Church officials say UCF Student Senator Webster Cook was disruptive and disrespectful when he attended Mass held on campus Sunday June 29. It was during that Mass where Cook admits he obtained the Eucharist.
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."
A church leader was watching, confronted Cook and tried to recover the sacred bread. Cook said she crossed the line and that's why he brought it home with him.
"She came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand," Cook said, adding she wouldn't immediately take her hands off him despite several requests.
Diocese of Orlando spokeswoman Carol Brinati said she was not aware of anyone touching Cook. She released a statement Thursday: "... a Catholic Campus Ministry student representative filed a complaint with the Student Union regarding the behavior of the two young men. A Student Government Representative called Catholic Campus Ministry to apologize for this disruption."
Cook filed an official abuse complaint with UCF's student conduct court regarding the alleged physical force. Following that complaint, Brinati said church members filed their own official complaints of disruptive conduct. Punishment for either offense could result in suspension or expulsion.
"The church feels that I'm the problem here," Cook said. "The problem is actually that this is a publicly-funded religious institution. Through student government here, we fund them through an activity and service, so they're receiving student money."
Cook is upset more than $40,000 in student fees have been allocated to support religious organizations on campus for the 2008-2009 school year, according to student government records. He denied he is holding the Eucharist hostage to protest that support.
Regardless of the reason, the Diocese says its main concern is to get the Eucharist back so it can be taken care of properly and with respect. Cook has been keeping the Eucharist stored in a plastic bag since last Sunday.
"It is hurtful," said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. "Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family."
Gonzalez said the Diocese is willing to meet with Cook and help him understand the importance of the Eucharist in hopes of him returning it. The Diocese is dispatching a nun to UCF's campus to oversee the next mass, protect the Eucharist and in hopes Cook will return it.
Cook said he'd consider returning the Eucharist if he gets an apology and a meeting with the Bishop's office to discuss the Diocese's policy on physical force.
Gonzalez said intentionally abusing the Eucharist is classified as a mortal sin in the Catholic church, the most severe possible. If it's not returned, the community of faith will have to ask for forgiveness.
"We have to make acts of reparation," Gonzalez said. "The whole community is going to turn to prayer. We'll ask the Lord for pardon, forgiveness, peace, not only for the whole community affected by it, but also for [Cook], we offer prayers for him as well."
Copyright 2008 by wftv.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35, Orlando) --A UCF student claims he’s getting death threats for messing with something sacred.
Webster Cook says he smuggled a Eucharist, a small bread wafer that to Catholics symbolic of the Body of Christ after a priest blesses it, out of mass, didn’t eat it as he was supposed to do, but instead walked with it.
Catholics worldwide became furious.
Webster’s friend, who didn’t want to show his face, said he took the Eucharist, to show him what it meant to Catholics.
Webster gave the wafer back, but the Catholic League, a national watchdog organization for Catholic rights claims that is not enough.
“We don’t know 100% what Mr. Cooks 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.”
We just expect the University to take this seriously,” she added “To send a message to not just Mr. Cook but the whole community that this kind of really complete sacrilege will not be tolerated.”
Webster just wants all of this to go away. Especially now that he feels his life is in danger.
University officials said, that as for right now, Webster Cook is not in trouble. If anyone or any group wants to file a formal complaint with the University through the student judicial system, they can.
It that happens, Webster will go through a hearing either in front of an administrative panel or a panel of his peers.
No, no you're not. This will turn into a religion bashing thread asap. This is of course an absurd story that happened in a backwater Florida town. We can laugh but really this is going nowhere. I love how you alluded to the age old claim that Catholics are canibals and whether or not the cracker has symbolic importance
No, no you're not. This will turn into a religion bashing thread asap. This is of course an absurd story that happened in a backwater Florida town. We can laugh but really this is going nowhere. I love how you alluded to the age old claim that Catholics are canibals and whether or not the cracker has symbolic importance
sigh
Or he is and your just bitchy.
Obviously they are taking it too seriously but religious suicide bombers do exist in this world so does it really surprise you? I don't know why they care so much about an individual "host" but really you can only get them from a church, they are kept in a golden tabernacle, each and everyone of them is blessed by a person of God. In religion is this the biggest deal you can get.
Why is it a big deal to burn a flag, but not a tablecloth? It's just fabric right? Or is it what that fabric represents. Anyone care to enlighten me? INCCCC?
On July 11 2008 04:34 Ryot wrote: Can you explain to me the cracker-eating thing then? I don't know much about Catholicism so obviously to an outsider it seems weird.
When Jesus had his last supper he said to those gathered "take this all of you and eat from it, for it is my body..." He goes on to say that it is blessed and holds great significance. Catholics recreate that ceremony.
It is a very important and sacred ceremony for Catholics. People often call it canabilism. But Catholics have survived pope, pedo and canabilism jokes I think we will survive a lunatic diocese making a big deal over nothing.
There's nothing wrong with ridiculing idiots like these. In fact, it's necessary; that's what you do in a civilized society to keep the really dumb ideas from becoming mainstream and respected.
On July 11 2008 04:34 Ryot wrote: Can you explain to me the cracker-eating thing then? I don't know much about Catholicism so obviously to an outsider it seems weird.
When Jesus had his last supper he said to those gathered "take this all of you and eat from it, for it is my body..." He goes on to say that it is blessed and holds great significance. Catholics recreate that ceremony.
It is a very important and sacred ceremony for Catholics. People often call it canabilism. But Catholics have survived pope, pedo and canabilism jokes I think we will survive a lunatic diocese making a big deal over nothing.
The people that call it cannibalism must be completely retarded. I understand the spiritual significance of it being a part of Christ's body, but it's purely spiritual.
Couldn't the guy who "stole" the cracker have just asked his friend to come up with him and..observe..or whatever his friend was there to do? It would have avoided a whole lot of trouble.
No, no you're not. This will turn into a religion bashing thread asap. This is of course an absurd story that happened in a backwater Florida town. We can laugh but really this is going nowhere. I love how you alluded to the age old claim that Catholics are canibals and whether or not the cracker has symbolic importance
sigh
Or he is and your just bitchy.
Obviously they are taking it too seriously but religious suicide bombers do exist in this world so does it really surprise you? I don't know why they care so much about an individual "host" but really you can only get them from a church, they are kept in a golden tabernacle, each and everyone of them is blessed by a person of God. In religion is this the biggest deal you can get.
Why is it a big deal to burn a flag, but not a tablecloth? It's just fabric right? Or is it what that fabric represents. Anyone care to enlighten me? INCCCC?
*you're
No, I am not "bitchy." Nothing in my post was bitchy and you asserting as much is rather annoying. It'd be like me generalizing your post as "flamingly homoerotic" when it probably wasn't... just an annoying accusation.
Comparing this news report you probably didn't read to suicide bombers is laughable. I won't really go any further with that. Not all religious threads need to be equated to the very most extreme example of religious "importance" (zealots that kill people). And you are making an epic point at the conclusion honestly.. I think the idea of symbolism deserves much discussion. Really I do. I think we should discuss such deep topics like why does a four leaf clover hold so much respect in Ireland? Or why is it we take our hats off during the national anthem.. wow.. the possibilities.
No, no you're not. This will turn into a religion bashing thread asap. This is of course an absurd story that happened in a backwater Florida town. We can laugh but really this is going nowhere. I love how you alluded to the age old claim that Catholics are canibals and whether or not the cracker has symbolic importance
sigh
here's some good fellow making a thread that features a non biased third party account of a religion related news event which is on its way to yield fruitful theological discussions about the metaphysics of christianity before you shot him down.
Hmm alright but do you think it was bad that he didn't eat it? From what I understand he didn't throw it on the ground and stomp on it, he just kept it and decided not to eat it.
On July 11 2008 04:28 Ryot wrote: Personally I think the Church is taking this too seriously. Now I know these crackers have symbolic importance, but then I wonder, why eat them? If it's the body of Christ, does that not represent cannibalism? And symbolism aside, it is after all, just a cracker.
I'm curious to hear your opinions on the matter.
For Catholics, there is neither any symbolism or physical change involved.
On July 11 2008 04:34 Ryot wrote: Can you explain to me the cracker-eating thing then? I don't know much about Catholicism so obviously to an outsider it seems weird.
it's suppose to be symbolic of how Jesus died for our sins. the cracker symbolizes His body he gave for us. Some people think the cracker will literally become Jesus's body?, but I just think its just symbolism in remembrance of His sacrifice. There is also juice which symbolizes the blood He shed for us. I'm not Catholic, so I don't know exactly how they view it.
ryot, interesting thread. This piece of news has deepened by knowledge of christianity and their religious practices. I shall keep this thread in mind next time I debate politely with a christian over their theological views. "oh yea? well your church got mad at a kid taking a cracker home, true story man"
On July 11 2008 04:28 Ryot wrote: Personally I think the Church is taking this too seriously. Now I know these crackers have symbolic importance, but then I wonder, why eat them? If it's the body of Christ, does that not represent cannibalism? And symbolism aside, it is after all, just a cracker.
I'm curious to hear your opinions on the matter.
For Catholics, there is neither any symbolism or physical change involved.
What do you mean? Could you elaborate on your thinking please?
On July 11 2008 04:28 Ryot wrote: Personally I think the Church is taking this too seriously. Now I know these crackers have symbolic importance, but then I wonder, why eat them? If it's the body of Christ, does that not represent cannibalism? And symbolism aside, it is after all, just a cracker.
I'm curious to hear your opinions on the matter.
For Catholics, there is neither any symbolism or physical change involved.
What do you mean? Could you elaborate on your thinking please?
I can't really. My understanding of transubstantiation is not very good. You had best ask a Catholic who knows his or her faith.
There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion.
Here's a story that will destroy your hopes for a reasonable humanity.
Webster Cook says he smuggled a Eucharist, a small bread wafer that to Catholics symbolic of the Body of Christ after a priest blesses it, out of mass, didn't eat it as he was supposed to do, but instead walked with it.
This isn't the stupid part yet. He walked off with a cracker that was put in his mouth, and people in the church fought with him to get it back. It is just a cracker!
Catholics worldwide became furious.
Would you believe this isn't hyperbole? People around the world are actually extremely angry about this — Webster Cook has been sent death threats over his cracker. Those are just kooks, you might say, but here is the considered, measured response of the local diocese:
"We don't know 100% what Mr. Cooks 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."
We just expect the University to take this seriously," she added "To send a message to not just Mr. Cook but the whole community that this kind of really complete sacrilege will not be tolerated."
Wait, what? Holding a cracker hostage is now a hate crime? The murder of Matthew Shephard was a hate crime. The murder of James Byrd Jr. was a hate crime. This is a goddamned cracker. Can you possibly diminish the abuse of real human beings any further?
Well, you could have a priest compare this event to a kidnapping.
"It is hurtful," said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. "Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family."
Gonzalez said the Diocese is willing to meet with Cook and help him understand the importance of the Eucharist in hopes of him returning it. The Diocese is dispatching a nun to UCF's campus to oversee the next mass, protect the Eucharist and in hopes Cook will return it.
I like the idea of sending a scary nun to guard the ceremony at the next mass. But even better…let's send Webster Cook to hell!
Gonzalez said intentionally abusing the Eucharist is classified as a mortal sin in the Catholic church, the most severe possible. If it's not returned, the community of faith will have to ask for forgiveness.
"We have to make acts of reparation," Gonzalez said. "The whole community is going to turn to prayer. We'll ask the Lord for pardon, forgiveness, peace, not only for the whole community affected by it, but also for [Cook], we offer prayers for him as well."
Get some perspective, man. IT'S A CRACKER.
And of course, Bill Donohue is outraged (I know, Donohue is going to die of apoplexy someday when a gnat violates his oatmeal, so this isn't saying much).
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.
Oh, beyond hate speech. Where does this fit on the Shoah scale, Bill? It shouldn't even register, but here is Wild-Eyed Bill the Offended calling for the expulsion of a student…for not swallowing a cracker.
Would you believe that the mealy-mouthed president of the university, John Hitt, is avoiding defending his student is instead playing up the importance of the Catholic church to the university? Of course you would. That's what university presidents do. Bugger the students, keep the donors and the state reps happy.
Unfortunately, Webster Cook has now returned the cracker. Why?
Webster just wants all of this to go away. Especially now that he feels his life is in danger.
That's right. Crazy Christian fanatics right here in our own country have been threatening to kill a young man over a cracker. This is insane. These people are demented fuckwits. And Cook is not out of the fire yet — that Fox News story ends with an open incitement to cause him further misery.
University officials said, that as for right now, Webster Cook is not in trouble. If anyone or any group wants to file a formal complaint with the University through the student judicial system, they can. If that happens, Webster will go through a hearing either in front of an administrative panel or a panel of his peers.
Got that? If you don't like what Webster Cook did, all you have to do is complain to the university, and they will do the dirty work for you of making his college experience miserable. And don't assume the university would support Cook; the college is now having armed university police officers standing guard during mass.
I find this all utterly unbelievable. It's like Dark Age superstition and malice, all thriving with the endorsement of secular institutions here in 21st century America. It is a culture of deluded lunatics calling the shots and making human beings dance to their mythical bunkum.
So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address.
Just wait. Now there'll be a team of Jesuits assigned to rifle through my mail every day.
On July 11 2008 04:28 Ryot wrote: Personally I think the Church is taking this too seriously. Now I know these crackers have symbolic importance, but then I wonder, why eat them? If it's the body of Christ, does that not represent cannibalism? And symbolism aside, it is after all, just a cracker.
I'm curious to hear your opinions on the matter.
For Catholics, there is neither any symbolism or physical change involved.
What do you mean? Could you elaborate on your thinking please?
I can't really. My understanding of transubstantiation is not very good. You had best ask a Catholic who knows his or her faith.
Ok well in short, Catholics believe there is a physical change involved. The bread and wine is changed to the body/blood of Christ.
Erm, I'm a little rusty on my religion, but I thought you can't receive communion until you've gone through confirmation and all that jazz?
Either way, this is pretty damn funny. Maybe a little insensitive of him to take it out, but you don't randomly try to grab someone you don't know lol. I'd do the same thing as him and turn it into a big shit show.
On July 11 2008 04:34 Ryot wrote: Can you explain to me the cracker-eating thing then? I don't know much about Catholicism so obviously to an outsider it seems weird.
Catholics all have their own individual interpretations of the "cracker-eating thing".
A few nutjobs believe it literally becomes part of the body of Christ (after it's been blessed, etc.).
Many Catholics will likely interpret eating "the body of Christ" symbolically, each with their own idea of what exactly it symbolizes (so you'll have to ask them yourself if you want to know how they view it). And then you have a whole spectrum from people who take it very seriously and view the blessed wafer as a very sacred thing, to people who see it as just a wafer. There's also a range of people from those who will get some spiritual feeling when they consume the wafer, to those who won't feel any different.
Many other Catholics just see it as a regular part of Mass (the ceremony) and don't think twice about it.
I'm not an expert on Catholicism or anything, but I don't think you have to be to predict how people will feel about this kind of thing.
Kind of... Essentially you have to go through the Sacrament of Baptism before you can (or are supposed to) receive Communion.
And to Bill307 Catholics shouldn't have their own opinion on it because the Catholic church says that upon consecration it is physically changed from bread/whine to body and blood.
I think the Church has good right to be angry here.
The Holy Communion (maybe indicated by the "holy" in front of it) is among the most holy rites in the Catholic religion. To take the cracker and not eat it is disrespecting that rite and the religion itself.
Holding it "hostage" is infantile and extremely disrespectful
On July 11 2008 04:34 Ryot wrote: Can you explain to me the cracker-eating thing then? I don't know much about Catholicism so obviously to an outsider it seems weird.
and then you and make a thread about catholicism and even go as far to suggest your own theories on something you know nothing about
eh ill just leave it at conflict of philosophies and logical thinking <.<
it's really disrespectful, from what i read but u know the media... always nit picking little things and inflating it, there's probably some fault on both sides... and i don't see why a compromise/ solution cant be resolved really <_<..
But anyways, I have to admit my initial views on what communion was were ignorant. I understand it a bit better, but I still think this is way too big a deal over what transpired. Also the death threats are certainly ridiculous and give any sane people in the Catholic church a very bad rep.
On July 11 2008 05:01 SnowFantasy wrote: And to Bill307 Catholics shouldn't have their own opinion on it because the Catholic church says that upon consecration it is physically changed from bread/whine to body and blood.
I used to be a Catholic (maybe I still am "technically") and believe me, almost no other Catholics I met actually believed that. Some people viewed it symbolically while others never thought twice about it.
The Catholics don't believe it is a physical change, they believe it is a substantial change, a change of substance, of the true nature of the thing. They don't believe that Jesus is physically present, but that he is still present in a real way.
If you try to wrap your mind around that based on a scientific view of the world, it won't make any sense to you. There is a whole philosophical structure of reality you have to accept before their explanation makes sense.
It may be a cracker, but why don't we ask "Why is this person going into a church to cause trouble" instead.of 'are they over reacting to the situation'.
i was raised catholic, i would have told my friend not to go up there, as i understand it, i never got communion (eating the cracker thing) unless i had gone to confession recently before. also i think you also do have to go through confirmation first before you can do communion as well. so most of the time i actually just sit in my seat cus i haven't gone to confession for as long as i can remember.
On July 11 2008 05:01 SnowFantasy wrote: And to Bill307 Catholics shouldn't have their own opinion on it because the Catholic church says that upon consecration it is physically changed from bread/whine to body and blood.
I used to be a Catholic (maybe I still am "technically") and believe me, almost no other Catholics I met actually believed that. Some people viewed it symbolically while others never thought twice about it.
I don't know maybe they disagree (possibly not knowingly) with one of the main teachings of the Catholic church..
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1411:
"Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord."
Maybe I'm not understanding something here, but it seems clear to me.
On July 11 2008 05:12 Funchucks wrote: The Catholics don't believe it is a physical change, they believe it is a substantial change, a change of substance, of the true nature of the thing. They don't believe that Jesus is physically present, but that he is still present in a real way.
If you try to wrap your mind around that based on a scientific view of the world, it won't make any sense to you. There is a whole philosophical structure of reality you have to accept before their explanation makes sense.
I'm not understanding something then. What's the difference between a physical change and a change of substance?
and then you and make a thread about catholicism and even go as far to suggest your own theories on something you know nothing about
eh ill just leave it at conflict of philosophies and logical thinking <.<
it's really disrespectful, from what i read but u know the media... always nit picking little things and inflating it, there's probably some fault on both sides... and i don't see why a compromise/ solution cant be resolved really <_<..
I made a thread on a news story here. And just because I'm an outsider on something I can't form my opinions on it? Look if my initial opinion on it offended people, then I'm sorry. But I really wasn't trying to start a flame thread or anything here.
and then you and make a thread about catholicism and even go as far to suggest your own theories on something you know nothing about
eh ill just leave it at conflict of philosophies and logical thinking <.<
it's really disrespectful, from what i read but u know the media... always nit picking little things and inflating it, there's probably some fault on both sides... and i don't see why a compromise/ solution cant be resolved really <_<..
I made a thread on a news story here. And just because I'm an outsider on something I can't form my opinions on it? Look if my initial opinion on it offended people, then I'm sorry. But I really wasn't trying to start a flame thread or anything here.
The first mistake was made in the title: by calling it a cracker you unavoidably portrayed your ignorance to what you're posting. You then proceed to tell us that you know next to nothing about Catholicism. If that is the case [and I'm no way saying you can't post your opinion] you should at least make the op more unbiased to avoid a flame war.
If you go to a restaurant and you eat a dinner roll from the basket on the table, you are partaking. If you put a dinner roll in your pocket to eat later, you are stealing. Trivial, right? Nobody cares.
If you go to a fancy party and the host says, "Help yourself to the wine." and you end up drinking a whole bottle by yourself, that is not stealing. But if you put that same bottle in your pocket and leave, that is stealing. Considering the ridiculous prices of some bottles of wine, it could be grand theft.
So if you go to a religious ceremony, and they bless an object and tell you that you may eat it, this is not an invitation to take it and do as you please with it. It has become sacred and priceless, and they have only given you access to their property for this once specific use. This is a crime.
Now we just need an Indiana Jones scene where our hero is chased out of a gothic cathedral by angry spear-wielding parishoners, clutching his sacred wafer and dodging darts shot out of gargoyles.
On July 11 2008 04:28 Ryot wrote: Personally I think the Church is taking this too seriously. Now I know these crackers have symbolic importance, but then I wonder, why eat them? If it's the body of Christ, does that not represent cannibalism? And symbolism aside, it is after all, just a cracker.
I'm curious to hear your opinions on the matter.
For Catholics, there is neither any symbolism or physical change involved.
What do you mean? Could you elaborate on your thinking please?
I can't really. My understanding of transubstantiation is not very good. You had best ask a Catholic who knows his or her faith.
Ok well in short, Catholics believe there is a physical change involved. The bread and wine is changed to the body/blood of Christ.
Not necessarily true. This whole idea came about when the Romans not knowing anything about Christians used to think that they, referring to this ritual, meant that they were cannibals and that late night mass was actually a cover for having orgies. Since then, some people have taken that Roman idea serious and said that the transformation of the bread and wine is true. This is called the belief of Transubstantiation where the substance literately changes.
Conversely, the majority of Catholics as well as mainstream Catholicism don't believe in this. They only believe in the symbolism just like hundreds of other things that people do to symbolize something else that is important to them.
On July 11 2008 04:28 Ryot wrote: Personally I think the Church is taking this too seriously. Now I know these crackers have symbolic importance, but then I wonder, why eat them? If it's the body of Christ, does that not represent cannibalism? And symbolism aside, it is after all, just a cracker.
I'm curious to hear your opinions on the matter.
For Catholics, there is neither any symbolism or physical change involved.
What do you mean? Could you elaborate on your thinking please?
I can't really. My understanding of transubstantiation is not very good. You had best ask a Catholic who knows his or her faith.
Ok well in short, Catholics believe there is a physical change involved. The bread and wine is changed to the body/blood of Christ.
My understanding is that while the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ respectively, they become more than that; they become the totality of Christ. And given that the Church has never, as far as I know, claimed that an empirically observable change occurs, "physical" is not a word that I would use.
Not necessarily true. This whole idea came about when the Romans not knowing anything about Christians used to think that they, referring to this ritual, meant that they were cannibals and that late night mass was actually a cover for having orgies. Since then, some people have taken that Roman idea serious and said that the transformation of the bread and wine is true. This is called the belief of Transubstantiation where the substance literately changes.
If by "some Catholics" you mean Pope John Paul II who oversaw the writing of The Catechism of the Catholic Church which is pretty much the reference used for figuring out exactly what Catholics believe in, then yeah I would agree.
Still though maybe I am making a mistake with the phrase "physical change" which brings me back to my question. What is the difference between "physical change" and "change of substance"?
@MindCrime: OK so "physical change" would mean that like you can actually see it changing. Noticing it with just your eyes? T.T sorry.
On July 11 2008 05:12 Funchucks wrote: The Catholics don't believe it is a physical change, they believe it is a substantial change, a change of substance, of the true nature of the thing. They don't believe that Jesus is physically present, but that he is still present in a real way.
If you try to wrap your mind around that based on a scientific view of the world, it won't make any sense to you. There is a whole philosophical structure of reality you have to accept before their explanation makes sense.
I'm not understanding something then. What's the difference between a physical change and a change of substance?
It's like I said: it is a change in the true nature of the thing.
Let's say you find a bullet. Later you discover it was the last bullet fired in WW II. You can't tell that by physically examining it. There is nothing in its physical form that makes it a historical artifact. Another identical lump of lead might not even be a bullet, it might be a damaged fishing weight. Despite being physically identical in every way, one is a bullet, and one is not. One is a historical artifact, and the other is not.
A thing has "substance" - it's true nature - and it has "accidents" - physical qualities which do not determine its true nature.
If you can understand why one painting is the real original, and another is only a perfect counterfeit, then you can understand the concept behind the claim that one wafer is the body of Christ, and another is only a cracker.
Thanks explaining it like that was awesome. I do admit for being a native speaker my English is horrible. I get caught up on phrases/words that many other people would roll right over understanding perfectly.
These uses of "substance" and "accident" are philsophical jargon. They mean different things than the words are ordinarily used for, so it's not really a matter of understanding English. I had to look things up to understand it, myself.
Yes, many religious practices are silly. We get it. Haha!
Now we just need an Indiana Jones scene where our hero is chased out of a gothic cathedral by angry spear-wielding parishoners, clutching his sacred wafer and dodging darts shot out of gargoyles.
That definitely would've been better than the Crystal Skulls.
On July 11 2008 05:56 Funchucks wrote: These uses of "substance" and "accident" are philsophical jargon. They mean different things than the words are ordinarily used for, so it's not really a matter of understanding English. I had to look things up to understand it, myself.
Well I mean also in general I have a pretty small vocabulary, at least compared to other people. I often feel limited with words and I am fairly certain this is another one of those cases.
If there was no purge, this could have turned into a pun thread . Personally, I don't understand why he took it in the first place. "To show his friend" yeah right. His friend doesn't get one himself?
Also, if he put it in his mouth, it would get soggy, and then he was going to take it out of his mouth to show his friend? Nasty.
Anyways, I think what the kid did was dumb and he shouldn't have done it, but the analogy of the wafer to "if they kidnapped somebody" is kind of false. http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm " Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property. " They are both said to be kidnapped objects of importance, however, one is a living object and has emotional attachment to many others, while the other is an inanimate object that is to be consumed but is of symbolic importance to a religious affiliation. The living object can experience trauma as a result of the kidnapping, whereas the inanimate object cannot.
I wonder, if he went to church and ate it, if it would resolve everything?
Everyone has their own beliefs and idiosyncrasies. I don't antagonize the people who read Harry Potty, I just ignore anything they say and assume they're stupid. It's the same thing with religion. Cook is a gigantic duechebag and if he was anything more than an incompetent lout with a very bleak future he would write a sincere apology and give back the cracker.
As for those crazy Catholics being childish. Tell me what your reaction would be if someone stole the body of fucking God from you? I'd kill the guy. I submit that these people aren't Catholics, but Jews pretending to be Catholics to give them a bad name. Fucking Jews.
On July 11 2008 05:59 ydg wrote: Also, if he put it in his mouth, it would get soggy, and then he was going to take it out of his mouth to show his friend? Nasty.
"I'm gonna make it so dry for the body of Jesus! It's gonna be like a mouthful of sand!"
On July 11 2008 06:09 pirate cod wrote: I submit that these people aren't Catholics, but Jews pretending to be Catholics to give them a bad name. Fucking Jews.
lol, queue public outrage for criticizing a religion other than Catholicism. And please, it's a host.
No, no you're not. This will turn into a religion bashing thread asap. This is of course an absurd story that happened in a backwater Florida town. We can laugh but really this is going nowhere. I love how you alluded to the age old claim that Catholics are canibals and whether or not the cracker has symbolic importance
No, no you're not. This will turn into a religion bashing thread asap. This is of course an absurd story that happened in a backwater Florida town. We can laugh but really this is going nowhere. I love how you alluded to the age old claim that Catholics are canibals and whether or not the cracker has symbolic importance
sigh
Or he is and your just bitchy.
Obviously they are taking it too seriously but religious suicide bombers do exist in this world so does it really surprise you? I don't know why they care so much about an individual "host" but really you can only get them from a church, they are kept in a golden tabernacle, each and everyone of them is blessed by a person of God. In religion is this the biggest deal you can get.
Why is it a big deal to burn a flag, but not a tablecloth? It's just fabric right? Or is it what that fabric represents. Anyone care to enlighten me? INCCCC?
*you're
No, I am not "bitchy." Nothing in my post was bitchy and you asserting as much is rather annoying. It'd be like me generalizing your post as "flamingly homoerotic" when it probably wasn't... just an annoying accusation.
Comparing this news report you probably didn't read to suicide bombers is laughable. I won't really go any further with that. Not all religious threads need to be equated to the very most extreme example of religious "importance" (zealots that kill people). And you are making an epic point at the conclusion honestly.. I think the idea of symbolism deserves much discussion. Really I do. I think we should discuss such deep topics like why does a four leaf clover hold so much respect in Ireland? Or why is it we take our hats off during the national anthem.. wow.. the possibilities.
Zealots alway kill my marines. I hate zealots!
And yes bring up suicide bomber here is pretty uncool. Based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen, I'd say suicide bombers are pretty rare in religious circles.
Maybe I'm not understanding something here, but it seems clear to me.
Metaphor. Now go back and read the passage. Suddenly it doesn't need to be the intestines of jesus to work! Good job contextual reading.
If by "some Catholics" you mean Pope John Paul II who oversaw the writing of The Catechism of the Catholic Church which is pretty much the reference used for figuring out exactly what Catholics believe in, then yeah I would agree.
I can't talk for the late Pope, but I know for certain that the head of the jesuit order (ie. The black pope) did not hold the view that it became a literal part of the body of christ.
Additionally; its not a cracker. Its called the host. If you went and started stealing menorahs from synagogues during passover, then saying "WHAT ITS ONLY A CANDLE STICK" you'd probably get a similar outrage, and people who knew nothing about judaism would probably go "rofl they're so angry over candles, dum morans".
The host is not supposed to be given out to anyone until they've taken their confirmation, and its not a light deal. If you're a kid who goes to church, baptized and everything, yet haven't been confirmed because you aren't old enough to consent, you don't get it. You can go and recieve a blessing during communion if you aren't supposed to take a host, normally by crossing your hands over your chest. Either way, walking into a church, taking a blessed host, then leaving was CLEARLY designed to be incindiary. You can buy unblessed hosts from many sources, and you can likely just ask the priest to give you one if you wanted to show your friends.
If the kid really wanted to show his friend the bread/host, he could have just asked the priest out of mass for a piece of it. This isn't disrespectful in any way because at that point, it's just bread. It isn't until the bread undergoes transubstantiation during mass that it become the body of Christ. Then it's disrespectful to take it and leave.
I don't know how old the kid was so I don't know if it was willful neglect or innocent misunderstanding.
If the kid really wanted to show his friend the bread/host, he could have just asked the priest out of mass for a piece of it. This isn't disrespectful in any way because at that point, it's just bread. It isn't until the bread undergoes transubstantiation during mass that it become the body of Christ. Then it's disrespectful to take it and leave.
This pretty much sums it all up.
It was wrong of the kid to do, and disrespectful to the church. After Transubstantiation, the host doesn't physically take on the properties of human flesh, but it does spiritually become the body of Christ.
For those of you who have not attended Catholic mass, it must be really difficult to understand the situation. The priest overreacted, whatever. Priests are humans too and are just as fallible as you or me.
The host is not supposed to be given out to anyone until they've taken their confirmation, and its not a light deal. If you're a kid who goes to church, baptized and everything, yet haven't been confirmed because you aren't old enough to consent, you don't get it. You can go and recieve a blessing during communion if you aren't supposed to take a host, normally by crossing your hands over your chest. Either way, walking into a church, taking a blessed host, then leaving was CLEARLY designed to be incindiary. You can buy unblessed hosts from many sources, and you can likely just ask the priest to give you one if you wanted to show your friends.
I hate to nitpick but you actually don't need to be confirmed to receive the host. The first communion ceremony is different from confirmation and happens earlier than confirmation.
Though maybe that's just Roman Catholicism, heh. Apparently it's different in eastern catholic churches, and differs from country to country so nevermind. =)
Additionally; its not a cracker. Its called the host. If you went and started stealing menorahs from synagogues during passover, then saying "WHAT ITS ONLY A CANDLE STICK" you'd probably get a similar outrage, and people who knew nothing about judaism would probably go "rofl they're so angry over candles, dum morans".
Either way, this was IRL trolling.
I agree, but at what point is it ok to disturb a religious ceremony? What about a scientology meeting?
Also, I think it's perfectly acceptable to tell Jews that staying kosher is fucking stupid.
those bastards in catholic school confiscated my magic the gathering cards too cause of 'demonic hordes'
then also stole my walkman cuz i had rage against the machine on it
then one time in confirmationclass i was flipping the bible in the air except one time fumbled the catch so it fell straight to the ground and the teacher and everyone in the class went ape shit on me for not handling god with care
On July 11 2008 07:38 Rekrul wrote: those bastards in catholic school confiscated my magic the gathering cards too cause of 'demonic hordes'
then also stole my walkman cuz i had rage against the machine on it
then one time in confirmationclass i was flipping the bible in the air except one time fumbled the catch so it fell straight to the ground and the teacher and everyone in the class went ape shit on me for not handling god with care
Just wondering, are the crackers standard in every church? does the church purchase them or makes the cracker themselves? It is possible to use cream crackers instead? How do they taste like? Do they come in different flavours?
On July 11 2008 07:38 Rekrul wrote: those bastards in catholic school confiscated my magic the gathering cards too cause of 'demonic hordes'
then also stole my walkman cuz i had rage against the machine on it
then one time in confirmationclass i was flipping the bible in the air except one time fumbled the catch so it fell straight to the ground and the teacher and everyone in the class went ape shit on me for not handling god with care
WTF
Your such a badass, now go away.
hard to think a little catholic school boy could have been such a rockstar
On July 11 2008 05:28 Funchucks wrote: Fundamentally, he is stealing.
If you go to a restaurant and you eat a dinner roll from the basket on the table, you are partaking. If you put a dinner roll in your pocket to eat later, you are stealing. Trivial, right? Nobody cares.
If you go to a fancy party and the host says, "Help yourself to the wine." and you end up drinking a whole bottle by yourself, that is not stealing. But if you put that same bottle in your pocket and leave, that is stealing. Considering the ridiculous prices of some bottles of wine, it could be grand theft.
So if you go to a religious ceremony, and they bless an object and tell you that you may eat it, this is not an invitation to take it and do as you please with it. It has become sacred and priceless, and they have only given you access to their property for this once specific use. This is a crime.
Now we just need an Indiana Jones scene where our hero is chased out of a gothic cathedral by angry spear-wielding parishoners, clutching his sacred wafer and dodging darts shot out of gargoyles.
I don't like your examples...
What if the dinner roll i gave you was blessed...? it was SACRED. PRICELESS.
this roll took me MONTHS to make, and you take it hostage?
On July 11 2008 08:10 KaasZerg wrote: He's going to cut of a piece of the cracker sending it back to the church demanding ransom. Threatening to destroy it unconsumed.
Don't talk crazy.
He's just going to dress up in a legionary costume and nail it to a little cross.
On July 11 2008 07:47 dinmsab wrote: Just wondering, are the crackers standard in every church? does the church purchase them or makes the cracker themselves? It is possible to use cream crackers instead? How do they taste like? Do they come in different flavours?
I believe it's actually possible to buy a bag of them (unblessed), e.g. to allow students to practice receiving the host before confirmation. The kid was indeed really stupid if that was his intention: he could have easily asked for an unblessed one from the Priest.
imo they taste like ice cream cones -- the cheap, plain, unsweetened kind.
one time me and my friend both stole one each and were showing them to kids in our class later and they were all flipping out as if something crazy had happened then this girl told on us so we were forced to eat them and deny everything
On July 11 2008 06:48 L wrote: Additionally; its not a cracker. Its called the host. If you went and started stealing menorahs from synagogues during passover, then saying "WHAT ITS ONLY A CANDLE STICK" you'd probably get a similar outrage, and people who knew nothing about judaism would probably go "rofl they're so angry over candles, dum morans".
That's not a very good analogy. I think everyone would be pissed to have their candlesticks stolen, sacred or otherwise.
Seriously, though, the amount of attention this case is receiving is TOTALLY disproportionate with the nature of the crime. Kids steal things ALL THE TIME via shoplifting, etc. (With the outrage this is receiving, you'd think the kid stole the Priest's churchmobile or something.)
People can't just assign arbitrary values to their possessions and require the rest of the world to abide by those values. If something is worth a little less or a little more to someone than usual, then it's right to respect that. But when something is grossly overvalued by someone, then it's generally wrong to respect that. E.g. imagine Proleague spoilers were so grossly overvalued that they weren't allowed to be posted for a month after the games were played. It would be stupid and wrong for us to agree with that even if some people truly believed it.
I agree that what the kid did was wrong and that he should apologize. But if people are greatly offended and outraged by it, then that's just too bad: I have no sympathy for them.
Edit: Obligatory bash.org:
#17205 +(808)- [X]
<Funk> Hey I have a question for your mother <zuKi> Sure thing, let me get her! <Funk> Ask her how many Communion wafers you'd have to eat to consume a whole Jesus
That's not a very good analogy. I think everyone would be pissed to have their candlesticks stolen, sacred or otherwise.
Its a pretty damn good analogy. I'm fairly sure the issue wouldn't be the theft of a physical piece of property, but an item of religious value. Its fairly implicit in the theft that the person is disrespecting your belief system, period, which would be the primary source of anger, not the fact that someone stole a goddam candlestick.
People can't just assign arbitrary values to their possessions and require the rest of the world to abide by those values.
These aren't arbitrary values. Catholics didn't just magically decide that the host was magically important. The host is a symbol, much like a flag is a symbol, or the menorah is a symbol, or the kirpan is a symbol or the cookie monster is a symbol. Stealing the host, stealing the flag, stealing someone's kirpan or stealing a menorah is all the same thing. Its a direct assault on a symbol which people place value in.
Kid fucked up. Period.
If he did it out of ignorance, sure, I can understand people saying that he should get let off easy, but it really doesn't seem like he did. Its pretty obvious that this was fairly malicious.
On July 11 2008 05:07 GeneralStan wrote: I think the Church has good right to be angry here.
The Holy Communion (maybe indicated by the "holy" in front of it) is among the most holy rites in the Catholic religion. To take the cracker and not eat it is disrespecting that rite and the religion itself.
Holding it "hostage" is infantile and extremely disrespectful
I have to agree. This person was deliberately provoking them. No surprise, though; modern culture finds great humor in denegration and intolerance of wo they perceive to be "intolerant", usually, specifically, religions, and usually, specifically, Christianity.
This is not about her "eating a cracker". They could see that they were being disrespected intentionally. If I wore white robes and a pointy hat to the Million Man March, and received a foul beating, who would you perceive as more unreasonable? Them or me?
On July 11 2008 09:35 L wrote: These aren't arbitrary values. Catholics didn't just magically decide that the host was magically important. The host is a symbol, much like a flag is a symbol, or the menorah is a symbol, or the kirpan is a symbol or the cookie monster is a symbol. Stealing the host, stealing the flag, stealing someone's kirpan or stealing a menorah is all the same thing. Its a direct assault on a symbol which people place value in.
Symbols are arbitrary values.
A symbol rests entirely on the group which has given it importance, which is based on an arbitrary perspective. Furthermore, there is no logic behind believing that a wafer is the host of Christ, only faith. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is arbitrary.
On July 11 2008 09:08 Bill307 wrote: But when something is grossly overvalued by someone, then it's generally wrong to respect that. E.g. imagine Proleague spoilers were so grossly overvalued that they weren't allowed to be posted for a month after the games were played. It would be stupid and wrong for us to agree with that even if some people truly believed it.
I agree that what the kid did was wrong and that he should apologize. But if people are greatly offended and outraged by it, then that's just too bad: I have no sympathy for them.
I can see where your going with that, but you also have to look at the context. If I made a site where a bunch of people gather and don't talk about proleague spoilers for a month, then so be it. But if someone were to come to my site, said my rule was stupid, and started spreading these spoilers everywhere, then I think we can both agree that person would be an asshole. It wouldn't be unreasonable if I were to become very upset.
On the otherhand, I would say they may have over-reacted by trying to use physical force (considering we now live in a world where an accidental brush in an elevator can be seen as sexual harrasement). Despite how much of an asshole he was, that was not the way to react, especially when they are trying to preach love and compassion for everyone.
On July 11 2008 09:35 L wrote: These aren't arbitrary values. Catholics didn't just magically decide that the host was magically important. The host is a symbol, much like a flag is a symbol, or the menorah is a symbol, or the kirpan is a symbol or the cookie monster is a symbol. Stealing the host, stealing the flag, stealing someone's kirpan or stealing a menorah is all the same thing. Its a direct assault on a symbol which people place value in.
Symbols are arbitrary values.
A symbol rests entirely on the group which has given it importance, which is based on an arbitrary perspective. Furthermore, there is no logic behind believing that a wafer is the host of Christ, only faith. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is arbitrary.
It's not about being arbitrary or any other reasoning of the significance whatsoever of the cracker.
Communion is an established instution that a particular group of people, however arbitrarily or reasonably or otherwise, hold as deeply important. It's not at all arbitrary as a practice; that could only be true if described not from their view, but your own. Communion is a known tradition based on a known idea. Even if you don't share those beliefs, I don't believe for a second that you can't understand the level of offense.
Which is why I didn't say it was wrong or right. The question I asked is would you condemn someone for attacking the church of scientology like this guy did?
On July 11 2008 10:26 Jibba wrote: Which is why I didn't say it was wrong or right. The question I asked is would you condemn someone for attacking the church of scientology like this guy did?
There should be a law that says you cannot start a thread asking people to discuss soemthing without first giving your own input. And a "that sucks" isn't input.
On July 11 2008 10:42 Mortality wrote: There should be a law that says you cannot start a thread asking people to discuss soemthing without first giving your own input. And a "that sucks" isn't input.
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.
Let's say on Veteran's Day (A US Holiday celebrating and honoring the dead of our military) I went to a memorial ceremony for some war Hero and pissed on a flag after setting it on fire. This is like that, except worse. While my example is just making fun and disrespecting our dead veterans, the person in this article is making fun and disrespecting the "dead" Savior and God of these people. Obviously for the former example, it feels obligatory because of culture, but the latter is, for the people involved, divine. If you fail to understand this and respect it, these Christians are hardly being the ones being closed-minded. In fact, just as it would be my fault if I burned that flag in that veteran ceremony, it is these kids fault for doing their thing at that church.
On July 11 2008 08:51 Rekrul wrote: its really sick how crazy catholics can be
one time me and my friend both stole one each and were showing them to kids in our class later and they were all flipping out as if something crazy had happened then this girl told on us so we were forced to eat them and deny everything
Yeah except if those christians actually read and understood the bible and practices that their lord and savior preached they would never get mad about this or make a big deal about it.
Ignorant stupid fat white folk with nothing better to do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 12:21 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, but he gave it back and they're still pissed despite their beliefs about what he has given up. I mean... what?
The catholic church does have a right to be furious by this action. In catholicism, receiving the communion is one of the most sacred part of mass. it's catholic custom to immediately eat the bread after you receive it. however, not only did he not immediately eat the bread, he also pretended to receive communion by putting it in his mouth and took it back out when he went back to his seat. the church leader who was observing the guy in the first article could have interpreted his actions as really disrespectful to the entire catholic faith. And he claims that he only wanted to show his friend? what? I mean, if he wanted to show his friend what the bread looks like, why not just look it up on the internet? there's bound to be at least some pictures of the bread on the web.
on the other hand, even my catholic side agrees that this is kinda blown out of proportion.
Question about the whole "did he steal it". If you're given something by someone, and you don't use it specifically as they say, is that stealing?
Like for example, if I get a toy-car for Christmas and I'm told to play with it but instead I sell it... Is that stealing and can the other person ask for the car back?
What about those priests that molested little boys, did the hosts that they blessed with spirit water and prayer still count as jesus cookies? Or were those just nibblers.
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.
To your first point about him hiding it. That simply proves he thought the easiest way to get it out was to sneak it out, even if he had the right to walk out with it. Better to try and get it out without causing a scene then start an incident over it. If I went round to a friends house and he served me an excellent dinner then I'd be within my rights to spurn it. It would be very rude of me and I wouldn't be invited around again. This is the same here. There's a difference between what a person can do with their own body and own possessions (which is anything they want to) and what a person should do to conform with social norms.
He's allowed to do whatever he likes with his own body and own property, provided it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. There's no double standard here. If he gave the priest a photo of his newborn son the priest could do whatever he liked with it and I'd defend the priests right to do so (while condemning the rudeness of his action). It's the grabbing of the hand I object to because you can't simply grab someone because your religious beliefs compel you to do so. The guy here has the right to move his body freely and grabbing his hand (and therefore limiting his control over his own body) is in breach of that. I don't feel there's a double standard here. The problem is in matters of religious beliefs infringing upon personal freedom I'll end up arguing the athiests side of it because it's very rarely athiests imposing their religious beliefs on the freedom of others. However the principle stands for both sides and if an athiest imposed their religious beliefs on a Christians freedom I'd defend the Christian.
Catholics are ridiculous for believing that a cracker is somehow the "flesh of Christ", but at the same time, all others are ridiculous for actually arguing with Catholics about something that is extremely important to them... (Yes, even if it IS a cracker)
There's a difference between saying someone should be rude and someone has the right to be rude. This is what the religious side of this debate always fails to grasp.
It is against the standard rules of social conduct to deliberately intend to disrespect someone else, be it calling his wife ugly, his children stupid or his beliefs retarded.
However that said, a man has the right to be as disrespectful as he likes.
I can disagree with an action at the same time as defending his right to do it with absolutely no contradiction. Understand now?
As far as I know theres no law against grabbing some little shifuckers hand after he disrespects you. And "right to move freely" LOL. They should have slapped him up a bit.
On July 11 2008 12:48 Funchucks wrote: What if Jesus really is made of crackers?
Think about it. He was able to walk on water. I think crackers have much higher buoyancy than human flesh.
"I was tortured to death on that thing, you dad-damned insensitive bastards! And STOP EATING ME for me sakes!"
That water into wine thing suddenly makes more sense. Water + a load of other stuff = blood. Jesus blood = wine. He just opened a vein at the party. The water bit was just a metaphor for the natural replacement of bodily fluids.
On July 11 2008 12:43 Ryot wrote: Question about the whole "did he steal it". If you're given something by someone, and you don't use it specifically as they say, is that stealing?
Like for example, if I get a toy-car for Christmas and I'm told to play with it but instead I sell it... Is that stealing and can the other person ask for the car back?
There's a difference between receiving a gift and being handed something as part of a procedure.
If someone hands you a pen in a store to sign a credit card receipt, that pen doesn't become your property. You are expected to use it for a mutually agreeable purpose, and then return it. If you put it in your pocket and leave, you are stealing.
In the communion, you are expected to use the wafer for a mutually agreeable purpose - you don't have to return it, because it is consumed as part of the ritual. But that doesn't mean it ever became your property.
The physical act of being handed something does not necessarily make it your property. In fact, it is the exception rather than the rule. There must be some specific gesture or statement of intent to make a gift of it, a mutual understanding of the transfer of property.
So you admit you'd be spurned for acting like a complete dick, yet you say that the church was out of line. Wow.
Your argument IS a double standard in its most base form.
This isn't about personal vs. religious freedoms at all. This is about one kid entering mass to cause a shitstorm, purposefully. There is no conflict of freedoms here, unless you consider the freedom to enter places of worship and act like a complete asshole one of the fundamental rights of man.
The guy here has the right to move his body freely and grabbing his hand (and therefore limiting his control over his own body) is in breach of that.
What a joke. I'm allowed to steal shit and disrespect people, but goddam they have no right to a proportionate response? I suppose if i was in a lecture hall and started dancing on the podium, I wouldn't be able to be moved, because there would be a severe restriction of my right to move myself freely if security escorted me out.
Reductio again.
However the principle stands for both sides and if an athiest imposed their religious beliefs on a Christians freedom I'd defend the Christian.
This kid was in a place of worship, participated in the mass, took the host, kept it for spite, and you're telling me that its the Christian who was imposing THEIR will on him? Wow.
Apply your principle fairly, and its pretty clear who started shit. It was the kid. It was deliberate. It was intentional. It was disrespectful. He's imposing his belief that the host is worth nothing and that the ritual isn't to be respected on a congregation in church, but I guess that doesn't matter at all.
On July 11 2008 12:53 Rekrul wrote: As far as I know theres no law against grabbing some little shifuckers hand after he disrespects you. And "right to move freely" LOL. They should have slapped him up a bit.
Scoffer got off light.
Actually there is. If you phoned up the police and said "I'm in a Church and this guy had hold of me and won't let me leave because he says it'd be really disrespectful" they'd turn up on your side. Physical force against an individual is entirely illegal. You're correct in as much as the normal response is to simply struggle free or hit them but if you felt like involving the law it'd be on your side. Otherwise you could just go out and grab random girls and refuse to let go, claiming that they in some way disrespected you.
On July 11 2008 12:43 Ryot wrote: Question about the whole "did he steal it". If you're given something by someone, and you don't use it specifically as they say, is that stealing?
Like for example, if I get a toy-car for Christmas and I'm told to play with it but instead I sell it... Is that stealing and can the other person ask for the car back?
There's a difference between receiving a gift and being handed something as part of a procedure.
If someone hands you a pen in a store to sign a credit card receipt, that pen doesn't become your property. You are expected to use it for a mutually agreeable purpose, and then return it. If you put it in your pocket and leave, you are stealing.
In the communion, you are expected to use the wafer for a mutually agreeable purpose - you don't have to return it, because it is consumed as part of the ritual. But that doesn't mean it ever became your property.
The physical act of being handed something does not necessarily make it your property. In fact, it is the exception rather than the rule. There must be some specific gesture or statement of intent to make a gift of it, a mutual understanding of the transfer of property.
I know the physical act of being handed something doesn't mean possession, but shouldn't consumption? I think consumption has to imply ownership because how would it be possible to get it back...
I know the physical act of being handed something doesn't mean possession, but shouldn't consumption? I think consumption has to imply ownership because how would it be possible to get it back...
If i feed you, you don't own the food i give you. You are eating my food.
... that's not a complex thing. The buffet example is perfect. Your contract is being able to eat my food, but paying for access doesn't mean the food belongs to you.
On July 11 2008 12:53 Rekrul wrote: As far as I know theres no law against grabbing some little shifuckers hand after he disrespects you. And "right to move freely" LOL. They should have slapped him up a bit.
Scoffer got off light.
Actually there is. If you phoned up the police and said "I'm in a Church and this guy had hold of me and won't let me leave because he says it'd be really disrespectful" they'd turn up on your side. Physical force against an individual is entirely illegal. You're correct in as much as the normal response is to simply struggle free or hit them but if you felt like involving the law it'd be on your side. Otherwise you could just go out and grab random girls and refuse to let go, claiming that they in some way disrespected you.
thats how we do it in korean night clubs
girl tries to leave, block her entrance with the legs, if she has gotten past that already grab her hand and pull her back down
WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING
i gotta go
NO STAY (firmer grip, sometimes a drunken grrr... headlock)
On July 11 2008 12:57 L wrote: So you admit you'd be spurned for acting like a complete dick, yet you say that the church was out of line. Wow.
Your argument IS a double standard in its most base form.
This isn't about personal vs. religious freedoms at all. This is about one kid entering mass to cause a shitstorm, purposefully. There is no conflict of freedoms here, unless you consider the freedom to enter places of worship and act like a complete asshole one of the fundamental rights of man.
The guy here has the right to move his body freely and grabbing his hand (and therefore limiting his control over his own body) is in breach of that.
What a joke. I'm allowed to steal shit and disrespect people, but goddam they have no right to a proportionate response? I suppose if i was in a lecture hall and started dancing on the podium, I wouldn't be able to be moved, because there would be a severe restriction of my right to move myself freely if security escorted me out.
However the principle stands for both sides and if an athiest imposed their religious beliefs on a Christians freedom I'd defend the Christian.
This kid was in a place of worship, participated in the mass, took the host, kept it for spite, and you're telling me that its the Christian who was imposing THEIR will on him? Wow.
Apply your principle fairly, and its pretty clear who started shit. It was the kid. It was deliberate. It was intentional. It was disrespectful. He's imposing his belief that the host is worth nothing and that the ritual isn't to be respected on a congregation in church, but I guess that doesn't matter at all.
Actually I do. I believe I am fully within my rights to walk into a Church and say "hey guys, I don't know if no-one told you but this God guy.... not real lol". They'd equally be within their rights to call me an asshole and tell me their beliefs on my mothers chastity.
And yes, when a Christian grabs him he's restraining him against his will. I don't get how you can not think that's wrong.
He's not imposing shit on the congregation. They are in no way limited by his beliefs and if they are upset by them that is entirely their issue, not his. That argument that you impose your beliefs upon others simply by doing an act by yourself is the same one that they use against homosexuals. To return to my MacDonalds argument, when you eat beef you're not imposing your belief that cows aren't sacred upon the entire Hindu world.
Oh, and the 'he started it' argument.... not strong.
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.
Obviously, no one would say the church was right to grab him. What exactly is there to argue about in that? At best, they can empathize with why they did it.
As for the 'right to act as you see fit'... as long as it doesn't 'interfere with others', who was watching out for the church? The idea is that they all gather together in a location with other people who share their belief, to carry out whatever it is they need to do. What more can you ask for? To my knowledge, no one invited him in, and even if they did, no one invited him to keep the bread in his pocket.
I noticed that a lot of people are suggesting that regardless, he was still within his 'rights' to do as he will, as he did not break any laws. That is stupid. If you visit another country, do you not follow that country's law? If you're in a new location, you respect that place's customs, law, and rituals. No one is forcing you to come against your will. If you're in a church, I suppose, you're expected to not take the bread with you, among other things.
*Off Topic*
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.
I like how you try and tell us to respect the beliefs of others, but you completely trash them at the same time.
On July 11 2008 12:53 Rekrul wrote: As far as I know theres no law against grabbing some little shifuckers hand after he disrespects you. And "right to move freely" LOL. They should have slapped him up a bit.
Scoffer got off light.
Actually there is. If you phoned up the police and said "I'm in a Church and this guy had hold of me and won't let me leave because he says it'd be really disrespectful" they'd turn up on your side. Physical force against an individual is entirely illegal. You're correct in as much as the normal response is to simply struggle free or hit them but if you felt like involving the law it'd be on your side. Otherwise you could just go out and grab random girls and refuse to let go, claiming that they in some way disrespected you.
thats how we do it in korean night clubs
girl tries to leave, block her entrance with the legs, if she has gotten past that already grab her hand and pull her back down
WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING
i gotta go
NO STAY (firmer grip, sometimes a drunken grrr... headlock)
*okay *
NO REALLY I WANT YOU TO STAY LETS HAVE A DRINK
*OKAY *
I don't really see this as in any way an argument against my post but more the start of a new debate about exactly what is wrong with Rekrul.
On July 11 2008 13:01 Ryot wrote: I know the physical act of being handed something doesn't mean possession, but shouldn't consumption? I think consumption has to imply ownership because how would it be possible to get it back...
See my earlier example with the all-you-can-eat buffet.
Consumption is not the same thing as ownership. The consumed item no longer exists as such. Permission to consume is different from permission to take ownership.
Note that he didn't consume the wafer. He pretended to consume it, by putting it in his mouth, so he could conceal his theft.
I know the physical act of being handed something doesn't mean possession, but shouldn't consumption? I think consumption has to imply ownership because how would it be possible to get it back...
If i feed you, you don't own the food i give you. You are eating my food.
... that's not a complex thing. The buffet example is perfect. Your contract is being able to eat my food, but paying for access doesn't mean the food belongs to you.
Are you saying you still have ownership of the food once it's inside of me?
All Tasteless did was say that he found it funny that people believe wafers can also be flesh. It seems very closed minded and completely lacking in empathy to say you have no idea where he's coming from there, or how he could possibly be that closed minded and that you actually lose respect for him for being so ignorant. I was simply calling out the hypocrisy. Christians should be open minded enough to say "lol, I admit it sounds a little weird but it's just what we believe" instead of getting angry that someone finds their beliefs funny. It doesn't take much empathy to understand why the wafer=flesh thing might sound strange.
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.
To your first point about him hiding it. That simply proves he thought the easiest way to get it out was to sneak it out, even if he had the right to walk out with it. Better to try and get it out without causing a scene then start an incident over it. If I went round to a friends house and he served me an excellent dinner then I'd be within my rights to spurn it. It would be very rude of me and I wouldn't be invited around again. This is the same here. There's a difference between what a person can do with their own body and own possessions (which is anything they want to) and what a person should do to conform with social norms.
Are you saying you still have ownership of the food once it's inside of me?
No one wants ownership of human fecal matter. But yeah, if you were fed a 100 million dollar per jar caviar, but ate the jar itself without opening it because you're dumb or something, then died of suffocation, the jar wouldn't go to your estate, it would be fished out of your mouth and given back to me.
By the way, I am in no way Christian, I have never been baptised, nor confirmed and I rarely go to Church (only to debate with the vicar who is a pretty cool guy) but I have consumed the host. I was curious what all the fuss was about and I wanted the free blessing (can't hurt) so I went up and recieved it. I treated it with as much dignity as a man can give a wafer he intends to eat, chewed several times with my mouth closed and then swallowed.
Are you saying you still have ownership of the food once it's inside of me?
No one wants ownership of human fecal matter. But yeah, if you were fed a 100 million dollar per jar caviar, but ate the jar itself without opening it because you're dumb or something, then died of suffocation, the jar wouldn't go to your estate, it would be fished out of your mouth and given back to me.
Ok... but what I'm understanding here is that:
1. I'm being given food 2. Even when it's inside of me, it's yours.
Wait what? Does that mean you get to like...control my bowel movements? I mean if it's yours I can only do with it what you want.
Another kinda related question: what happens if you do the ritual with the cracker and then later throw it up (on purpose or not) but decide to keep that which you've thrown up? Is that stealing? Even you don't decide to keep the throw-up, do you have to eat it up to rectify your actions?
On July 11 2008 12:53 Rekrul wrote: As far as I know theres no law against grabbing some little shifuckers hand after he disrespects you. And "right to move freely" LOL. They should have slapped him up a bit.
Scoffer got off light.
Actually there is. If you phoned up the police and said "I'm in a Church and this guy had hold of me and won't let me leave because he says it'd be really disrespectful" they'd turn up on your side. Physical force against an individual is entirely illegal. You're correct in as much as the normal response is to simply struggle free or hit them but if you felt like involving the law it'd be on your side. Otherwise you could just go out and grab random girls and refuse to let go, claiming that they in some way disrespected you.
thats how we do it in korean night clubs
girl tries to leave, block her entrance with the legs, if she has gotten past that already grab her hand and pull her back down
WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING
i gotta go
NO STAY (firmer grip, sometimes a drunken grrr... headlock)
*okay *
NO REALLY I WANT YOU TO STAY LETS HAVE A DRINK
*OKAY *
I don't really see this as in any way an argument against my post but more the start of a new debate about exactly what is wrong with Rekrul.
its no an argument against you just a random interjection, i do that sometimes
though it could be the start of a debate about why america is fucked up and korea owns!
1. I'm being given food 2. Even when it's inside of me, it's yours.
I already said, no one wants to own fecal matter, so after its in you, its kind of a moot point until it comes out. No one's going to cut you open.
what happens if you do the ritual with the cracker and then later throw it up (on purpose or not) but decide to keep that which you've thrown up?
Again, generalize it to any food: do you want to own food that someone's thrown up? No.
Now assume that the wafer was made of gold that dissolves in your intestines and costs 10k each to make; they'd want it back. Assume further that shit was hyper expensive; all you can eat restaurants might require that you poop before you leave. And hosts would probably frown on eating a lot without leaving a thank you poop.
Either way, fecal and semi-digested matter arent' really sought after property, so no one cares what happens to them after you've swallowed them. Swallowing a condom full of cocaine then pretending its yours after vomiting it up, however, might get you on the bad side of some drug lords.
I really don't get why this is so hard to understand :/
Are you saying you still have ownership of the food once it's inside of me?
No one wants ownership of human fecal matter. But yeah, if you were fed a 100 million dollar per jar caviar, but ate the jar itself without opening it because you're dumb or something, then died of suffocation, the jar wouldn't go to your estate, it would be fished out of your mouth and given back to me.
Ok... but what I'm understanding here is that:
1. I'm being given food 2. Even when it's inside of me, it's yours.
Wait what? Does that mean you get to like...control my bowel movements? I mean if it's yours I can only do with it what you want.
Another kinda related question: what happens if you do the ritual with the cracker and then later throw it up (on purpose or not) but decide to keep that which you've thrown up? Is that stealing? Even you don't decide to keep the throw-up, do you have to eat it up to rectify your actions?
These analogies are too extreme and do nothing to progess this argument. You're extreme is that If I give something with the intent on being used for a certain purpose, I have the right to take it back whenever I want, even if you were using it for the given purpose. The item is always mine, even if you posses it.
I could easily mention about the other extreme, where I'm trying to sell you my gold ring, and hand it over to you to inspect. Then, it becomes yours, because I willingly handed to you, and I don't have a deed/contract/whatever to prove that it is mine anymore, and I can not take it back as touching you in any way is assault. The item is mine only as long as I posses it.
Perhaps my extreme is not an as good as an example as yours, but you can see, arguing to the extreme is stupid. Obviously, a balance has to be found in between.
There's not much left to argue about,unless you want to begin the philosophy of where in between these two extremes we should lie.
If no one cares what happens to them after you've swallowed them, then why doesn't it change ownership?
I don't think it matters if most people wouldn't want to own it. The point is according to you that through the food you're feeding me you can exert control over me and what I do with said food. What's stopping you from saying that I can only take a dump with your food when you say? This is why I think at some point food has to change ownership. Because I can only do with your possessions what you let me.
When should the food change ownership? Well you say that nobody wants semi-digested matter. But I could argue that nobody wants food that's already been inside someone's mouth. And if the church can ask for a cracker back after being in somebody's mouth, what's stopping them from forcing you to throw-up your semi-digested cracker?
I disagree a lot with the Catholic church and how they sometimes handle cases like this, but honestly people, how can you possibly defend a punk ass douche bag like this? He obviously did it to be a prick and disrespect a group of people who were honestly and legitimately going about their own business. All philosophical arguments, anti or pro-religion bias, and other bullshit aside, at the end of the day, you either are on the side of a douche trying to be cool or just some honest, legitimate (religious) people.
Although he was in the Church he had an implied invitation. This means they could terminate it (by asking him to leave) and he would be obliged to leave. However by accepting the implied invitation he is in no way committed to not offending the beliefs of those inside.
Once inside he takes a wafer. If he is allowed to take a wafer he has been given (with the assumption he will consume it) is questionable. Whether intended purpose at the time of giving is a factor upon recieving is debated above. He does something with the wafer that the Catholics find offensive. I find this the equivalent of 'the farmer does something with the cow (like shoots it) that the Hindus find offensive'. Admittedly he's doing it to their face, in their place of worship which makes it very disrespectful but when it comes down to it there is nothing illegal in offending people. He's broken the rules of social conduct and he's acting like an asshole. But he's not acting illegally.
What the Church should have done was explain to him how important it was and requested the host back. If he continued to act like an ass then they just should have asked him to leave. His invitation to access their property terminated he would be obliged to leave and could subsequently be barred from the premises. They then could have talked among themselves about what a bastard he was.
The thing they did that was in my mind absolutely wrong was to allow their religious beliefs to be manifested in physical force, ie restraining him and attempting to force the wafer from him. It is on that ground alone that I am objecting to the Church here. If they had asked him to leave they would have been a model of tolerance and temperance. Just as a Hindu cannot forcibly disarm a farmer before he shoots a cow just because he believes the cow is sacred, so the Catholic cannot forcibly restrain this guy.
Are you saying you still have ownership of the food once it's inside of me?
No one wants ownership of human fecal matter. But yeah, if you were fed a 100 million dollar per jar caviar, but ate the jar itself without opening it because you're dumb or something, then died of suffocation, the jar wouldn't go to your estate, it would be fished out of your mouth and given back to me.
Ok... but what I'm understanding here is that:
1. I'm being given food 2. Even when it's inside of me, it's yours.
Wait what? Does that mean you get to like...control my bowel movements? I mean if it's yours I can only do with it what you want.
Another kinda related question: what happens if you do the ritual with the cracker and then later throw it up (on purpose or not) but decide to keep that which you've thrown up? Is that stealing? Even you don't decide to keep the throw-up, do you have to eat it up to rectify your actions?
These analogies are too extreme and do nothing to progess this argument. You're extreme is that If I give something with the intent on being used for a certain purpose, I have the right to take it back whenever I want, even if you were using it for the given purpose. The item is always mine, even if you posses it.
I could easily mention about the other extreme, where I'm trying to sell you my gold ring, and hand it over to you to inspect. Then, it becomes yours, because I willingly handed to you, and I don't have a deed/contract/whatever to prove that it is mine anymore, and I can not take it back as touching you in any way is assault. The item is mine only as long as I posses it.
Perhaps my extreme is not an as good as an example as yours, but you can see, arguing to the extreme is stupid. Obviously, a balance has to be found in between.
There's not much left to argue about,unless you want to begin the philosophy of where in between these two extremes we should lie.
Well I can understand if it seems silly. Originally I was wondering about "did he really steal the cracker", and since it was placed in his mouth and all, I figured he ought to have ownership of it. edit - interested in the legality of whether or not he really committed a crime.
On July 11 2008 13:43 Klogon wrote: I disagree a lot with the Catholic church and how they sometimes handle cases like this, but honestly people, how can you possibly defend a punk ass douche bag like this? He obviously did it to be a prick and disrespect a group of people who were honestly and legitimately going about their own business. All philosophical arguments, anti or pro-religion bias, and other bullshit aside, at the end of the day, you either are on the side of a douche trying to be cool or just some honest, legitimate (religious) people.
Again with the defending the right to be a prick without defending prickery.
On July 11 2008 13:35 kiero wrote: These analogies are too extreme and do nothing to progess this argument. You're extreme is that If I give something with the intent on being used for a certain purpose, I have the right to take it back whenever I want, even if you were using it for the given purpose. The item is always mine, even if you posses it.
I could easily mention about the other extreme, where I'm trying to sell you my gold ring, and hand it over to you to inspect. Then, it becomes yours, because I willingly handed to you, and I don't have a deed/contract/whatever to prove that it is mine anymore, and I can not take it back as touching you in any way is assault. The item is mine only as long as I posses it.
Perhaps my extreme is not an as good as an example as yours, but you can see, arguing to the extreme is stupid.
The first "extreme" is the actual law. The opposing "extreme" is nonsense.
You do not gain ownership of someone else's property unless the rightful owner expresses his will to transfer ownership. Once ownership is transferred, he can't take it back or tell you what to do with it. If ownership is not transferred, he can tell you what you are and are not allowed to do with it, and you must respect those restrictions or return his property.
You can legally use or consume things which are not your property, with permission. When they are consumed, legally they are destroyed. They don't become your property, they become part of your body. At no point was the food or beverage yours: first it was the host's, and then it ceased to exist as a distinct individual object. This is not a complicated or subtle point.
We're not talking about opinion here. We're talking about principles of law The law does not compromise with your opinions. Even if it seems extreme to you, it won't "meet you in the middle" if you go to court.
On July 11 2008 14:01 Funchucks wrote: You do not gain ownership of someone else's property unless the rightful owner expresses his will to transfer ownership.
And shouldn't this be when the cracker is placed in your mouth? If you give someone your food, can you take it out of their mouth because it's still yours? What's done with the food later is obviously irrelevant if ownership has been vanquished.
Although he was in the Church he had an implied invitation. This means they could terminate it (by asking him to leave) and he would be obliged to leave. However by accepting the implied invitation he is in no way committed to not offending the beliefs of those inside.
Once inside he takes a wafer. If he is allowed to take a wafer he has been given (with the assumption he will consume it) is questionable. Whether intended purpose at the time of giving is a factor upon recieving is debated above. He does something with the wafer that the Catholics find offensive. I find this the equivalent of 'the farmer does something with the cow (like shoots it) that the Hindus find offensive'. Admittedly he's doing it to their face, in their place of worship which makes it very disrespectful but when it comes down to it there is nothing illegal in offending people. He's broken the rules of social conduct and he's acting like an asshole. But he's not acting illegally.
What the Church should have done was explain to him how important it was and requested the host back. If he continued to act like an ass then they just should have asked him to leave. His invitation to access their property terminated he would be obliged to leave and could subsequently be barred from the premises. They then could have talked among themselves about what a bastard he was.
The thing they did that was in my mind absolutely wrong was to allow their religious beliefs to be manifested in physical force, ie restraining him and attempting to force the wafer from him. It is on that ground alone that I am objecting to the Church here. If they had asked him to leave they would have been a model of tolerance and temperance. Just as a Hindu cannot forcibly disarm a farmer before he shoots a cow just because he believes the cow is sacred, so the Catholic cannot forcibly restrain this guy.
Nice post, lol, I really have nothing to argue with there. Why couldn't you have just posted that earlier?
On July 11 2008 13:35 kiero wrote: These analogies are too extreme and do nothing to progess this argument. You're extreme is that If I give something with the intent on being used for a certain purpose, I have the right to take it back whenever I want, even if you were using it for the given purpose. The item is always mine, even if you posses it.
I could easily mention about the other extreme, where I'm trying to sell you my gold ring, and hand it over to you to inspect. Then, it becomes yours, because I willingly handed to you, and I don't have a deed/contract/whatever to prove that it is mine anymore, and I can not take it back as touching you in any way is assault. The item is mine only as long as I posses it.
Perhaps my extreme is not an as good as an example as yours, but you can see, arguing to the extreme is stupid.
The first "extreme" is the actual law. The opposing "extreme" is nonsense.
You do not gain ownership of someone else's property unless the rightful owner expresses his will to transfer ownership. Once ownership is transferred, he can't take it back or tell you what to do with it. If ownership is not transferred, he can tell you what you are and are not allowed to do with it, and you must respect those restrictions or return his property.
You can legally use or consume things which are not your property, with permission. When they are consumed, legally they are destroyed. They don't become your property, they become part of your body. At no point was the food or beverage yours: first it was the host's, and then it ceased to exist as a distinct individual object. This is not a complicated or subtle point.
We're not talking about opinion here. We're talking about principles of law The law does not compromise with your opinions. Even if it seems extreme to you, it won't "meet you in the middle" if you go to court.
Your missing the point, I call it an extreme because it is an extreme, used as an example. To my understanding, you are not agreeing with my first extreme, because as I stated it, 'the item is always mine'. Obviously, this too is nonsensical.
And no, there is no such law. Not to my knowledge. I do not believe a law exists which states 'If ownership is not transferred, he can tell you what you are and are not allowed to do with it, and you must respect those restrictions or return his property.' This is why there is so much controversy in the first place. I would be very humbled if you could give an example of such a law.
What I am getting from your post is that the 'no one's ownership' time should occur when the item is 'legally destroyed'. Yet, how we define legally destroyed can be, indeed a very complicated point. When is it legally destroyed? When anything, in any way, changes its three dimensional location? When we no longer recognize the object? When we can no longer recreate the object with what we retrieve? When its molecular formula has changed? When all the atoms have been destroyed by an anti particle counterpart? For any situation, there is always a 'line of disctinctions'
On July 11 2008 14:01 Funchucks wrote: You do not gain ownership of someone else's property unless the rightful owner expresses his will to transfer ownership.
And shouldn't this be when the cracker is placed in your mouth? If you give someone your food, can you take it out of their mouth because it's still yours? What's done with the food later is obviously irrelevant if ownership has been vanquished.
I explained this already: there is no transfer of ownership involved at all. Consumption is destruction. The property is not transferred, it ceases to exist. If the property is not consumed and destroyed, then it remains the property of the original owner.
If you give someone permission to eat your food, then no, you can't grab it out of his mouth. He's operating within the limits of your permission. You told him he could eat the food. He's eating the food. Your power to revoke previously granted permission and to interfere with the enjoyment of that permission is limited by a standard of reasonability. The mere fact of your property being in his mouth does not give you power to compel him to spit it out or to prevent him from chewing and swallowing, you would need an additional justification (such as him never having had permission to eat it in the first place, and you having some reason for wanting the property back).
Likewise, if you lend someone a ladder to climb up on, you can't snatch it out from under him just because it's your property. There are other legal considerations beyond property law.
On the other hand, you can't go to an all-you-can-eat buffet, put items of food momentarily in your mouth, decide that they are now your property, and put them in a container to take home with you. There is no point where the food becomes your property.
Ownership is not "vanquished" until the property is destroyed. If you conceal a wafer in your mouth, then take it out, you have not consumed it. It still exists as a distinct object, and therefore it is still the original owner's property.
On July 11 2008 13:44 Kwark wrote: I'm going to go to sleep so I'll recap.
Although he was in the Church he had an implied invitation. This means they could terminate it (by asking him to leave) and he would be obliged to leave. However by accepting the implied invitation he is in no way committed to not offending the beliefs of those inside.
Once inside he takes a wafer. If he is allowed to take a wafer he has been given (with the assumption he will consume it) is questionable. Whether intended purpose at the time of giving is a factor upon recieving is debated above. He does something with the wafer that the Catholics find offensive. I find this the equivalent of 'the farmer does something with the cow (like shoots it) that the Hindus find offensive'. Admittedly he's doing it to their face, in their place of worship which makes it very disrespectful but when it comes down to it there is nothing illegal in offending people. He's broken the rules of social conduct and he's acting like an asshole. But he's not acting illegally.
What the Church should have done was explain to him how important it was and requested the host back. If he continued to act like an ass then they just should have asked him to leave. His invitation to access their property terminated he would be obliged to leave and could subsequently be barred from the premises. They then could have talked among themselves about what a bastard he was.
The thing they did that was in my mind absolutely wrong was to allow their religious beliefs to be manifested in physical force, ie restraining him and attempting to force the wafer from him. It is on that ground alone that I am objecting to the Church here. If they had asked him to leave they would have been a model of tolerance and temperance. Just as a Hindu cannot forcibly disarm a farmer before he shoots a cow just because he believes the cow is sacred, so the Catholic cannot forcibly restrain this guy.
There are laws, and there are implied rules. Laws are rules that are important enough to be enforced, anywhere, anytime (lousy definition, lets not argue this, its not my main point). Both are important to different degrees.
I think its an implied rule that you shouldn't 'take the cracker', at the very least. The excuse 'he didn't know better' is not a good one, because I woudln't be able to go to america, get sued for illegal downloads and claim 'didn't know better' to the RIAA. But what does the church have to do to get its implied rules respected? Does the church have to become its own country, place patrol guards at its entrance who check for purpose and duration of visit, and create its own law system to finally make it illegal to 'steal the cracker'. Still, looking back, if all the above HAD happened, I suppose this situation would have never arrised, as the guy wouldn't be able to get in in the first place.
Your very focused on 'what the guy did' and 'what the church did', and what the law says about both their rights to do so. I don't think you're looking at the situation as a whole, and the circumstance which caused this (which is just as important sometimes).
On July 11 2008 14:35 kiero wrote: And no, there is no such law. Not to my knowledge. I do not believe a law exists which states 'If ownership is not transferred, he can tell you what you are and are not allowed to do with it, and you must respect those restrictions or return his property.' This is why there is so much controversy in the first place. I would be very humbled if you could give an example of such a law.
Okay, apparently you don't even know what law is.
This is part of the common law. It isn't written down in a legal code somewhere. It is understood within the legal profession and embodied in precedent.
What I am getting from your post is that the 'no one's ownership' time should occur when the item is 'legally destroyed'. Yet, how we define legally destroyed can be, indeed a very complicated point. When is it legally destroyed? When anything, in any way, changes its three dimensional location? When we no longer recognize the object? When we can no longer recreate the object with what we retrieve? When its molecular formula has changed? When all the atoms have been destroyed by an anti particle counterpart? For any situation, there is always a 'line of disctinctions'
Here we are again with you not understanding the nature of law.
Law is always subject to reasonable interpretation. It is not a mathematical formula or a computer program.
If the supposedly consumed object is recovered and intentionally kept, then obviously it was not destroyed. There is no reasonable ambiguity in the case of the stolen wafer as to whether it was consumed: it was not consumed, it was only concealed in the mouth temporarily.
You're caviling. It's like saying, "How can I stop at a stop sign? I am actually moving very fast. The earth is spinning, and also going around the sun, and the sun is moving around the galactic center." That is not a reasonable interpretation. As for edge cases, sometimes the judge will have to... judge.
Nobody is obliged to give you a rigid set of rules to exploit and twist into something unreasonable. Law is only meant to be argued before a knowledgeable and reasonable judge.
On July 11 2008 14:35 kiero wrote: And no, there is no such law. Not to my knowledge. I do not believe a law exists which states 'If ownership is not transferred, he can tell you what you are and are not allowed to do with it, and you must respect those restrictions or return his property.' This is why there is so much controversy in the first place. I would be very humbled if you could give an example of such a law.
Okay, apparently you don't even know what law is.
This is part of the common law. It isn't written down in a legal code somewhere. It is understood within the legal profession and embodied in precedent.
What I am getting from your post is that the 'no one's ownership' time should occur when the item is 'legally destroyed'. Yet, how we define legally destroyed can be, indeed a very complicated point. When is it legally destroyed? When anything, in any way, changes its three dimensional location? When we no longer recognize the object? When we can no longer recreate the object with what we retrieve? When its molecular formula has changed? When all the atoms have been destroyed by an anti particle counterpart? For any situation, there is always a 'line of disctinctions'
Here we are again with you not understanding the nature of law.
Law is always subject to reasonable interpretation. It is not a mathematical formula or a computer program.
If the supposedly consumed object is recovered and intentionally kept, then obviously it was not destroyed. There is no reasonable ambiguity in the case of the stolen wafer as to whether it was consumed: it was not consumed, it was only concealed in the mouth temporarily.
You're caviling. It's like saying, "How can I stop at a stop sign? I am actually moving very fast. The earth is spinning, and also going around the sun, and the sun is moving around the galactic center." That is not a reasonable interpretation. As for edge cases, sometimes the judge will have to... judge.
Nobody is obliged to give you a rigid set of rules to exploit and twist into something unreasonable. Law is only meant to be argued before a knowledgeable and reasonable judge.
Oh geez... You realize that in the end, you're stating mostly the same thing I am, just perhaps in a different way? I was saying we shouldn't take examples to the extreme, and I think you are too.
Anything that isn't written down is free for the judge to interpret, yes. So your 1st and 2nd paragraph, my point is basiclly the end of 6th paragraph. Unfortunately, not everyone always agrees with what the judge, judges either. We're here to also state how we interpret the problem, what should be done, or what should be changed. There isn't much to talk about if all we say is that we should all just be 'reasonable'. Part of the point right now is to try and persuade others what reasonable is.
Anyways, Im going to bed. I'm glad this thread hasn't just turned into a religious bashing.
On July 11 2008 14:35 kiero wrote: And no, there is no such law. Not to my knowledge. I do not believe a law exists which states 'If ownership is not transferred, he can tell you what you are and are not allowed to do with it, and you must respect those restrictions or return his property.' This is why there is so much controversy in the first place. I would be very humbled if you could give an example of such a law.
Okay, apparently you don't even know what law is.
This is part of the common law. It isn't written down in a legal code somewhere. It is understood within the legal profession and embodied in precedent.
What I am getting from your post is that the 'no one's ownership' time should occur when the item is 'legally destroyed'. Yet, how we define legally destroyed can be, indeed a very complicated point. When is it legally destroyed? When anything, in any way, changes its three dimensional location? When we no longer recognize the object? When we can no longer recreate the object with what we retrieve? When its molecular formula has changed? When all the atoms have been destroyed by an anti particle counterpart? For any situation, there is always a 'line of disctinctions'
Here we are again with you not understanding the nature of law.
Law is always subject to reasonable interpretation. It is not a mathematical formula or a computer program.
If the supposedly consumed object is recovered and intentionally kept, then obviously it was not destroyed. There is no reasonable ambiguity in the case of the stolen wafer as to whether it was consumed: it was not consumed, it was only concealed in the mouth temporarily.
You're caviling. It's like saying, "How can I stop at a stop sign? I am actually moving very fast. The earth is spinning, and also going around the sun, and the sun is moving around the galactic center." That is not a reasonable interpretation. As for edge cases, sometimes the judge will have to... judge.
Nobody is obliged to give you a rigid set of rules to exploit and twist into something unreasonable. Law is only meant to be argued before a knowledgeable and reasonable judge.
Oh geez... You realize that in the end, you're stating the same thing I am, just perhaps in a different way? Anything that isn't written down is free for the judge to interpret, yes. So your 1st and 2nd paragraph, my point is basiclly the end of 6th paragraph. Unfortunately, not everyone always agrees with what the judge, judges either. There's not much to talk about if you just say, let the judge me the judge, and let us not interfare/state our opinion.
No, the judge is not free to interpret anything that isn't written down. He must abide by the weight of precedent. That is the basis of common law.
If he goes against established precedent, or is unreasonable in his interpretation of the law, then his decision should be overturned on appeal.
Judges do have a certain amount of discretion, but a good and persistent advocate can overcome any one incompetent, biased, or unreasonable judge through the appeals process.
What the Church should have done was explain to him how important it was and requested the host back. If he continued to act like an ass then they just should have asked him to leave. His invitation to access their property terminated he would be obliged to leave and could subsequently be barred from the premises. They then could have talked among themselves about what a bastard he was.
Only, they did that, and he proceeded to pretend to swallow the host, then sneak out with it. The church DID offer to sit down and talk with him, but he started using the event as a way to cry about how his university tuition was partially funding terrible physical abusers like them.
Consider this a type of burglary. Would you tell a burglar to have a nice day, but to take it elsewhere when he's got a sack of your items inside? No, you'd tell him to give them back.
That's where it ends. This isn't complex. It isn't difficult. He was an asshole. Plain and simple.
where is the problem.. try to have a little empathy and respect.. you don't run around telling your grandfather "soldiers in WWII were all murderers" for example. there is a borderline within which you try not to offend your environment on a too personal basis and i think religion is something very personal. it's belief. BELIEF. it's not about logic and they won't act reasonable if you "steal" their damn cracker. on the other hand the prick COULD act reasonable and see that he overstepped a line and it's far more easier for him to give in and hand back [christ's body <-> ordinary cracker] than for the believer to overthrow his religion.
don't get me wrong, i'm against such excesses as someone clawing your fingers over a cracker and i think such incidents and debates at least help to open eyes on the one or the other side but if you are mildly intelligent you should know that this object possesses an immense virtual value for them and it's just impolite, childish, disrespectful and narrow minded acting like he does when he was the one who "started" this in the first place.
i also think that kwark's self-focused logic is failing in this case versus an appropriate "nod-and-smile-even-if-you-think-it's-dumb" tolerance.
on the subject of virtual value: imagine your little sister gives you a stone which is very important to her and you then - as you fail to see the significance (it's just a stone and she GAVE it to me) - throw it away... 1) you wouldn't do that in front of her eyes and if you did you would just be an ass 2) if she found it somewhere in the garden she would be really hurt ... even if that example is very simple i think it's transferable in a way to how the situation with the cracker can be assessed: there are certain things you can do and certain things you can't do when you don't want to hurt another person or group of people. if you want to steal it, DON'T GET CAUGHT (what they don't know won't make them angry), if you get caught DON'T ACT LIKE A CHILD and say "Sorry, didn't know it was that important to you - here take it back.".
People can't just assign arbitrary values to their possessions and require the rest of the world to abide by those values.
These aren't arbitrary values. Catholics didn't just magically decide that the host was magically important. The host is a symbol, much like a flag is a symbol, or the menorah is a symbol, or the kirpan is a symbol or the cookie monster is a symbol. Stealing the host, stealing the flag, stealing someone's kirpan or stealing a menorah is all the same thing. Its a direct assault on a symbol which people place value in.
I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make. I know the host is worth a lot to serious Catholics. I'm willing to accept that it should be treated as more than just a cracker. But I am NOT giving Catholicism a carte blanche to name any price for it and expect me to swallow it. That's just a stupid thing to do.
To quote the spoiler quoting the article:
"It is hurtful," said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. "Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family."
Umm no. I REFUSE to agree with that analogy. Your host is NOT as valuable as a family member. If it were, this kid would be charged with criminal kidnapping, and the police would be set to his house immediately to arrest him and recover the "family member". That is completely unreasonable. Of course people are free to feel that way, but as I said before, I won't sympathize with them if they place such a ludicrously large value on the thing. (And of course their appraisal should not be accepted by laws, either.)
Anyway, now that I read the 1st article more carefully, and ignore the 2nd one because it was written by Fox news and is probably full of shit (it even implies the kid is receiving death threats), I see that (a) the kid is definitely being a disrespectful jackass, and (b) the Church members are acting reasonable, and are not demanding anything ridiculous despite the bad analogy above.
Now I feel like kicking Ryot for posting a Fox news article which (as expected) made the situation look 1000 times more outrageous than it really is, although I am partly to blame for reading and believing it without checking the source. -_-;;
I don't think we can protect every religious belief just for the sake of being polite. What about that family that prayed for their child with diabetes instead of giving her medical treatment?
Quite frankly, hiding behind a facade of "We're trying to be respectful!" only brings this world back a step when we can as a community state the obvious and say what should be done.
To allow immature behavior as taking severe offense over the displacement of a cracker is like nurturing a teenager's attachment to a stuffed animal. You would never advocate the latter, so why do we turn a blind eye to the former? Out of respect? I imagine at this point the offended party is simply keeping up the complaint just to save face.
On July 11 2008 13:01 Ryot wrote: I know the physical act of being handed something doesn't mean possession, but shouldn't consumption? I think consumption has to imply ownership because how would it be possible to get it back...
See my earlier example with the all-you-can-eat buffet.
Consumption is not the same thing as ownership. The consumed item no longer exists as such. Permission to consume is different from permission to take ownership.
Note that he didn't consume the wafer. He pretended to consume it, by putting it in his mouth, so he could conceal his theft.
It - is - a - cracker. A child stealing another child's gummy bear should not bear the same punishment as a child stealing the teacher's purse. If you're allowed to put utmost importance on any insignificant object by sake of religious right, then I'm going to say that anyone who steps on my slippers is offending my religious beliefs and should have to publicly apologize in front of a court.
No?
On July 11 2008 13:43 Klogon wrote: I disagree a lot with the Catholic church and how they sometimes handle cases like this, but honestly people, how can you possibly defend a punk ass douche bag like this? He obviously did it to be a prick and disrespect a group of people who were honestly and legitimately going about their own business. All philosophical arguments, anti or pro-religion bias, and other bullshit aside, at the end of the day, you either are on the side of a douche trying to be cool or just some honest, legitimate (religious) people.
Not to advocate young adult foolishness, but I would think the higher authority would be mature enough to let him go rather than taking up arms against a teen simply exploring his boundaries. Okay, the teen should not be purposefully causing trouble - but the Church, a source of authoritative moral standing, should not fall head over heels over a child's mistake in holding on to a piece of bread. Someone has to take the high ground and move on, and you're basically saying that a religion (that, like others) claims to have the answers to all the questions of existence should be at the emotional control of a child.
You could say that, but another perspective is that the church is just proving itself right when it says nobody is perfect and "we all need Jesus" which is in my opinion how even the church leadership should be viewed instead of always put on a pedestal as if they can without human emotion 100% of the time.
On July 11 2008 14:01 Funchucks wrote: You do not gain ownership of someone else's property unless the rightful owner expresses his will to transfer ownership.
And shouldn't this be when the cracker is placed in your mouth? If you give someone your food, can you take it out of their mouth because it's still yours? What's done with the food later is obviously irrelevant if ownership has been vanquished.
I explained this already: there is no transfer of ownership involved at all. Consumption is destruction. The property is not transferred, it ceases to exist. If the property is not consumed and destroyed, then it remains the property of the original owner.
If you give someone permission to eat your food, then no, you can't grab it out of his mouth. He's operating within the limits of your permission. You told him he could eat the food. He's eating the food. Your power to revoke previously granted permission and to interfere with the enjoyment of that permission is limited by a standard of reasonability. The mere fact of your property being in his mouth does not give you power to compel him to spit it out or to prevent him from chewing and swallowing, you would need an additional justification (such as him never having had permission to eat it in the first place, and you having some reason for wanting the property back).
Likewise, if you lend someone a ladder to climb up on, you can't snatch it out from under him just because it's your property. There are other legal considerations beyond property law.
On the other hand, you can't go to an all-you-can-eat buffet, put items of food momentarily in your mouth, decide that they are now your property, and put them in a container to take home with you. There is no point where the food becomes your property.
Ownership is not "vanquished" until the property is destroyed. If you conceal a wafer in your mouth, then take it out, you have not consumed it. It still exists as a distinct object, and therefore it is still the original owner's property.
If a friend of mine offered me food and got mad if I pocketed a little piece of it, I would laugh. "I said you could eat it, not have it!"
I would hope any other rational human beings would either. If you disagree, feel free to peg yourself as irrational or otherwise argumentative for argument's sake.
And assuming you are right, and that the church is not mad due to sacrilege but straight theft, I find it absurd that one of the richest and cultured institutions on the planet is going to go up in arms and demand retribution against a child still going through puberty. It looks like my high school counselor understands better than the Catholic Church that even kids make mistakes.
On July 11 2008 21:23 opsayo wrote: I don't think we can protect every religious belief just for the sake of being polite. What about that family that prayed for their child with diabetes instead of giving her medical treatment?
Quite frankly, hiding behind a facade of "We're trying to be respectful!" only brings this world back a step when we can as a community state the obvious and say what should be done.
To allow immature behavior as taking severe offense over the displacement of a cracker is like nurturing a teenager's attachment to a stuffed animal. You would never advocate the latter, so why do we turn a blind eye to the former? Out of respect? I imagine at this point the offended party is simply keeping up the complaint just to save face.
why always take it to the extreme? i was refering to a moderate case where your intelligence should tell you to back off and leave them be - tolerance in one word - and i'm in no way for going back to the middle ages, or even one step back, no, but one has to accept that the world is as it is and that some people have strong beliefs in - to our eyes - ridiculous things but nevertheless it's really emotionally important to them. You don't know why any of these persons believe.. some use it as a psychological, unconscious crook to block off complex thoughts which would otherwise ask too much of them and drive them into suicide or something. "Why are we here?" "What is my MISSION, my DESTINY" - look, already these two (capsed) terms bear a religious connotation - they are fabrics to make life livable and understandable... man, i don't even want to go on.. just let some persons be who don't get a grip otherwise...
I understand if you are fine with letting people be as long as they are not infringing or offending other people.
Quite frankly, this church is trying to push its archaic (I said it, tell me otherwise) beliefs on a child demanding that he be punished for what any other logical non-believer (and apparently believers alike) would recognize as irrational and over-the-top.
On another note, I am entirely against simply allowing others to wallow in their own "crapulence" (bonus points if you know the show this comes from). It brings down society's standards to allow the common people to be otherwise uninformed and uneducated. This applies to logical fallacies and common delusions. Similar to how health insurance betters society's health as a whole, higher public education requirements betters our community and builds a better future.
Catering to the foolish or unintelligent only takes us back. We don't allow children to believe that 1+1 = 3, or that the sky turns blue because it wants to. We teach children in schools to recognize and avoid delusions like pyramid schemes or small cult activities that take advantage of them monetarily. It is only a short extension to understand that we should not be catering to other irrational delusions like taking offense at a cracker being pocketed instead of eaten.
On July 11 2008 21:41 opsayo wrote: I understand if you are fine with letting people be as long as they are not infringing or offending other people.
Quite frankly, this church is trying to push its archaic (I said it, tell me otherwise) beliefs on a child demanding that he be punished for what any other logical non-believer (and apparently believers alike) would recognize as irrational and over-the-top.
On another note, I am entirely against simply allowing others to wallow in their own "crapulence" (bonus points if you know the show this comes from). It brings down society's standards to allow the common people to be otherwise uninformed and uneducated. This applies to logical fallacies and common delusions. Similar to how health insurance betters society's health as a whole, higher public education requirements betters our community and builds a better future.
Catering to the foolish or unintelligent only takes us back. We don't allow children to believe that 1+1 = 3, or that the sky turns blue because it wants to. We teach children in schools to recognize and avoid delusions like pyramid schemes or small cult activities that take advantage of them monetarily. It is only a short extension to understand that we should not be catering to other irrational delusions like taking offense at a cracker being pocketed instead of eaten.
sry, we argue on totally different levels.. (no hierarchy implied)
On July 11 2008 14:01 Funchucks wrote: You do not gain ownership of someone else's property unless the rightful owner expresses his will to transfer ownership.
And shouldn't this be when the cracker is placed in your mouth? If you give someone your food, can you take it out of their mouth because it's still yours? What's done with the food later is obviously irrelevant if ownership has been vanquished.
I explained this already: there is no transfer of ownership involved at all. Consumption is destruction. The property is not transferred, it ceases to exist. If the property is not consumed and destroyed, then it remains the property of the original owner.
If you give someone permission to eat your food, then no, you can't grab it out of his mouth. He's operating within the limits of your permission. You told him he could eat the food. He's eating the food. Your power to revoke previously granted permission and to interfere with the enjoyment of that permission is limited by a standard of reasonability. The mere fact of your property being in his mouth does not give you power to compel him to spit it out or to prevent him from chewing and swallowing, you would need an additional justification (such as him never having had permission to eat it in the first place, and you having some reason for wanting the property back).
Likewise, if you lend someone a ladder to climb up on, you can't snatch it out from under him just because it's your property. There are other legal considerations beyond property law.
On the other hand, you can't go to an all-you-can-eat buffet, put items of food momentarily in your mouth, decide that they are now your property, and put them in a container to take home with you. There is no point where the food becomes your property.
Ownership is not "vanquished" until the property is destroyed. If you conceal a wafer in your mouth, then take it out, you have not consumed it. It still exists as a distinct object, and therefore it is still the original owner's property.
If a friend of mine offered me food and got mad if I pocketed a little piece of it, I would laugh. "I said you could eat it, not have it!"
I would hope any other rational human beings would either. If you disagree, feel free to peg yourself as irrational or otherwise argumentative for argument's sake.
And assuming you are right, and that the church is not mad due to sacrilege but straight theft, I find it absurd that one of the richest and cultured institutions on the planet is going to go up in arms and demand retribution against a child still going through puberty. It looks like my high school counselor understands better than the Catholic Church that even kids make mistakes.
I'm not talking about their motivation, I'm talking about their legal right to put hands on him. Of course they're upset about the sacrilege. Specifically, they're upset that he stole a wafer which is, to them, a priceless holy object.
When I say it is priceless, I mean that literally. If Bill Gates went into a Catholic church and offered to pay a billion dollars to receive a wafer blessed in the communion, to become his personal property that he could dispose of as he pleases, his offer would be rejected.
If you steal the Mona Lisa, you're on the hook for more than a scrap of canvas and a couple of tubes of paint. If you tear up somebody's framed "First Dollar I Ever Earned", expect to be sued for more than a dollar. If you burn shoes worn by Elvis in his first TV appearance, you can't make it better with a new pair of shoes. The value of things can be more than the value of their physical material. This is not just about a cracker, it's about the value the rightful owners sincerely place on that cracker.
People have certain rights to interfere with the commission of a crime. If someone is stealing your priceless sacred object, you are allowed to hold them from running away or snatch it back out of their hands.
He has committed a crime. He has persistently refused to apologize or return the stolen property to its rightful owners. He is the one who started trouble with the school administration by complaining that representatives of the church touched him in an attempt to prevent his commission of a crime.
Cook filed an official abuse complaint with UCF's student conduct court regarding the alleged physical force. Following that complaint, Brinati said church members filed their own official complaints of disruptive conduct.
See? The church members are being totally reasonable. They weren't even going to file a complaint until he started this shit about how he's allowed to steal whatever he wants, and they're not allowed to lay a finger on him. Now he's demanding an apology for their lawful interference with his commission of a crime, and still holding their priceless stolen property.
They are only defending themselves with countercharges and explaining their position. He is the one who is making all of this trouble, by committing a crime and a violation of the college rules and then involving authorities. If he behaved reasonably and decently at any point, all of the trouble would have gone away, and if he starts now, it probably would still all go away.
If he keeps pushing this, he may find himself kicked out of school, or even facing criminal charges, and he'll have no one to blame but himself.
On July 12 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote: When I say it is priceless, I mean that literally. If Bill Gates went into a Catholic church and offered to pay a billion dollars to receive a wafer blessed in the communion, to become his personal property that he could dispose of as he pleases, his offer would be rejected.
Doubtful, many places of worship would be willing to take that trade, but that's beside the point.
People have certain rights to interfere with the commission of a crime. If someone is stealing your priceless sacred object, you are allowed to hold them from running away or snatch it back out of their hands.
I'm not sure if that's true either. There have been a number of lawsuits in the US where stores have been sued for restraining or simply laying a hand on someone who was caught in the act of stealing. In this case, I'm assuming that the lady wasn't employed by the Church. Someone who works in retail would be better suited to explain it, but most major retailers don't allow their workers to try and apprehend shoplifters.
Legally, that is. Obviously in the grand scale of Heaven and Hell, assuming you believe in them, it would be completely acceptable to stop someone.
On July 12 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote: When I say it is priceless, I mean that literally. If Bill Gates went into a Catholic church and offered to pay a billion dollars to receive a wafer blessed in the communion, to become his personal property that he could dispose of as he pleases, his offer would be rejected.
Doubtful, many places of worship would be willing to take that trade, but that's beside the point.
That is like saying, "Many nannies would sell the children they are caring for."
Conceivably it is true that you would find someone to do it, but it would be completely in violation of their role and they could expect serious consequences to follow.
People have certain rights to interfere with the commission of a crime. If someone is stealing your priceless sacred object, you are allowed to hold them from running away or snatch it back out of their hands.
I'm not sure if that's true either. There have been a number of lawsuits in the US where stores have been sued for restraining or simply laying a hand on someone who was caught in the act of stealing. In this case, I'm assuming that the lady wasn't employed by the Church. Someone who works in retail would be better suited to explain it, but most major retailers don't allow their workers to try and apprehend shoplifters.
They are in danger of being sued for using force against an innocent person due to a misunderstanding or for using excessive force or some other improper element of procedure. This is a pragmatic decision due to the likelihood of error, and not based on legal principle.
Anyway, shoplifting is a special category with specific laws which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A church is not a store, and stealing the eucharist is not shoplifting.
On July 12 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote: When I say it is priceless, I mean that literally. If Bill Gates went into a Catholic church and offered to pay a billion dollars to receive a wafer blessed in the communion, to become his personal property that he could dispose of as he pleases, his offer would be rejected.
Doubtful, many places of worship would be willing to take that trade, but that's beside the point.
That is like saying, "Many nannies would sell the children they are caring for."
Conceivably it is true that you would find someone to do it, but it would be completely in violation of their role and they could expect serious consequences to follow.
It's quite common for religions to make alterations for pragmatic reasons. In this case, the price tag of 1 billion dollars is so extreme that it might even be difficult to find one that doesn't. No surviving group is so steadfast that they don't bend the rules.
Calling it a cracker is kind of missing the point, and being at least a bit close minded. I agree that threatening to kill the kid is way over the top, but it isn't just a cracker. If you are a catholic it is a symbol of your faith and the man who died for you, it is even a bit more literal than that.
Are you really so close minded to not understand how something objectively trivial can take on great meaning?
Lets say that you go on a date with a woman you've been in love with for years who finally agreed to go out with you. As a joke at the end of the night, she gives you as a "gift" a pack of saltines. A year later you are married, and you put the pack of saltines in your memory box. Your wife dies 20 years later of cervical cancer.
Then some punk ass kid who is visiting your house goes into your memory box, takes the crackers and uses them for his soup because he thinks it is funny that they are so important to you.
Now objectively, of course they are just crackers, but they mean something more than that, and if you think you wouldn't be pissed you aren't thinking it through. Yes, you might forgive the kid, but you would be angry at losing the symbol and he even knew it was important to you.
We can bash religion, but you can be just as big a dogmatist bashing religion as you can supporting it.
On July 12 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote: When I say it is priceless, I mean that literally. If Bill Gates went into a Catholic church and offered to pay a billion dollars to receive a wafer blessed in the communion, to become his personal property that he could dispose of as he pleases, his offer would be rejected.
Doubtful, many places of worship would be willing to take that trade, but that's beside the point.
That is like saying, "Many nannies would sell the children they are caring for."
Conceivably it is true that you would find someone to do it, but it would be completely in violation of their role and they could expect serious consequences to follow.
It's quite common for religions to make alterations for pragmatic reasons. In this case, the price tag of 1 billion dollars is so extreme that it might even be difficult to find one that doesn't. No surviving group is so steadfast that they don't bend the rules.
...and a religion doesn't survive by demonstrating to its followers that its principles mean nothing in the face of earthy temptation, either.
Under Catholic doctrine, the Eucharist is the literal substance of Christ. It is not an object of commerce. Abuse of the Eucharist is abuse of the body of Christ, and it is a sacrilege serious enough to be classified as mortal sin.
On July 12 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote: When I say it is priceless, I mean that literally. If Bill Gates went into a Catholic church and offered to pay a billion dollars to receive a wafer blessed in the communion, to become his personal property that he could dispose of as he pleases, his offer would be rejected.
Doubtful, many places of worship would be willing to take that trade, but that's beside the point.
That is like saying, "Many nannies would sell the children they are caring for."
Conceivably it is true that you would find someone to do it, but it would be completely in violation of their role and they could expect serious consequences to follow.
It's quite common for religions to make alterations for pragmatic reasons. In this case, the price tag of 1 billion dollars is so extreme that it might even be difficult to find one that doesn't. No surviving group is so steadfast that they don't bend the rules.
...and a religion doesn't survive by demonstrating to its followers that its principles mean nothing in the face of earthy temptation, either.
Under Catholic doctrine, the Eucharist is the literal substance of Christ. It is not an object of commerce. Abuse of the Eucharist is abuse of the body of Christ, and it is a sacrilege serious enough to be classified as mortal sin.
the church can make good use of 1 billion in missions and what not. They will take the 1 billion for damn sure.
On July 12 2008 06:01 L wrote: Which is why no one's supporting either of those actions. : )
Way to throw incendiary stupidity onto an otherwise finished topic.
Accept the church did support these actions, by hiding the offending suspect priests. I was baptized catholic so maybe thats why i have no compassion for the church now: they survived over a thousand years not by playing nice with everybody. Who cares if some kid took a damn cracker, he is a dumb kid that does not really know any better. But the churches knows plenty about right and wrong, and so they should have restraint. Didn't Christ teach compassion and forgiveness? If they would have said something like, "We individuals aren't happy with what this young man did, but over the course of a lifetime this is but a small sin that we are sure God will forgive if he takes Christ into his heart...blaha blah blah... religious mumbo jumbo" and this kid would have felt like the douche he is and relented and no one would have cared and this would be but a very minor episode in some asshole's life.
Actually, they're probably willing to forgive it after some more thought than the pure emotional reaction that took place in the spur of the moment, but then again it is THIS DOUCHE that is pushing the case forward. If he'd drop it, I'm sure they'd drop it as well. Right now, they are just protecting themselves legally after being sought after intentionally for trouble. It's one thing to know forgiveness and practice it, but that doesn't mean you will always be perfect at every moment. You make mistakes, and you can learn to forgive them later.
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.
feel free to lose respect in me. i was raised by catholics and have been smothered in their teachings for most of my adolecents. i think that gives me dibs to bash on some of their stupid beliefs. i do find what this guy did to be very disrespectful but the way the church responded is dumb too.
On July 12 2008 12:15 Klogon wrote: Actually, they're probably willing to forgive it after some more thought than the pure emotional reaction that took place in the spur of the moment, but then again it is THIS DOUCHE that is pushing the case forward. If he'd drop it, I'm sure they'd drop it as well. Right now, they are just protecting themselves legally after being sought after intentionally for trouble. It's one thing to know forgiveness and practice it, but that doesn't mean you will always be perfect at every moment. You make mistakes, and you can learn to forgive them later.
On July 11 2008 04:34 Ryot wrote: Can you explain to me the cracker-eating thing then? I don't know much about Catholicism so obviously to an outsider it seems weird.
I went to a church once for their awesome choir songs @ christmas (but nothing on jingle bells, wonder why...) They gave me one. It was bland as fuck, Jesus ur flesh is not sweet yo! And they only gave me 1... I was grumbling the entire time on empty stomach. I got so excited they're handing out food T_T
On July 12 2008 12:15 Klogon wrote: Actually, they're probably willing to forgive it after some more thought than the pure emotional reaction that took place in the spur of the moment, but then again it is THIS DOUCHE that is pushing the case forward. If he'd drop it, I'm sure they'd drop it as well. Right now, they are just protecting themselves legally after being sought after intentionally for trouble. It's one thing to know forgiveness and practice it, but that doesn't mean you will always be perfect at every moment. You make mistakes, and you can learn to forgive them later.
The douche has dropped it.
...and it seems that the church has dropped it too.
"University officials said, that as for right now, Webster Cook is not in trouble. If anyone or any group wants to file a formal complaint with the University through the student judicial system, they can."
There is this Catholic League which is apparently calling for some kind of punishment, but the church isn't behind them. Because he kicked up enough fuss for this thing to become national news, now fanatics and crazies across the country know his name. No individual entity can stop the spontaneous uprising of hostility against him. He kicked the anthill, and the ants are swarming, as they will. This is not something you can blame on the church.
It looks like now that he's out of any kind of official trouble and the matter has been resolved as it should have. Random people will grumble for a while, they may communicate with him rudely some more, and then everyone will forget about it.
On July 12 2008 00:56 pooper-scooper wrote: Calling it a cracker is kind of missing the point, and being at least a bit close minded. I agree that threatening to kill the kid is way over the top, but it isn't just a cracker. If you are a catholic it is a symbol of your faith and the man who died for you, it is even a bit more literal than that.
Are you really so close minded to not understand how something objectively trivial can take on great meaning?
Lets say that you go on a date with a woman you've been in love with for years who finally agreed to go out with you. As a joke at the end of the night, she gives you as a "gift" a pack of saltines. A year later you are married, and you put the pack of saltines in your memory box. Your wife dies 20 years later of cervical cancer.
Then some punk ass kid who is visiting your house goes into your memory box, takes the crackers and uses them for his soup because he thinks it is funny that they are so important to you.
Now objectively, of course they are just crackers, but they mean something more than that, and if you think you wouldn't be pissed you aren't thinking it through. Yes, you might forgive the kid, but you would be angry at losing the symbol and he even knew it was important to you.
We can bash religion, but you can be just as big a dogmatist bashing religion as you can supporting it.
Great example! It is very true that close-mindedness can go both ways...there are fanatically religious people, disgustingly blinded by faith, and their are extremely disrespectful atheists who mock those who believe in a religion. They are extremes and definitely aren't a good representation of either group, but I guarantee you that if you sift through TL religious threads you will find them both.
On July 12 2008 00:56 pooper-scooper wrote: Calling it a cracker is kind of missing the point, and being at least a bit close minded. I agree that threatening to kill the kid is way over the top, but it isn't just a cracker. If you are a catholic it is a symbol of your faith and the man who died for you, it is even a bit more literal than that.
Are you really so close minded to not understand how something objectively trivial can take on great meaning?
Lets say that you go on a date with a woman you've been in love with for years who finally agreed to go out with you. As a joke at the end of the night, she gives you as a "gift" a pack of saltines. A year later you are married, and you put the pack of saltines in your memory box. Your wife dies 20 years later of cervical cancer.
Then some punk ass kid who is visiting your house goes into your memory box, takes the crackers and uses them for his soup because he thinks it is funny that they are so important to you.
Now objectively, of course they are just crackers, but they mean something more than that, and if you think you wouldn't be pissed you aren't thinking it through. Yes, you might forgive the kid, but you would be angry at losing the symbol and he even knew it was important to you.
We can bash religion, but you can be just as big a dogmatist bashing religion as you can supporting it.
Great example! It is very true that close-mindedness can go both ways...there are fanatically religious people, disgustingly blinded by faith, and their are extremely disrespectful atheists who mock those who believe in a religion. They are extremes and definitely aren't a good representation of either group, but I guarantee you that if you sift through TL religious threads you will find them both.
aye... And I was giddy when I made fun of fishy man today... poor fishy man, what did he ever do.
I'm all for respecting other peoples beliefs, but if their belief is irrational, I'll call it as such. If I say I value this parking space as priceless, that doesn't give me the right to suddenly get angry at every person that parks there. You would call me crazy.
I don't respect a religion that wants people to respect its right to not let others hold their wafers. "Don't drive over my father's grave" : okay - reasonable belief.
Stealing a cracker instead of eating it is equal to sacrilege! - go back to early humanity and you would fit right in. I'm sure you'd enjoy the other priceless rituals they have that we have outgrown (or realized are not as unbreakable as earlier thought).
And Klogon, I don't know what your remark about the Church being one big huge conspiracy, but if that's what you want to think or say, go for it. Nothing proves a point better than outright sarcasm.
On July 12 2008 00:56 pooper-scooper wrote: but it isn't just a cracker
It is just a cracker.
No, really, it is just a cracker. It is not blessed with anything. Mix it up with 40 other crackers of the same type and you would not be able to distinguish it from the others. Alas, it is just a cracker.
On July 12 2008 00:56 pooper-scooper wrote: but it isn't just a cracker
It is just a cracker.
No, really, it is just a cracker. It is not blessed with anything. Mix it up with 40 other crackers of the same type and you would not be able to distinguish it from the others. Alas, it is just a cracker.
On July 12 2008 18:35 opsayo wrote: I'm all for respecting other peoples beliefs, but if their belief is irrational, I'll call it as such.
that is the most idiotic statement I have heard in a while. you are not all for respecting other people's beliefs because respecting other people's beliefs includes respecting that which is irrational in your eyes
On July 12 2008 00:56 pooper-scooper wrote: but it isn't just a cracker
It is just a cracker.
No, really, it is just a cracker. It is not blessed with anything. Mix it up with 40 other crackers of the same type and you would not be able to distinguish it from the others. Alas, it is just a cracker.
On July 12 2008 18:35 opsayo wrote: I'm all for respecting other peoples beliefs, but if their belief is irrational, I'll call it as such.
that is the most idiotic statement I have heard in a while. you are not all for respecting other people's beliefs because respecting other people's beliefs includes respecting that which is irrational in your eyes
On July 12 2008 18:35 opsayo wrote: I'm all for respecting other peoples beliefs, but if their belief is irrational, I'll call it as such.
that is the most idiotic statement I have heard in a while. you are not all for respecting other people's beliefs because respecting other people's beliefs includes respecting that which is irrational in your eyes
Not all beliefs are created equal.
yes but if you truly respect other people's beliefs [in the broadest form, which is how opsayo described it initially] then you respect all such beliefs. True, you can disagree and what not, but calling out a single belief as irrational based on your own mindset is not logical.
It would be similar to me saying, "I respect all religions, no matter their belief system," and then proceeding to say, "but I believe that [insert religion] is irrational because their beliefs seem irrational to me."
On July 12 2008 18:35 opsayo wrote: I'm all for respecting other peoples beliefs, but if their belief is irrational, I'll call it as such.
that is the most idiotic statement I have heard in a while. you are not all for respecting other people's beliefs because respecting other people's beliefs includes respecting that which is irrational in your eyes
Not all beliefs are created equal.
yes but if you truly respect other people's beliefs [in the broadest form, which is how opsayo described it initially] then you respect all such beliefs. True, you can disagree and what not, but calling out a single belief as irrational based on your own mindset is not logical.
It would be similar to me saying, "I respect all religions, no matter their belief system," and then proceeding to say, "but I believe that [insert religion] is irrational because their beliefs seem irrational to me."
On July 12 2008 18:35 opsayo wrote: I'm all for respecting other peoples beliefs, but if their belief is irrational, I'll call it as such.
that is the most idiotic statement I have heard in a while. you are not all for respecting other people's beliefs because respecting other people's beliefs includes respecting that which is irrational in your eyes
Not all beliefs are created equal.
yes but if you truly respect other people's beliefs [in the broadest form, which is how opsayo described it initially] then you respect all such beliefs. True, you can disagree and what not, but calling out a single belief as irrational based on your own mindset is not logical.
It would be similar to me saying, "I respect all religions, no matter their belief system," and then proceeding to say, "but I believe that [insert religion] is irrational because their beliefs seem irrational to me."
On July 12 2008 18:35 opsayo wrote: I'm all for respecting other peoples beliefs, but if their belief is irrational, I'll call it as such.
that is the most idiotic statement I have heard in a while. you are not all for respecting other people's beliefs because respecting other people's beliefs includes respecting that which is irrational in your eyes
Not all beliefs are created equal.
yes but if you truly respect other people's beliefs [in the broadest form, which is how opsayo described it initially] then you respect all such beliefs. True, you can disagree and what not, but calling out a single belief as irrational based on your own mindset is not logical.
It would be similar to me saying, "I respect all religions, no matter their belief system," and then proceeding to say, "but I believe that [insert religion] is irrational because their beliefs seem irrational to me."
Perhaps what he means is he'll tolerate all beliefs. As in "i think your belief is ridiculous, but you have a right to believe it, so I won't persecute you for it, but I might in my mind hold you as an idiot (and maybe sometimes verbally abuse you)"
which is all we can do...really.
tolerate and respect do mean different things. Like we can tolerate an annoying friend of a friend but only because we respect the first friend.
I used to be an altar server and me and other altar servers used to eat them after mass lol (though technically they're still just wafers cause they haven't been blessed) It tastes like those korean rice popcorn things if you eat enough of them
EPT
.
![[image loading]](http://media.canada.com/67bc2623-9886-4c71-9f03-edf992a0aa3a/jseinfeld_375x375.jpg)
