people of the parish. It's just like whenever people tell you they "know how you feel" when something traumatic happens in your life. They may feel sympathy, but they don't really know how you feel when your dog dies, or your husband leaves you, or your house burns down.

Unless their dog also dies, their husband also left them, or their house also burned down.

I understand exactly what it means. What I don't understand is their feelings about it. Now, if I were talking about their feelings, you might have had a point, provided I wasn't a religious person who had an exceedingly mild infraction of dogma inflicted upon him by some callous brat.

But, in any case, you seem to assume that once you are given something that you can do with as you will. It must be nice to live in your world where misappropriation of funds and equipment does not exist.

What makes you think that for a charge of misappropriation, the one guilty has control over it?

Totally false analogy. The whole idea about misappropriation, embezzlement, and all other inappropriate transactions is that the individual does not have title. Possession, but not title. For misappropriation to occur there needs to be a legal duty...there isn't here. It was given to him.

Then how can you not tell the difference between a consecrated religious artifact on a communion tray in a church during communion with the priest handing it out, people around you following the ritual, and hearing the words "receive the host of Christ" (Or whatever it is that Catholics say) and a Ritz Cracker you found on the ground outside? Thus does your argument fall apart. If you have shown care for the bodies of your loved ones, that, yes, I should not think of them as free pig food because obviously you do CARE for them, even if to me they mean nothing. Just as obviously the Catholics here do CARE for the communion wafer and show it. So why then do you insist that this somehow means that it is naught but a cracker and you can do with as you will?
Who says I can't tell the difference? I've stated more than once that I do not believe young Mr Cook was 'right' to do what he did, just as I've stated my belief that PZ Myers was clumsy in his allegedly satirical rant on the subject. All I have tried to say is that it seems, to me, that there has been a disproportionately hysterical response to what I -- and (presumably) the majority of the world (i.e. the entirety of the non devout catholic population) -- view as being no more and no less than a biscuit. There have been a few deviations and tangents along the way, I grant you.

I've said that I think it was a daft thing to do. I've agreed that he should face whatever punishment is deemed appropriate in light of the fact that he is, apparently, some form of 'official' representative of his university. I accept that some people consider it to be more than a cracker, but I stand by my assertion that nobody who had not seen it blessed by an official acting in persona Christi would be able to discern the difference between it and any other cracker from the box.

Way back in the thread I made the mistake of using the phrase "objective fact". Despite my acknowledgement that it opens up a line of reasoning that can quickly become absurd, and my suggestion/request that it be ignored, it's led to a downward spiral of analogies both good and not so good, culminating in your suggestion that you should be allowed to feed the decaying corpses of my ancestors to your pigs, something that I -- perhaps irrationally -- found pretty damned offensive.

If your intent was merely to offend then, bravo, you've succeeded. If, on the other hand, your intent was to get me to agree that there is no difference between someone taking a cracker (that they have been given freely) home in a plastic bag and someone exhuming corpses from private burial plots to feed them to their pigs, on the basis that both the cracker and the corpses are dear to someone, then I will never be convinced.

Meh, I tire of this. Call it a cop-out if you will, but I see no value in my continuing to defend my belief that the two cannot be reasonably compared.

What makes you think that for a charge of misappropriation, the one guilty has control over it?

Totally false analogy. The whole idea about misappropriation, embezzlement, and all other inappropriate transactions is that the individual does not have title. Possession, but not title. For misappropriation to occur there needs to be a legal duty...there isn't here. It was given to him.
Really? So if you were given a grant to do research and you blew the money on hooker and booze, well that's ok? If I received a scholarship for school tuition and used the money to buy a new iPhone that's not illegal? How about a student loan? I KNOW I signed notes for that that said the money was mine and I had to pay it back, but, gee, there are also laws that state I cannot use the money for anything other than school related costs.

And show that title did indeed pass over to him. Communion always includes the text from the Gospels about communion and includes the "Eat in rememberence of Me", obviously this a command to EAT the sucker, not take it away, not play with it, not sell it on eBay.

Just handing someone something does not mean it is given fully free and clear with no strings attached.

Really? So if you were given a grant to do research and you blew the money on hooker and booze, well that's ok? If I received a scholarship for school tuition and used the money to buy a new iPhone that's not illegal? How about a student loan? I KNOW I signed notes for that that said the money was mine and I had to pay it back, but, gee, there are also laws that state I cannot use the money for anything other than school related costs.

And in everything you mentioned is either a contractual relationship or there is pre-existing legislation dictating the type of property conveyance.

I will ask you to show me the law on point here.

And show that title did indeed pass over to him. Communion always includes the text from the Gospels about communion and includes the "Eat in rememberence of Me", obviously this a command to EAT the sucker, not take it away, not play with it, not sell it on eBay.

Thankfully religious law is not actually law, which relates below:

Just handing someone something does not mean it is given fully free and clear with no strings attached.

True, however for that to be the case a few things have to occur:

1) there has to be a legally recognized duty between the offeror and the offeree

2) there has to be a contractual agreement as to the handling of those chattels.

The legal principle is, as a matter of law, absent those two things, when you give me something, you do give it to me free and clear. Every example you came up with just proves the point, they're all examples predicated on the existence of one or more of those two points. So where's the legal duty? Where's the legally enforceable agreement? And I'm not being picky here and trying to engage in a "prove there is!" "no you prove there isn't!" argument here, but that is how the law works. For something to be a crime there has to be a statute on point criminalizing it. And in general, those statutes relate to those two points. You must have either a legal duty, or a legally enforceable agreement. And while the gospels might say something, that's not really law.

And once you eliminate criminal actions, we're left with civil actions, namely contract liability and tortious actions. If you're going to argue contracts you're going to need to show some consideration, and I'm not seeing it here. Which just leaves torts, namely trespass on chattels/conversion, and the problem therein is that there was no expectation that it would ever be returned.

And as much as you try to throw in examples, again, they prove the point, if you give me something, it is mine unless there's some legal duty in place otherwise. So where's that legal duty? Misappropriation is an agent using the principal's materials, that the agent has possession of, in a way that the principal doesn't approve of, and we recognize misappropriation when the principal transfers possession of the chattel to the agent for the principal's benefit.

Where's the benefit?

Unless their dog also dies, their husband also left them, or their house also burned down.
Perhaps, but even that's iffy. There are plenty of ways to respond to the same event.

I understand exactly what it means. What I don't understand is their feelings about it. Now, if I were talking about their feelings, you might have had a point, provided I wasn't a religious person who had an exceedingly mild infraction of dogma inflicted upon him by some callous brat.
I'm not so sure it's a "mild infraction." It's not murder, but the Eucharist is a fundamental part of being a Catholic. Mistreating the Host is (literally) like mistreating Jesus, as you know. (Putting Jesus in your mouth and chewing him, of course, is fine :).)
And feelings are the whole issue here. Canon law doesn't say those who do not consume the host shall be put to death. People at this parish have an emotional attachment to the Host. There's no reason anyone besides them should understand this attachment, but that means only they can understand their response.

Perhaps, but even that's iffy. There are plenty of ways to respond to the same event.

True, but sadness is sadness (or, as the Irish proverb goes, "all tears are the same"), and so on with the other emotions.

I'm not so sure it's a "mild infraction." It's not murder, but the Eucharist is a fundamental part of being a Catholic. Mistreating the Host is (literally) like mistreating Jesus, as you know. (Putting Jesus in your mouth and chewing him, of course, is fine :).)
And feelings are the whole issue here. Canon law doesn't say those who do not consume the host shall be put to death. People at this parish have an emotional attachment to the Host. There's no reason anyone besides them should understand this attachment, but that means only they can understand their response.

Then those with sin are casting plenty of stones, if the threats are real.

You contend that only that church in that parish can understand the attachment to the eucharist. I say that's poppycock.

yes religion is silly.

But this is not an issue of stealing just some produce. The individuals should have known this. Whilst the calls for their death is inappropriate so where their actions

People keep calling for rational discussion... in just about a year and a half here I have yet to see anything about religion that borders rational discussion.

Love triumphs hate, everytime.

I might consider this for my country's new motto.

I might consider this for my country's new motto.

i wouldnt go with it

surely it should be

love TRUMPS hate everytime

or love triumphs OVER hate everytime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

In medieval times, allegations of host desecration against the Jews were held to justify anything from destruction of synagogues to outright extermination of all Jews in some areas. While modern Catholics no longer consider it to warrant genocide (just as they've given up Crusades, Inquisitions, torture, and burning at the stake for heresy), this should give an idea of how seriously the Church takes it.

I'm not a Catholic, but I'd think someone who is, like Mr. Cook, likely went to a Catholic school and learned Catholic history...

That guy is L-Y-I-N-G. That's as far as my analysis of the situation goes. AFAIK, in the US, many people are unhappy with the Catholic Church. You can get quite some attention with such a story. And I wouldn't even be surprised if local media join in the festivities...

That guy is L-Y-I-N-G.
What do you mean? About the death threats, the incident itself or perhaps community reaction?

What the fuck kinda church did you go to?

He doesn't. See previous posts of his.

Sounds like poor manors to me (very very very poor)

Sure as hell don't sound like a hate crime

Would it be a hate crime if you went and took it to piss them off?

Do they actually have these stores?! I wonder how they taste with guacamole...

Sometimes it is basic unleavened (I think I spelt that right) bread, something which you might find at a Middle Eastern bakery.

Most western people, including christians, thought that the Muslim hatred of the cartoon of Mohammed were over the top. But this is exactly the same thing.

Yeah all those people going out on protests in the streets is what gave it away for me that made it the same thing, not a few if any people giving him an apparent death threat.

What I find strange is the fact that he thought the best way to handle it (well I suppose it was his friends according to the article) was to go to the media and not to the police. Yeah that sounds like someone who has had real death threats I will await a followup report that he has reported these "death threats" to the police.

Would it be a hate crime if you went and took it to piss them off?

Probably not, for two reasons. First, a crime typically has to be violent to be considered a hate crime. Second, for something to be a “hate crime” in the United States there has to be an underlying criminal act, the motivation for which is bias, hate, or bigotry. For example, killing someone is a crime, killing someone because he is black is a hate crime. But you can’t have a hate crime without an underlying criminal act, and I don’t think there was one here at all.

Yes, yes it is.

This story has been rumbling away for a while, as mentioned in this OP (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=560264), and it's been given a fresh lease of life by the fact that a University of Minnesota professor (in a blog post (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php) that he claims to have been meant as satirical) said that, if someone were to send him a consecrated cracker he'd show them what desecration really looked like.

Needless to say, this provoked a bit more protest, notably from the Catholic League, who are predictably 'outraged' (http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459). He has also now allegedly received death threats.

And this guy is a professor? What has he been stuck in his office for to many years and wants some attention?

Fair enough, it wasn't the wisest action by the student in the first place, nor was Myers' post ever likely to lead to anything but more frothing from the more reactionary members of the Catholic community, but death threats? calling it a hate crime?

Some people seem to be incapable of maintaining perspective. Regardless of any beliefs held by any of the people in this affair, the objective fact remains that it's a biscuit.

Well has Myers done it because he doesn't like (hates?) the Catrholic Church simply to piss them off? If so it may be a hate crime.

You know the Torah is just a book if I decide to burn it and go to the media and show everyone how good I am and what a hero I am, hey it's only a book.

Well has Myers done it because he doesn't like (hates?) the Catrholic Church simply to piss them off? If so it may be a hate crime.

No, it wouldn't be, as there's no underlying criminal act.

You know the Torah is just a book if I decide to burn it and go to the media and show everyone how good I am and what a hero I am, hey it's only a book.

If you burn someone else's Torah, that might arguably be a hate crime. If you burn your own it's probably not.

Yeah, instead of killing him on the spot he gets threatened to be killed. Way to go progress!

Yeah you know because it was the leaders of the church issuing these death threats.

Be that as it may, he decided to take the cracker to his seat, and gets assaulted for it? What the heck were people even paying enough attention to him to notice that he didn't eat his cracker?

As for the people sending death threats... Some fine examples of christian hypocricy. Mind I'm not saying all christians are hypocrits by that sentence. I mean these people who are both doing and threatening to do stuff their religion prohibits (threaten to kill, judging others). I've seen a lot of christian hypocricy in my days but these people are among the top 5-10 at the least.

People may not have been or because he was stopped earlier they may have kept his eye on him, the same way people who have been found guilty of criminal offences are kept an eye on by the police, or maybe know one was looking at him and he is making up the whole death threats thing it may have been one person saying he was a bad person and will go to hell for it.

I do say that issuing death threats is not the right way to go about it, and as for Christian hypocrisy, yes I see a lot of it, I see a lot of hypocrisy's from people of other faiths and from atheists and from almost everybody else I have ever met, people are only human but let us not stop that from having a good time.

Probably not, for two reasons. First, a crime typically has to be violent to be considered a hate crime. Second, for something to be a “hate crime” in the United States there has to be an underlying criminal act, the motivation for which is bias, hate, or bigotry. For example, killing someone is a crime, killing someone because he is black is a hate crime. But you can’t have a hate crime without an underlying criminal act, and I don’t think there was one here at all.

Thanks for the clarification. I have heard of (bearing in mind that it is by no way credible and I don't claim it to be) that if for example you bashed up a black man, not because he was black but simply because he was a little prick (and I am not saying that is the right thing to do either) could be considered a hate crime espeicially in the US

"For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage – regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance – is beyond hate speech. One would think taking it hostage is at least better than eating it.

For misappropriation to occur there needs to be a legal duty...there isn't here. It was given to him.

Now and I am sure being a hot shot lawyer you can always come back with a counter argument ;). But it was given to him on the condidtion that he consume it immediately and not take it outside of the church walls. A bit like how I buy a beer at a pub but am not allowed to take it outside of the walls of the pub despite the fact that I have brought it from the pub and is now mine.

Thanks for the clarification. I have heard of (bearing in mind that it is by no way credible and I don't claim it to be) that if for example you bashed up a black man, not because he was black but simply because he was a little prick (and I am not saying that is the right thing to do either) could be considered a hate crime espeicially in the US

a fundamental misunderstanding of how hate crimes work. For something to be demonstrated as a hate crime two things must be true:

1) that your actions were motivated by hate, not merely that your actions targeted someone of a class. But the fact that your acts targeted a particular race does not give rise to hate crime, especially since “black” is not a protected class, but “race” is. Beating up someone because he’s white is every bit as much a hate crime as beating up someone because he’s black. There’s no automatic presumption of a hate crime, there needs to be demonstrated motive to commit the crime because of a hatred or bias against your target because of his classifications based on race, gender, religion or, in some states, sexuality. Such motivation can be presumed by the conduct. For instance cross burning may be considered evidence of hate related motivation. The use of epitaphs during the commission of your act may be considered evidence of motivation.

2) the underlying act must be criminal

a fundamental misunderstanding of how hate crimes work. For something to be demonstrated as a hate crime two things must be true:

1) that your actions were motivated by hate, not merely that your actions targeted someone of a class. But the fact that your acts targeted a particular race does not give rise to hate crime, especially since “black” is not a protected class, but “race” is. Beating up someone because he’s white is every bit as much a hate crime as beating up someone because he’s black. There’s no automatic presumption of a hate crime, there needs to be demonstrated motive to commit the crime because of a hatred or bias against your target because of his classifications based on race, gender, religion or, in some states, sexuality. Such motivation can be presumed by the conduct. For instance cross burning may be considered evidence of hate related motivation. The use of epitaphs during the commission of your act may be considered evidence of motivation.

2) the underlying act must be criminal

Ok yes thank you very much, I suppose not everyone does have a deep understanding of what a hate crime actually entails

Now and I am sure being a hot shot lawyer you can always come back with a counter argument ;). But it was given to him on the condidtion that he consume it immediately and not take it outside of the church walls. A bit like how I buy a beer at a pub but am not allowed to take it outside of the walls of the pub despite the fact that I have brought it from the pub and is now mine.

And again you fall into the same trap of not recognizing the fundamental difference. You can’t take the beer you bought outside the bar because of two things:

1) the beer might be yours, but the glass is not, as it was given to you with the understood expectation of return which means that proper title never passed, as it was never given to you. Here there is no expectation that he return the wafer after he ate it (probably a good thing) so you can’t argue that point

2) perhaps most importantly, you can’t take the beer outside because there are laws about having open containers of alcohol out in public. You can’t take the beer outside because stepping outside would violate a legal duty, namely, to not have open containers of beer outside.

But if it wasn’t illegal to have alchohol in an open container in public, and they served it to you in a cup they did not expect you to return, then there’d be no problem. If you go to McDonalds, buy a soda in those throw away cups, fill it with coke and walk out can they stop you? No, not really. Because the soda was given to you free and clear with no legal duty existing between you and the restaurant, and no expectation of return of either the beer, or the cup.

The fact that maybe McDonald’s only wanted you to drink the soda in the restaurant, and not leave with it, is “mere hope”, it’s precatory, not legally enforceable.

And again you fall into the same trap of not recognizing the fundamental difference. You can’t take the beer you bought outside the bar because of two things:

1) the beer might be yours, but the glass is not, as it was given to you with the understood expectation of return which means that proper title never passed, as it was never given to you. Here there is no expectation that he return the wafer after he ate it (probably a good thing) so you can’t argue that point

Not all beer is sold in a glass.

2) perhaps most importantly, you can’t take the beer outside because there are laws about having open containers of alcohol out in public. You can’t take the beer outside because stepping outside would violate a legal duty, namely, to not have open containers of beer outside.

But if it wasn’t illegal to have alchohol in an open container in public, and they served it to you in a cup they did not expect you to return, then there’d be no problem. If you go to McDonalds, buy a soda in those throw away cups, fill it with coke and walk out can they stop you? No, not really. Because the soda was given to you free and clear with no legal duty existing between you and the restaurant, and no expectation of return of either the beer, or the cup.

The fact that maybe McDonald’s only wanted you to drink the soda in the restaurant, and not leave with it, is “mere hope”, it’s precatory, not legally enforceable.

Some laws are like that, I know that in my area their are no laws that state we cannot have open alcohol containers as some pubs allow this, others however do not allow it because it is house rules and the pub will not allow you to take it outside (unless you want to try your luck with a few bouncers, now there is an idea on what the church should do). There is still the expectation and ruling that when you purchase a beer which may be in a bottle you do not take it outside, the same goes for the church.

Not all beer is sold in a glass.



Some laws are like that, I know that in my area their are no laws that state we cannot have open alcohol containers as some pubs allow this, others however do not allow it because it is house rules and the pub will not allow you to take it outside (unless you want to try your luck with a few bouncers, now there is an idea on what the church should do). There is still the expectation and ruling that when you purchase a beer which may be in a bottle you do not take it outside, the same goes for the church.

And I think those pubs would have a very hard time demonstrating that their conduct is legal.

And I think those pubs would have a very hard time demonstrating that their conduct is legal.

Well it has been going on for as long as I have been drinking in them about 5-6 years and they haven't been stopped so far. Maybe because you and me live in different parts of the world and so different laws apply and what is accepted by society apply, who knows.

Well it has been going on for as long as I have been drinking in them about 5-6 years and they haven't been stopped so far. Maybe because you and me live in different parts of the world and so different laws apply and what is accepted by society apply, who knows.

well that's also true...where are you?

well that's also true...where are you?

Australia, sorry if I don't reply for about 20 hours I am off to bed long day ahead of me.

Australia, sorry if I don't reply for about 20 hours I am off to bed long day ahead of me.

oh, I have no clue about australian law....

oh, I have no clue about australian law....

You didn't have a clue about the Second Amendment, either.

http://cectic.com/comics/169.png

No, it wouldn't be, as there's no underlying criminal act.

hypothetically, if i were to...i mean if someone who totally isn't me were to offer to give back their wafer for an unreasonable sum of money, this would still be kosher, yes?

i wouldnt go with it

surely it should be

love TRUMPS hate everytime

or love triumphs OVER hate everytime.

Hehe trumps.

oh, I have no clue about australian law....

Umm, I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but if not fair enough Australian liquor laws are a bit different to the US.

You didn't have a clue about the Second Amendment, either.

Completely off-topic, but I find your obsession with claiming Neo Art was "wrong" (or "didn't have a clue") about the Second Amendment extremely amusing.

Since when does explaining a position that was nearly unanimously taken by the federal courts (including almost all the U.S. Courts of Appeals) for at least 50 years amount to being clueless?

Since when does agreeing with 4 of 9 Supreme Court Justices amount to being completely clueless about a legal subject?

You may be right to herald the decision in D.C. v. Heller (U.S.S.C. 2008) as an important milestone and a breakthrough for your side of a political debate, but it hardly makes anyone that disagrees clueless.

Moreover, your trumpeting of Heller suggests to me you either have not read or did not understand the rather narrow (but nonetheless important) position struck by the majority.

BTW, do you realize that your "quote" from Heller isn't actually from the opinion? It is from the syllabus (or headnote) and is expressly not part of the opinion of the Court or of any legal significance.

Completely off-topic, but I find your obsession with claiming Neo Art was "wrong" (or "didn't have a clue") about the Second Amendment extremely amusing.

Since when does explaining a position that was nearly unanimously taken by the federal courts (including almost all the U.S. Courts of Appeals) for at least 50 years amount to being clueless?

Since when does agreeing with 4 of 9 Supreme Court Justices amount to being completely clueless about a legal subject?

You may be right to herald the decision in D.C. v. Heller (U.S.S.C. 2008) as an important milestone and a breakthrough for your side of a political debate, but it hardly makes anyone that disagrees clueless.

Moreover, your trumpeting of Heller suggests to me you either have not read or did not understand the rather narrow (but nonetheless important) position struck by the majority.

BTW, do you realize that your "quote" from Heller isn't actually from the opinion? It is from the syllabus (or headnote) and is expressly not part of the opinion of the Court or of any legal significance.

Yay! Still alive! People here miss you. *bows*