|
Symbols are arbitrary values. No they aren't. A symbol isn't a value. A symbol might have a value associated with it, but the symbol isn't the value. Additionally, the values of Catholicism aren't arbitrary either, if that's what you're pointing at.
Regardless of your position, encouraging hateful and disrespectful practices against any religion goes against the universal declaration of human rights. If the kid wanted a host, bam, he coulda gotten one. Don't be an apologist. The church isn't asking that he's hung and quartered. This is only an issue because the kid is so pig nosed about this.
The question I asked is would you condemn someone for attacking the church of scientology like this guy did? I would. If you don't agree with them, leave them the fuck alone. I have no ideas what scientologists consider sacred, but if you think its bullshit, which the comparison alludes to, then just let them be. Here's my question: would you condemn someone for attacking a place of worship in general? If no, then inc was 100% right on his first reply. If yes, then your own rhetorical example was useless.
|
United States22883 Posts
At what point does relativity end then? Ritualistic sacrifice? When one religion's morals are being impeded on by another religion's actions? "Universal declaration of human rights" is a pretty lame answer if you're on the losing side.
And if you want to talk history, yes they are arbitrary, just as they were for Anglicans and the Church of England when Henry decided he wanted a divorce.
|
United States43813 Posts
On July 11 2008 11:23 L wrote: No they aren't. A symbol isn't a value. A symbol might have a value associated with it, but the symbol isn't the value. Additionally, the values of Catholicism aren't arbitrary either, if that's what you're pointing at. Regardless of your position, encouraging hateful and disrespectful practices against any religion goes against the universal declaration of human rights. If the kid wanted a host, bam, he coulda gotten one. Don't be an apologist. The church isn't asking that he's hung and quartered. This is only an issue because the kid is so pig nosed about this. Show nested quote +The question I asked is would you condemn someone for attacking the church of scientology like this guy did? I would. If you don't agree with them, leave them the fuck alone. I have no ideas what scientologists consider sacred, but if you think its bullshit, which the comparison alludes to, then just let them be. Here's my question: would you condemn someone for attacking a place of worship in general? If no, then inc was 100% right on his first reply. If yes, then your own rhetorical example was useless.
MacDonalds goes out of their way to encourage people to eat cows. How do you think Hindus feel about that? End of the day other peoples beliefs should have no control over your actions. They can influence you, in as much as you might not want to offend them, but ultimately if you're in the mood to offend then that is your prerogative.
Think about it like this. You and a friend are with your respective wives. Your friend looks lovingly at his wife and says something like "don't you think she's just the most perfect woman in the world". Now you respect your friend and his beliefs but your wife is now glaring at you across the table. So as much as you don't want to offend him you have to think of your sex life and say "fuck no, that ugly bitch ain't got shit on my wife". Just because it's something he believes very strongly and is very important to him personally doesn't change this and if you would act otherwise in this situation you're a pussy.
People have the right to believe whatever crap they like. But once they expect others to change the way they act based around their beliefs they cross a line. The way you act is none of their business.
|
On July 11 2008 11:23 L wrote:
Regardless of your position, encouraging hateful and disrespectful practices against any religion goes against the universal declaration of human rights.
I can't help but laugh.
|
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is silly. It is overly long, and contains many questionable points.
If you read the whole thing, it basically says, "Everybody has the right to live in Denmark."
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
|
United States43813 Posts
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an idealistic and impractical document which cannot bear two people with contrasting and conflicting beliefs. It's largely ignored given it has absolutely no legal bearing.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On July 11 2008 11:45 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2008 11:23 L wrote:Symbols are arbitrary values. No they aren't. A symbol isn't a value. A symbol might have a value associated with it, but the symbol isn't the value. Additionally, the values of Catholicism aren't arbitrary either, if that's what you're pointing at. Regardless of your position, encouraging hateful and disrespectful practices against any religion goes against the universal declaration of human rights. If the kid wanted a host, bam, he coulda gotten one. Don't be an apologist. The church isn't asking that he's hung and quartered. This is only an issue because the kid is so pig nosed about this. The question I asked is would you condemn someone for attacking the church of scientology like this guy did? I would. If you don't agree with them, leave them the fuck alone. I have no ideas what scientologists consider sacred, but if you think its bullshit, which the comparison alludes to, then just let them be. Here's my question: would you condemn someone for attacking a place of worship in general? If no, then inc was 100% right on his first reply. If yes, then your own rhetorical example was useless. MacDonalds goes out of their way to encourage people to eat cows. How do you think Hindus feel about that? End of the day other peoples beliefs should have no control over your actions. They can influence you, in as much as you might not want to offend them, but ultimately if you're in the mood to offend then that is your prerogative. Think about it like this. You and a friend are with your respective wives. Your friend looks lovingly at his wife and says something like "don't you think she's just the most perfect woman in the world". Now you respect your friend and his beliefs but your wife is now glaring at you across the table. So as much as you don't want to offend him you have to think of your sex life and say "fuck no, that ugly bitch ain't got shit on my wife". Just because it's something he believes very strongly and is very important to him personally doesn't change this and if you would act otherwise in this situation you're a pussy. People have the right to believe whatever crap they like. But once they expect others to change the way they act based around their beliefs they cross a line. The way you act is none of their business.
smirk shake your head
nahhhhh, second best
and no your argument is retarded because as much as it is your right to offend them it's also their right to get mad thats why you just have to ignore stupid people (aka people with religions and spiritual bread that can be kidnapped)
and L is retarded too 'if you don't agree with them leave them the fuck alone'
HOW ABOUT THEY LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE FIRST
lol
|
Freedom of religion isn't something to laugh at.
MacDonalds goes out of their way to encourage people to eat cows. How do you think Hindus feel about that? End of the day other peoples beliefs should have no control over your actions. They can influence you, in as much as you might not want to offend them, but ultimately if you're in the mood to offend then that is your prerogative.
Are hindus stealing cows from farms that sell to mcdonalds? Would you have an issue with that? I would. No one's faulting people for disagreeing with catholicism, they're disagreeing with theft and disrespect. If at the end of the day other's people's beliefs really have no control over my actions, then things like zoning laws shouldn't exist. Fuck your neighborhood, I want to put up a strip joint in a residential area and fuck your beliefs about sex and minors.
Oh. Reductio says you're wrong.
There's a difference between having a passive disagreement with someone, and actively stealing shit from them. Again, see candles. Are you allowed to steal passover candelabra because you don't believe in property rights or religion? No. You aren't. Secular society has just as many sacred cows as religious society does, and its pretty evident that such is true when you look at things like gun control. Last i checked, your position was one supporting gun control, and yet here you're of the position here that a belief shouldn't ever infringe on someone else's freedoms.
Logically incoherent unless you qualify beliefs under categories like "religious" and "social", at which point your argument becomes "religious beliefs mean fuck all". If that's your position, say it, at which point we'll be back at inc's first post.
HOW ABOUT THEY LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE FIRST Maybe they should, but they weren't the ones going to mass to jack a host. I doubt the religious community in question would be up in arms if nothing had been done to them first.
|
United States43813 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:02 Rekrul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2008 11:45 Kwark wrote:On July 11 2008 11:23 L wrote:Symbols are arbitrary values. No they aren't. A symbol isn't a value. A symbol might have a value associated with it, but the symbol isn't the value. Additionally, the values of Catholicism aren't arbitrary either, if that's what you're pointing at. Regardless of your position, encouraging hateful and disrespectful practices against any religion goes against the universal declaration of human rights. If the kid wanted a host, bam, he coulda gotten one. Don't be an apologist. The church isn't asking that he's hung and quartered. This is only an issue because the kid is so pig nosed about this. The question I asked is would you condemn someone for attacking the church of scientology like this guy did? I would. If you don't agree with them, leave them the fuck alone. I have no ideas what scientologists consider sacred, but if you think its bullshit, which the comparison alludes to, then just let them be. Here's my question: would you condemn someone for attacking a place of worship in general? If no, then inc was 100% right on his first reply. If yes, then your own rhetorical example was useless. MacDonalds goes out of their way to encourage people to eat cows. How do you think Hindus feel about that? End of the day other peoples beliefs should have no control over your actions. They can influence you, in as much as you might not want to offend them, but ultimately if you're in the mood to offend then that is your prerogative. Think about it like this. You and a friend are with your respective wives. Your friend looks lovingly at his wife and says something like "don't you think she's just the most perfect woman in the world". Now you respect your friend and his beliefs but your wife is now glaring at you across the table. So as much as you don't want to offend him you have to think of your sex life and say "fuck no, that ugly bitch ain't got shit on my wife". Just because it's something he believes very strongly and is very important to him personally doesn't change this and if you would act otherwise in this situation you're a pussy. People have the right to believe whatever crap they like. But once they expect others to change the way they act based around their beliefs they cross a line. The way you act is none of their business. smirk shake your head nahhhhh, second best and no your argument is retarded because as much as it is your right to offend them it's also their right to get mad thats why you just have to ignore stupid people (aka people with religions and spiritual bread that can be kidnapped) and L is retarded too 'if you don't agree with them leave them the fuck alone' HOW ABOUT THEY LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE FIRST lol
As long as you doing what you want doesn't directly interfere with them it's nothing to do with them. You have the freedom to desecrate your own bread if that's what you like doing. They have the freedom to get really angry over it if that's what they get off on. It's when they start grabbing him that they're imposing upon his freedom and that's when they cross the line.
|
United States43813 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:06 L wrote:Freedom of religion isn't something to laugh at. Show nested quote +MacDonalds goes out of their way to encourage people to eat cows. How do you think Hindus feel about that? End of the day other peoples beliefs should have no control over your actions. They can influence you, in as much as you might not want to offend them, but ultimately if you're in the mood to offend then that is your prerogative.
Are hindus stealing cows from farms that sell to mcdonalds? Would you have an issue with that? I would. No one's faulting people for disagreeing with catholicism, they're disagreeing with theft and disrespect. If at the end of the day other's people's beliefs really have no control over my actions, then things like zoning laws shouldn't exist. Fuck your neighborhood, I want to put up a strip joint in a residential area and fuck your beliefs about sex and minors. Oh. Reductio says you're wrong. There's a difference between having a passive disagreement with someone, and actively stealing shit from them. Again, see candles. Are you allowed to steal passover candelabra because you don't believe in property rights or religion? No. You aren't. Secular society has just as many sacred cows as religious society does, and its pretty evident that such is true when you look at things like gun control. Last i checked, your position was one supporting gun control, and yet here you're of the position here that a belief shouldn't ever infringe on someone else's freedoms. Logically incoherent unless you qualify beliefs under categories like "religious" and "social", at which point your argument becomes "religious beliefs mean fuck all". If that's your position, say it, at which point we'll be back at inc's first post.
He didn't steal and he's allowed to be disrespectful.
If a priest gave me some wafer and I then chose to piss on it then that's none of their business. It's my damn wafer, he gave it to me and I can do what the fuck I like with it.
If he then said I shouldn't desecrate it because it's actually the body of the Son of God I'd be well within my rights to say "no, it's a wafer, it's my wafer and I'm going to do whatever I like with it".
If he then said he'd get offended I'd still be within my rights to go "rofl, cry more noob".
The guy didn't steal. He was given the wafer freely. He disregarded a religious belief and that's absolutely fine because religious beliefs have no bearing on the actions of those who don't share them. The guy grabbing him because he was offending his religious beliefs is right up there with stoning gays as an abomination. It's taking a religious belief and using it to impose upon the freedom of another individual.
|
On July 11 2008 11:04 MyLostTemple wrote:
lol i remember going to catholic school where they fill your head with bullshit about how important the Eucharist is. i sorta feel bad for this church because i know they really do feel that the cracker is sacred. but at the same time the concept is so bogus it's sorta funny to read a story like this.
i remember being in class and asking my teacher over and over again to explain how the Eucharist became the body of Christ and she just couldn't make sense of it. that's probably because it doesn't make any sense at all.
I just lost a lot of respect for you. Perhaps if you had paid more attention and not just looked for ways to criticize it you might understand. Religion is such an easy thing to bash and if you didn't know, all these things have been said before many, many times. It takes faith to be a member of a religion. A lot of these things can't be proven but they were constructed following the teachings of what many people believe to be the son of God.
In the end, this whole situation boils down to respect for other people or groups. But I guess plenty of you were never taught respect.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
If everything is based on faith why do you need to eat some jesus crackers. Could save a lot of time removing communion from services, they usually have donuts and shit in the cafeteria after mass anyways.
|
United States43813 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:15 Fr33t wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2008 11:04 MyLostTemple wrote:
lol i remember going to catholic school where they fill your head with bullshit about how important the Eucharist is. i sorta feel bad for this church because i know they really do feel that the cracker is sacred. but at the same time the concept is so bogus it's sorta funny to read a story like this.
i remember being in class and asking my teacher over and over again to explain how the Eucharist became the body of Christ and she just couldn't make sense of it. that's probably because it doesn't make any sense at all. I just lost a lot of respect for you. Perhaps if you had paid more attention and not just looked for ways to criticize it you might understand. Religion is such an easy thing to bash and if you didn't know, all these things have been said before many, many times. It takes faith to be a member of a religion. A lot of these things can't be proven but they were constructed following the teachings of what many people believe to be the son of God. In the end, this whole situation boils down to respect for other people or groups. But I guess plenty of you were never taught respect.
The debate isn't whether he was disrespectful. He was. The argument is whether it is justified for someone in the Church to grab him and try and force him against his will to give back his wafer on the basis of religious beliefs. I'm not defending disrespect. I'm defending the right to act as you see fit, provided it doesn't directly interfere with others, without fear of violence. He was denied this.
And if you lose respect for someone just because he doesn't understand how a cracker is also the body of Christ and finds the idea rather funny then I think it is you who is being closed minded. I find it far easier to empathise with the idea that transubstantiation into something else is laughable than the idea that bread is in some way also flesh. Try to think more about the beliefs of others yo.
|
On July 11 2008 12:21 Rekrul wrote:
If everything is based on faith why do you need to eat some jesus crackers. Could save a lot of time removing communion from services, they usually have donuts and shit in the cafeteria after mass anyways.
Apparently, salvation comes from the Eucharist.
EDIT: But if that's true, shouldn't the Catholics who are angry be happy that this guy didn't consume the wafer?
|
On July 11 2008 12:13 Kwark wrote:
He didn't steal and he's allowed to be disrespectful.
If a priest gave me some wafer and I then chose to piss on it then that's none of their business. It's my damn wafer, he gave it to me and I can do what the fuck I like with it.
If he then said I shouldn't desecrate it because it's actually the body of the Son of God I'd be well within my rights to say "no, it's a wafer, it's my wafer and I'm going to do whatever I like with it".
If he then said he'd get offended I'd still be within my rights to go "rofl, cry more noob".
The guy didn't steal. He was given the wafer freely. He disregarded a religious belief and that's absolutely fine because religious beliefs have no bearing on the actions of those who don't share them. The guy grabbing him because he was offending his religious beliefs is right up there with stoning gays as an abomination. It's taking a religious belief and using it to impose upon the freedom of another individual.
He was not "given the wafer" in a legal sense, he was allowed to participate in the ritual. The wafer never became his property, although he had permission to consume and thereby destroy it. There was an implied contract that he was receiving the wafer for the sole purpose of consuming it.
If you go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and you fill up a container and you leave, you're stealing. Why? Because it's not your food. Even when you put it on a plate, it is not your property. Even if a server gives it to you, it does not become your property. You simply have permission to take it back to your table and eat it. If the restaurant management comes to your table and takes your full plate away, you can't interfere with them or charge them with theft (although you can possibly sue them for breach of contract). If you try to take food away from the restaurant, its representatives can lawfully interfere with your attempted crime.
It's the same principle. He stole that wafer. It was a crime. They had a right to resist the commission of that crime.
|
On July 11 2008 12:25 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2008 12:21 Rekrul wrote:
If everything is based on faith why do you need to eat some jesus crackers. Could save a lot of time removing communion from services, they usually have donuts and shit in the cafeteria after mass anyways. Apparently, salvation comes from the Eucharist. EDIT: But if that's true, shouldn't the Catholics who are angry be happy that this guy didn't consume the wafer?
Catholics are angry that he didn't consume the wafer. But, since he had no intention of actually consuming it, we wanted it back rather than it just be tossed aside like a regular object.
|
United States43813 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:27 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2008 12:13 Kwark wrote:
He didn't steal and he's allowed to be disrespectful.
If a priest gave me some wafer and I then chose to piss on it then that's none of their business. It's my damn wafer, he gave it to me and I can do what the fuck I like with it.
If he then said I shouldn't desecrate it because it's actually the body of the Son of God I'd be well within my rights to say "no, it's a wafer, it's my wafer and I'm going to do whatever I like with it".
If he then said he'd get offended I'd still be within my rights to go "rofl, cry more noob".
The guy didn't steal. He was given the wafer freely. He disregarded a religious belief and that's absolutely fine because religious beliefs have no bearing on the actions of those who don't share them. The guy grabbing him because he was offending his religious beliefs is right up there with stoning gays as an abomination. It's taking a religious belief and using it to impose upon the freedom of another individual. He was not "given the wafer" in a legal sense, he was allowed to participate in the ritual. The wafer never became his property, although he had permission to consume and thereby destroy it. There was an implied contract that he was receiving the wafer for the sole purpose of consuming it. If you go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and you fill up a container and you leave, you're stealing. Why? Because it's not your food. Even when you put it on a plate, it is not your property. Even if a server gives it to you, it does not become your property. You simply have permission to take it back to your table and eat it. If the restaurant management comes to your table and takes your full plate away, you can't interfere with them or charge them with theft (although you can possibly sue them for breach of contract). If you try to take food away from the restaurant, its representatives can lawfully interfere with your attempted crime. It's the same principle. He stole that wafer. It was a crime. They had a right to resist the commission of that crime.
I think that's bs but we really need The Bear to settle this one. If a friend asked for the present he gave me for christmas back because he wasn't giving it to me in a strictly legal but rather inviting me to participate in christmas I'd be like wtf.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
They also have the right to worry about things that matter instead of going after some punk kid.
The kid is very wrong in this case, he's a little punk by stealing that as I was (though I wasn't dumb enough to get caught by zealots LOL), but this incident just shows how much of a joke america has become.
|
He didn't steal and he's allowed to be disrespectful.
If a priest gave me some wafer and I then chose to piss on it then that's none of their business. It's my damn wafer, he gave it to me and I can do what the fuck I like with it.
1) He did steal. He went to recieve communion and walked away, when told to eat it he hid it in his mouth and took it out later. This shows he was clearly cognizant of how important the host was, and took it anyways. He was talked to later about it and then he decided to keep it in a ziplock for spite. The priest doesn't give you a host for you to walk around and make into a pet bread piece. He gives it to you as part of the rite of communion which you're supposed to eat. Basically, your line of reasoning says that i can go to my friend's house, have him serve me a wine and steak dinner, toss the steak on the floor and skate around on it while splashing wine on everything. Its my steak and wine. Fuck him.
2) If he's allowed to do whatever he wants, so is the religious community. Even Rekrul pointed out that double standard. The chaplain said he'd sit down and talk with him about how important the host is... clearly that's going crazy on his ass, right? I can understand if the kid was beaten up or some shit, but that didn't happen. Someone grabbed his hand. Wow. Cry more. Campus politics are FULL of stupid shit like this.
|
United States43813 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:33 Fr33t wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2008 12:25 Mindcrime wrote:On July 11 2008 12:21 Rekrul wrote:
If everything is based on faith why do you need to eat some jesus crackers. Could save a lot of time removing communion from services, they usually have donuts and shit in the cafeteria after mass anyways. Apparently, salvation comes from the Eucharist. EDIT: But if that's true, shouldn't the Catholics who are angry be happy that this guy didn't consume the wafer? Catholics are angry that he didn't consume the wafer. But, since he had no intention of actually consuming it, we wanted it back rather than it just be tossed aside like a regular object.
Again with the fact that he has absolutely no reason to treat it like anything but a wafer. You see non Catholics have a deeply held (and I mean seriously strongly held as in you'll pretty much never be able to convince one otherwise) that wafers are in fact regular objects baked of cereals. Your deeply held belief that he should treat it with reverence was in conflict with his deeply held belief that it was just a wafer. You must understand the awful bind that puts him in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
