College Student Gets Death Threats for Smuggling ‘Body of Christ’ [Archive]

Bikewer

8th July 2008, 08:25 PM

maxfrost

9th July 2008, 03:40 AM

"kingdom.com"? That's actually pretty clever--assuming it's intentional.

boloboffin

9th July 2008, 03:46 AM

You'd think there'd be some kind of ritual to transubstantiate it the other direction.

*clap clap* Jesus on!
*clap clap* Jesus off!

Aitch

9th July 2008, 04:04 AM

Ah, the joys of transubstantiation. Back when I was a young Catholic lad in grade school, we got the full range of horror stories relating to the consecrated host.
The one about the curious young fellow who didn't swallow his, took it back to his pew, and poked it with a nail. (how appropriate!) Naturally, it bled...

We were also advised that it was improper to actually chew the host. One was to allow the piece of yucky-tasting unleavened bread (oops, unleavened body-o-Christ) to dissolve.
Since the thing would stick to the roof of your mouth like glue, a process that took some time.
Evidently Our Lord And Savior preferred a tedious digestive process to being shredded by young teeth....

Then we were shocked to learn in high school that priests routinely chewed their own somewhat larger hosts.
No wonder I rejected Catholicism.....

There's a rather good Mike Harding monologue where he describes the (presumably fictional) occasion when, as an altar boy working with a short-sighted priest, he arranged for his Irish catholic grandmother to get a piece of chewing gum instead of the host. Unfortunately I only have it on vinyl or I'd accidentally :rolleyes: copy it to somewhere on the web for you all.

fuelair

9th July 2008, 09:21 AM

Ah, the joys of transubstantiation. Back when I was a young Catholic lad in grade school, we got the full range of horror stories relating to the consecrated host.
The one about the curious young fellow who didn't swallow his, took it back to his pew, and poked it with a nail. (how appropriate!) Naturally, it bled...

We were also advised that it was improper to actually chew the host. One was to allow the piece of yucky-tasting unleavened bread (oops, unleavened body-o-Christ) to dissolve.
Since the thing would stick to the roof of your mouth like glue, a process that took some time.
Evidently Our Lord And Savior preferred a tedious digestive process to being shredded by young teeth....

Then we were shocked to learn in high school that priests routinely chewed their own somewhat larger hosts.
No wonder I rejected Catholicism.....Uuuuummmmmmmhhh, SonOGodd Bars - - Now in chocolate with Nuts flavor!!!

Tricky

9th July 2008, 09:26 AM

He probably just didn't want to eat it all at once. Those communion wafers are so very fattening. That's why some modern churches have decided to go with the new dietetic communion wafers from Pillsbury called "I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus!"

aggle-rithm

9th July 2008, 09:33 AM

Ah, the joys of transubstantiation. Back when I was a young Catholic lad in grade school, we got the full range of horror stories relating to the consecrated host.
The one about the curious young fellow who didn't swallow his, took it back to his pew, and poked it with a nail. (how appropriate!) Naturally, it bled...

We were also advised that it was improper to actually chew the host. One was to allow the piece of yucky-tasting unleavened bread (oops, unleavened body-o-Christ) to dissolve.
Since the thing would stick to the roof of your mouth like glue, a process that took some time.
Evidently Our Lord And Savior preferred a tedious digestive process to being shredded by young teeth....

Then we were shocked to learn in high school that priests routinely chewed their own somewhat larger hosts.
No wonder I rejected Catholicism.....

We were told that if a wafer was dropped, the whole Mass would come to a screeching halt and the priest would have to say a litany of prayers over the fallen host. This would delay us getting out of there for at least an hour.

Needless to say, no one ever dropped one.

Ian Osborne

9th July 2008, 09:39 AM

It's amusing to see the act described as a 'theft'. As if it wasn't his property when the priest put it in his mouth...

Beerina

9th July 2008, 09:40 AM

He received eternal damnation along with the death threats? When does the damnation start?

As soon as the death threats are carried out.

Yeah, I mean, duh. What kind of a question is that anyway? :mad:

:p

Why, oh why can't mortals let God kill his own political enemies?!?!? :confused: :rolleyes:

RobRoy

9th July 2008, 10:01 AM

You'd think there'd be some kind of ritual to transubstantiate it the other direction.

*clap clap* Jesus on!
*clap clap* Jesus off!

There is.

As was explained to me, Jesus is only present for a short time. Once the basic form of the host, the wafer (though it could be any form of bread, blessed during the mass), begins to change through the digestive process, the holy pressence is believed to be gone. <shrug>

So technically, when the kid took the host into his mouth, and his saliva started to work on it, Jesus had left the building.

That the Catholic laity don't know this, I'm hardly surprised. That they issued death threats doesn't surprise me either. It's sad that so many "Christians" don't follow their own faith, and see justification for violating when it suits them.

I Ratant

9th July 2008, 10:07 AM

...
Why, oh why can't mortals let God kill his own political enemies?!?!? :confused: :rolleyes:
.
Well, He never smites those that seriously need it anymore, even when the stench of their misdeeds flows to Gideon... or Pittsburgh, so the volunteers step in and do the job.
I've watched many priests take mouthfuls of consecrated hosts from the chalice after communion and scarf'em down.

Furi

9th July 2008, 10:41 AM

Must not quote mine
*Breaking of Will*
MUST NOT...
*Shattering Crystal*
MUUUUUUST
*BLLLZT EMP*

when the priest put it in his mouth...

pffffft *snurkles*

Ysidro

9th July 2008, 10:50 AM

.
Well, He never smites those that seriously need it anymore, even when the stench of their misdeeds flows to Gideon... or Pittsburgh, so the volunteers step in and do the job.
I've watched many priests take mouthfuls of consecrated hosts from the chalice after communion and scarf'em down.

Hey! What did Pittsburgh ever do to you? :mad: ;)

You know, I want to make the obvious "swallow" joke about this whole thing but I think I might get yellow carded for it. :)

Skeptic Guy

9th July 2008, 12:35 PM

When I was getting married and going through pre-Canna, I had to tell the priest what religion I was. Being before I really had become an atheist, I explained that my parents were Disciples of Christ. He put down that I was with a "cult". My fiancé/wife had to hold me back.

Pot, meet kettle.

Ichneumonwasp

9th July 2008, 01:54 PM

Christ, this is depressing. There is simply no way to satire this religion thingy when the real thing is wackier than any possible joke.

aerosolben

9th July 2008, 02:17 PM

Christ, this is depressing. There is simply no way to satire this religion thingy when the real thing is wackier than any possible joke.
Poe's Law (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law): Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

godless dave

9th July 2008, 03:14 PM

There are a couple of satanist rituals floating around where consicrated communion wafers are called for. While I doubt that such rituals have been carried out much if at all the church is slightly jumpy as a result. There is also the theological stuff about how the host should be treated as well.

Which is precisely what we're making fun of. It's a cracker. Using it in a Satanic ritual, or spreading cream cheese on it, will not hurt anybody.

Gord_in_Toronto

9th July 2008, 03:41 PM

Which is precisely what we're making fun of. It's a cracker. Using it in a Satanic ritual, or spreading cream cheese on it, will not hurt anybody.

Unless of course you have a lactose allergy. :D

Grumble.

Phase Inverter

9th July 2008, 04:24 PM

We just expect the University to take this seriously. To send a message to not just Mr. Cook but the whole community that this kind of really complete sacrilege will not be tolerated.

Why would the University of Central Florida have to take this seriously. Was this church on campus? Sounds like an internal church issue.

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.

Enter the Catholic League to file the complaint.

Does the University even have jurisdiction over this? Is this even an actual crime?

if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it.

Who is the injured party, Jesus?

Hamsterfan

9th July 2008, 06:23 PM

He kidnapped Jesus!!!! Wooooo!!!!

But, hey, we should take religious seriously, and have respect for religious people... :rolleyes:

It is not that I lack respect for religious people, as I used to be a great deal more religious than I am. In fact, up until about 2 years ago I was going to become a pastor in the United Methodist church. But their hypocrisy was stifling (and still is, as I have not been to church in over a year now because of it) - and the fact that people who believe in mercy and forgiveness would give someone DEATH THREATS over a CRACKER!!?? is just astounding to me. I know in transubstantiation the wafer becomes Christ, but really - death threats? So far has Christianity or Satanism been able to actually make miracles happen? Can they MAKE things happen to people - truly curse or bless anyone? Unfortunately, not that I have seen.

To me it just seems excessive.... and just like something the media would LOVE to cover - since we all do like a good scandal.

Silentknight

9th July 2008, 08:00 PM

For shame, to put a piece of Jesus into a plastic zipper bag to show his non-Catholic friend. Everyone knows the way to show Jesus the proper respect is to depict his bloody tortured nearly-naked body splayed out on that pagan Roman symbol of terror and execution. After you do that, you take pieces of his body, mash them into little bits, drench them in amylase and hydrochloric acid, squeeze them into a bolus of solid digestive residue, and flush them down the toilet.

It all makes sense, see?

I Ratant

9th July 2008, 09:18 PM

When you put it that way, it all makes sense!
I can't see why everyone doesn't do that!

9th July 2008, 09:50 PM

I suppose it makes sense, in a way.

The thing is the body of Christ. They are told this week-in, week-out from childhood. It is a major part of the religion they follow. As such, they are taught that it is something sacred.

So now something happens they are not used to. Somebody doesd not follow their sacred rites. And they do what any other self-righteous group does when theiy club rules are broken: fly into a rage.

Really, it's a product of life-long conditioning to avoid skeptical thought and reason in this one area.

Personally, I think they taste exactly like standard ice-cream cones.
(I should point out, before any Catholics get offended, that I have never eaten the thing after the bell-ringingn, head bowing, kneel/sit/kneel/whatever hold it over your head with a cup underneath ceremony. I was raised in the United Church of Canada, even though I went to a Roman Catholic school from first to eighth grade. What that means is that when my classmates did churchy things like first communion and confirmation, I was not allowed to take part (although I was confirmed in the United Church). Same with the monthly mass. I was able to sing in the choir (different group of kids every school term, so every kid got their chance), and even though I did a few turns as altar-boy, ringing the bells and putting out candles, I was never pemritted to take part in communion. I was an outsider. I was told to ask for a blessing instead. Not being a rabble-rouser, I did so without complaint. The wafer I ate was during rehersals for my classes first communion ceremony, since I kept asking why it was such a big deal that they did it and I wasn't allowed to. Everyone got a sample ot un-transubstantiated wafer, and I got one too, to be fair. I blurted out right away that it tasted like ice cream cone. My classmates agreed, the teachers and priest looked scandalized. But I have never eaten a transubstantiated wafer. Yet. So don't hurt me. Yet.)

hgc

9th July 2008, 10:25 PM

It's amusing to see the act described as a 'theft'. As if it wasn't his property when the priest put it in his mouth...

When the priest puts it in, it's not your property. God/Jesus/Ghost is granting it with an implied license agreement as long as you use it as prescribed.

linusrichard

9th July 2008, 10:39 PM

Bookmarking the thread for the next time somebody points out how Muslims are so much more sensitive about their superstitions than normal easygoing Christians.

westprog

10th July 2008, 02:16 AM

Webster Cook says he received death threats and eternal damnation after he removed a wafer of bread from his mouth during communion and smuggled it from the church in a Ziploc bag.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378081,00.html

==========

Some jokes come to mind, but I'll refrain.

Mr Cook seems to have, as a fundmental principle, that his beliefs are important, but that other people's aren't. If Catholics get het up about transubstantiation, then they are stupid, and deserve to be laughed at.

Obviously he shouldn't be getting death threats. However, he shouldn't be treated as some kind of atheist martyr standing up for his beliefs. He isn't - he's standing up against other people's beliefs and their religious freedoms.

I don't know if he had the legal right to take the host, but he was certainly not morally entitled to do so. He wasn't entitled to communion in the first place.

Furi

10th July 2008, 03:10 AM

if you are a jesusian veggie/vegan how does communion work. do they have a non symbolic of meat Jesus biscuit.

Ian Osborne

10th July 2008, 03:46 AM

When the priest puts it in, it's not your property. God/Jesus/Ghost is granting it with an implied license agreement as long as you use it as prescribed.
Has anyone seen the end-users' agreement? I'd be interested to see if there are any loopholes. Or Bible Code messages... :D

Leif Roar

10th July 2008, 03:48 AM

When the priest puts it in, it's not your property. God/Jesus/Ghost is granting it with an implied license agreement as long as you use it as prescribed.

So Confirmation is parallell to clicking "Yes" on an EULA dialogue?

Furi

10th July 2008, 04:04 AM

So Confirmation is parallell to clicking "Yes" on an EULA dialogue?

And we all read those, dont we :rolleyes:

Is there a guarantee on Jesus Biccies that they contain no malware, or leave you open to exploits

godless dave

10th July 2008, 09:34 AM

Obviously he shouldn't be getting death threats. However, he shouldn't be treated as some kind of atheist martyr standing up for his beliefs. He isn't - he's standing up against other people's beliefs and their religious freedoms.

Nothing Cook did in any way infringed on the religious freedoms of anyone else.

JoeEllison

10th July 2008, 09:42 AM

Mr Cook seems to have, as a fundmental principle, that his beliefs are important, but that other people's aren't. If Catholics get het up about transubstantiation, then they are stupid, and deserve to be laughed at.

Obviously he shouldn't be getting death threats. However, he shouldn't be treated as some kind of atheist martyr standing up for his beliefs. He isn't - he's standing up against other people's beliefs and their religious freedoms.

I don't know if he had the legal right to take the host, but he was certainly not morally entitled to do so. He wasn't entitled to communion in the first place.

Yes, but the entire situation is stupid, and highlights the idiocy of religion pretty strongly. The fact that anyone takes the removal of a freely-given CRACKER from a church is proof enough that there is something seriously wrong with religion, all religion. Did he have a "moral right" to take a cracker home with him? The fact that people think that's a point worthy of discussion is the real problem here.

It is also ridiculous of you to invoke "religious freedom" because he took home a cracker that they gave him. How was their freedom infringed upon? Do they have some sort of special right not to have their idiot beliefs mocked?

RobRoy

10th July 2008, 09:55 AM

I don't know if he had the legal right to take the host, but he was certainly not morally entitled to do so. He wasn't entitled to communion in the first place.

I was under the impression that Cook was a member of the RCC, as the story related he wanted to show the wafer to his "non-member friend". What makes you think he wasn't?

I'm wondering what the whole story is here. How the story of the "theft" got out in the first place, and just how many threats there were? The time-frame seems pretty sketchy as one week later he returned the host, and by this point it's been properly dealt with. There was nothing to indicate that he mistreated the host, or that he lacked respect for it. In fact, his entire treatment seems respectful. He didn't put it in his pocket or anything. <shrug>

We all seem agreed that the threats came from the laity, not from the clergy. Overall, Cook was foolish, but not overly so, and anyone treating this as something more needs to talk to their priest regarding a couple of the Deadly Sins like pride and wrath.

Yes, but the entire situation is stupid, and highlights the idiocy of religion pretty strongly. The fact that anyone takes the removal of a freely-given CRACKER from a church is proof enough that there is something seriously wrong with religion, all religion. Did he have a "moral right" to take a cracker home with him? The fact that people think that's a point worthy of discussion is the real problem here.

Not of religion, at least not this time, but of the religious. That is, it doesn't appear that any official RCC statement regarding that matter has been released, and likely there won't be. It's a non-issue. It's the laity who are making this a matter as far as I can tell, and from that stand-point, you're absolutely right. They need to re-evaluate their own beliefs as they line up with the teachings of their church.

JoeEllison

10th July 2008, 10:02 AM

Not of religion, at least not this time, but of the religious. That is, it doesn't appear that any official RCC statement regarding that matter has been released, and likely there won't be. It's a non-issue. It's the laity who are making this a matter as far as I can tell, and from that stand-point, you're absolutely right. They need to re-evaluate their own beliefs as they line up with the teachings of their church.
I disagree with your separation of religious people from the religion itself. There's something wrong with religious thinking AS A WHOLE that causes people to react this way. Even the Catholics who aren't up in arms still believe that there's some significance to eating the Jesus cracker on Sunday, which is stone cold crazy.

godless dave

10th July 2008, 10:18 AM

Yes, but the entire situation is stupid, and highlights the idiocy of religion pretty strongly. The fact that anyone takes the removal of a freely-given CRACKER from a church is proof enough that there is something seriously wrong with religion, all religion. Did he have a "moral right" to take a cracker home with him? The fact that people think that's a point worthy of discussion is the real problem here.

Bingo.

JoeEllison

10th July 2008, 10:24 AM

Bingo.

Where did all the extra caps come from?:confused:

godless dave

10th July 2008, 10:29 AM

I typed "BINGO" in all caps. The forum software must have corrected that, and also "corrected" what I quoted. Weird!

I just edited the post to fix it.

RobRoy

10th July 2008, 10:55 AM

I disagree with your separation of religious people from the religion itself. There's something wrong with religious thinking AS A WHOLE that causes people to react this way.

I can't disagree with this, though. Religious thinking, as with almost every ideological adherence, has yeilded just about every conceivable, morally reprehensible harm there is. I'm sure we'll see a few new ones in the future.

But religion and religious thinking are two entirely different beasts, and this case highlights that. Do we see priests, bishops, the Pontiff himself raining fire and brimstone on the damnable and much deserved head of Mr. Cook for this? Not at all. No representative of the religion will, because they know that while his actions were foolish, ultimately this is a non-issue from the religion's standpoint.

If the religious who made the threats (and I'm still unclear on how many threats and so forth) were adhering to their religion, their path wouldn't have resulted in concepts of bodily harm. It's unfortunate they don't see their hypocrisy for what it is, or their cognitive dissonance when they seperate their actions from their professed beliefs.

Even the Catholics who aren't up in arms still believe that there's some significance to eating the Jesus cracker on Sunday, which is stone cold crazy.

To you that's crazy. To them, it's their belief, it's personal, sincere, and well-meaning. Mostly, they want to be better people, they want the world to be a better place, and no matter how they got on this particular path, this is part of how they're trying to do it. Almost all religions run under the same basic tenets of making better people and making a better world. Most even lay the responsibility first at the feet of their adherents.

So while I understand your reaction, and railing against all religion all the time, I disagree that a collective, religious, physical expression of belonging, such as the RCC mass and taking of the Eucharist, which harms no one, amounts to "stone cold crazy".

And to be pedantic you can eat "the Jesus cracker" on any day.

I Ratant

10th July 2008, 10:56 AM

Bookmarking the thread for the next time somebody points out how Muslims are so much more sensitive about their superstitions than normal easygoing Christians.
.
You will also point to the numerous suicide-murders this action has generated in the Christian community.. just to be objective, of course.

JoeEllison

10th July 2008, 11:14 AM

I can't disagree with this, though. Religious thinking, as with almost every ideological adherence, has yeilded just about every conceivable, morally reprehensible harm there is. I'm sure we'll see a few new ones in the future.

But religion and religious thinking are two entirely different beasts, and this case highlights that. Do we see priests, bishops, the Pontiff himself raining fire and brimstone on the damnable and much deserved head of Mr. Cook for this? Not at all. No representative of the religion will, because they know that while his actions were foolish, ultimately this is a non-issue from the religion's standpoint.

If the religious who made the threats (and I'm still unclear on how many threats and so forth) were adhering to their religion, their path wouldn't have resulted in concepts of bodily harm. It's unfortunate they don't see their hypocrisy for what it is, or their cognitive dissonance when they seperate their actions from their professed beliefs.

To you that's crazy. To them, it's their belief, it's personal, sincere, and well-meaning. Mostly, they want to be better people, they want the world to be a better place, and no matter how they got on this particular path, this is part of how they're trying to do it. Almost all religions run under the same basic tenets of making better people and making a better world. Most even lay the responsibility first at the feet of their adherents.

So while I understand your reaction, and railing against all religion all the time, I disagree that a collective, religious, physical expression of belonging, such as the RCC mass and taking of the Eucharist, which harms no one, amounts to "stone cold crazy".

And to be pedantic you can eat "the Jesus cracker" on any day.

I find all of your points to be swimming in the apologia sea. I think you have an unrealistic and overly generous view of religions, which means my points sail right over your head. I'm sure you feel the same way about me... :p

It is the Catholic Church with has made the rule that what Cook did is a "mortal sin", which is a pretty big deal. It is the Catholic Diocese of Orlando who says that Cook was "disruptive and disrespectful", and members of the Church who are trying to have Cook expelled for daring to steal their ****** cracker.

Here's a quote from the Church (http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html?taf=orlc)(bolding mine):
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."The official church stance is that taking a cracker is roughly equivalent to kidnapping a human being, and it is a mortal sin that falls on the members of the church... but the church is not responsible in any way for the reactions of the members of the church?

godless dave

10th July 2008, 11:16 AM

To you that's crazy. To them, it's their belief, it's personal, sincere, and well-meaning. Mostly, they want to be better people, they want the world to be a better place,

That hasn't really been my experience.

Almost all religions run under the same basic tenets of making better people and making a better world.

Only if by "better" you mean more obedient and more gullible.

So while I understand your reaction, and railing against all religion all the time, I disagree that a collective, religious, physical expression of belonging, such as the RCC mass and taking of the Eucharist, which harms no one, amounts to "stone cold crazy".

Something can both harm no one and be stone-cold crazy. Believing that there are gnomes in the garden harms no one, but it's still stone-cold crazy.

In this case, as Ben mentioned, requiring people to believe, without question, that a piece of bread turns into their God is not harmless, as it drives them to become emotionally attached to a piece of bread.

If the religious who made the threats (and I'm still unclear on how many threats and so forth) were adhering to their religion, their path wouldn't have resulted in concepts of bodily harm. It's unfortunate they don't see their hypocrisy for what it is, or their cognitive dissonance when they seperate their actions from their professed beliefs.

Violence against apostates and heretics may not adhere to Catholic teachings now, but that's a pretty recent development. Killing Catholics who don't toe the doctrinal line, as well as non-Catholics who refused to convert, was a Catholic teaching and official policy for most of the church's history.

Hughnon

10th July 2008, 11:27 AM

But religion and religious thinking are two entirely different beasts, and this case highlights that. Do we see priests, bishops, the Pontiff himself raining fire and brimstone on the damnable and much deserved head of Mr. Cook for this? Not at all. No representative of the religion will, because they know that while his actions were foolish, ultimately this is a non-issue from the religion's standpoint.

Gonzalez said intentionally abusing the Eucharist is classified as a mortal sin in the Catholic church, the most severe possible.

A non-issue in the sense of being one of the most severe sins possible, then?

I'm also confused as to Fr. Gonzalez point when he says, "Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family."

Usually, pleas are made for the safe return of kidnap victims who are not considered all-powerful. The all-powerful ones, it is generally reckoned, can take care o' bidness themselves. Still, that's Christ. Always turning the other cheek.

RobRoy

10th July 2008, 11:58 AM

I find all of your points to be swimming in the apologia sea.

Not the first time I've been accused of being an apologist. I've also been labelled with a number of epithets from anti-Christ to the unforgiveable "atheist" when pointing out it's problems. Apparently, I'm an equal-opportunity offender. :blush:

I think you have an unrealistic and overly generous view of religions, which means my points sail right over your head. I'm sure you feel the same way about me... :p

Your points didn't sail over my head. I disagreed with them. How is that sailing, floating, or even paddling? :confused:

Perhaps unrealistic. I always hope for the best, but I'm usually disappointed.

Here's a quote from [snip]

I didn't see that in the story from the OP. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

That hasn't really been my experience.

Not being rude here, but so? What's your point?

Only if by "better" you mean more obedient and more gullible.

Obviously I didn't.

Something can both harm no one and be stone-cold crazy. Believing that there are gnomes in the garden harms no one, but it's still stone-cold crazy.

Not in disagreement. But I was talking about a very specific act which had been described as "stone cold crazy". I disagreed with the characterization of that act, and still do. Your point about gnomes is, in this case, a strawman.

Violence against apostates and heretics may not adhere to Catholic teachings now, but that's a pretty recent development. Killing Catholics who don't toe the doctrinal line, as well as non-Catholics who refused to convert, was a Catholic teaching and official policy for most of the church's history.

I'm not in disagreement here either. To quote myself, "Religious thinking, as with almost every ideological adherence, has yeilded just about every conceivable, morally reprehensible harm there is. I'm sure we'll see a few new ones in the future."

And to quote myself again, "It's unfortunate they don't see their hypocrisy for what it is, or their cognitive dissonance when they seperate their actions from their professed beliefs."

A non-issue in the sense of being one of the most severe sins possible, then?

As I said, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I did not see these quotes or links to these in the story provided in the OP.

westprog

10th July 2008, 12:00 PM

Nothing Cook did in any way infringed on the religious freedoms of anyone else.

Well, the central rite of Catholicism is the Eucharist. What's important is how the Catholics percieve it.

westprog

10th July 2008, 12:04 PM

I was under the impression that Cook was a member of the RCC, as the story related he wanted to show the wafer to his "non-member friend". What makes you think he wasn't?

I looked at some other accounts, which seemed to imply that he wasn't - but I'll check again.

RobRoy

10th July 2008, 12:59 PM

I looked at some other accounts, which seemed to imply that he wasn't - but I'll check again.

I've read some additional accounts as well, and he's not.

JoeEllison

10th July 2008, 01:08 PM

Well, the central rite of Catholicism is the Eucharist. What's important is how the Catholics perceive it.They can perceive it any way that they like, but taking a Jesus cracker doesn't take away their religious freedom in any possible sense.

godless dave

10th July 2008, 01:12 PM

Well, the central rite of Catholicism is the Eucharist.

So? How did Cook prevent people from participating in the Eucharist?

JoeEllison

10th July 2008, 01:14 PM

Not the first time I've been accused of being an apologist. I've also been labelled with a number of epithets from anti-Christ to the unforgiveable "atheist" when pointing out it's problems. Apparently, I'm an equal-opportunity offender. :blush:

Your points didn't sail over my head. I disagreed with them. How is that sailing, floating, or even paddling? :confused:

Perhaps unrealistic. I always hope for the best, but I'm usually disappointed.

I didn't see that in the story from the OP. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

And shucks, but you were wrong! Awesome of you to own up to it. :D

It seems my post was misunderstood, and I'm willing to admit to a lack of clarity. ;) When I said "my points sail right over your head", I didn't mean to imply that you weren't bright enough to understand them, just that it seemed like we were talking past each other. Sorry for the conclusion and the unintentional insult.

godless dave

10th July 2008, 01:14 PM

Not in disagreement. But I was talking about a very specific act which had been described as "stone cold crazy". I disagreed with the characterization of that act, and still do. Your point about gnomes is, in this case, a strawman.

How is believing a piece of unleavened bread can be transformed into a piece of a god in a ritual any less crazy than believing there are gnomes in the garden?

And to quote myself again, "It's unfortunate they don't see their hypocrisy for what it is, or their cognitive dissonance when they seperate their actions from their professed beliefs."

Except their actions don't conflict with their professed beliefs. Threatening non-believers with violence is in keeping with centuries of Christian beliefs.

Agular

10th July 2008, 01:19 PM

As I said, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I did not see these quotes or links to these in the story provided in the OP.

As happens, the story grew and expanded after the original posting.

Leif Roar

10th July 2008, 01:46 PM

The way I see it, what this guy did is similar to burning the flag on the street in front of a veterans' retirement home. It's not illegal, to him it's just a piece of cloth and he's not really harming anyone else -- he's still being an massive jerkwad and waste of genetic material. While his act doesn't excuse any death threats it's not surprising that he gets them.

RobRoy

10th July 2008, 02:29 PM

And shucks, but you were wrong! Awesome of you to own up to it. :D

Seems silly not to, but I understand some people are not here for discussion.

It seems my post was misunderstood, and I'm willing to admit to a lack of clarity. ;) When I said "my points sail right over your head", I didn't mean to imply that you weren't bright enough to understand them, just that it seemed like we were talking past each other. Sorry for the conclusion and the unintentional insult.

Gotcha. Care to point out where I misunderstood?

How is believing a piece of unleavened bread can be transformed into a piece of a god in a ritual any less crazy than believing there are gnomes in the garden?

The one can't be disproved. As far as I know, the other can. Unless you care to offer evidence to the contrary? :D

Except their actions don't conflict with their professed beliefs. Threatening non-believers with violence is in keeping with centuries of Christian beliefs.

Alright, I'll bite. Show me where current RCC professed beliefs state they can offer threats and violence to non-believers.

That violence, rape, and theft are a part of RCC history can't be denied. But that is, as I said, hypocrisy against stated beliefs.

godless dave

10th July 2008, 02:50 PM

The one can't be disproved. As far as I know, the other can. Unless you care to offer evidence to the contrary? :D

The only reason the Eucharist "miracle" can't be disproved is because they've carefully defined it to be unobservable. The piece of bread becomes the flesh of Jesus, except it looks, tastes, and feels exactly like the same piece of bread it was before the priest said the magic words. Believing in that is stone-cold crazy.

Alright, I'll bite. Show me where current RCC professed beliefs state they can offer threats and violence to non-believers.

I never said their current beliefs state that. At the same time, I'm unaware of any official repudiation of their past beliefs in this regard.

That violence, rape, and theft are a part of RCC history can't be denied. But that is, as I said, hypocrisy against stated beliefs.

How so? Their stated beliefs in the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance were that Catholic Christianity was the one true religion and that it was good and holy to spread it by force of arms. No hypocrisy there.

Dr H

10th July 2008, 03:26 PM

Chinsey guy, he could have bought 250 of them for around $5.00, and saved his eternal soul:

http://www.kingdom.com/category.aspx?categoryID=430&adcode=Google&gclid=CM6A8rvQsZQCFQOfxgod6U2zzw

Gives a whole new meaning to "EAT IT!"

Wow. You can really buy just about anything on-line.

Do you have a link that will get them consecrated?

RobRoy

10th July 2008, 03:43 PM

Believing in that is stone-cold crazy.

To which I again respond:

To you that's crazy. To them, it's their belief, it's personal, sincere, and well-meaning . . . [click for the rest] (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3849541&postcount=49) So while I understand your reaction, and railing against all religion all the time, I disagree that a collective, religious, physical expression of belonging, such as the RCC mass and taking of the Eucharist, which harms no one, amounts to "stone cold crazy".

The circle is now complete. We will not agree that your saying something is "stone cold crazy" makes it so. We will also not agree that my saying it isn't, doesn't. I hope you will kindly forgive that double negative. :D

I never said their current beliefs state that.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that's what you meant when you said, "Except their actions don't conflict with their professed beliefs." Would you care to explain this statement then? Which actions and which professed beliefs? Citations might also help, but they're not exaclty necessary at this point.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. It wasn't intentional.

At the same time, I'm unaware of any official repudiation of their past beliefs in this regard.

Which past beliefs? If I may be so bold, I think you are confusing actions with beliefs. If that's not so, I apologize, but that does seem to be the case here.

To that end, though, it's true the RCC has offered few apologies regarding its actions, deplorable though they might have been. I believe I can come up with three over the entire course of the RCC's history. The one that I most recently recall is Memory and Reconciliation (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html) offered by JPII.

How so? Their stated beliefs in the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance were that Catholic Christianity was the one true religion and that it was good and holy to spread it by force of arms. No hypocrisy there.

Really? I didn't realize these were stated beliefs. Not the "one true religion" part. That's almost always been there. But the "spread it by force of arms". I don't recall that one. Can you provide a citation?

Or are you simply talking about the justifications that were offered in order to induce fighting men to provide plunder and power to the RCC? Those, as far as I know, were in direct conflict with the RCC's stated beliefs. Hence, plenty of hypocrisy.

godless dave

10th July 2008, 04:45 PM

To which I again respond:

To you that's crazy. To them, it's their belief, it's personal, sincere, and well-meaning . . . [click for the rest] (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3849541&postcount=49) So while I understand your reaction, and railing against all religion all the time, I disagree that a collective, religious, physical expression of belonging, such as the RCC mass and taking of the Eucharist, which harms no one, amounts to "stone cold crazy".

I am not saying the ritual is crazy, I'm saying the belief is crazy. If some people enjoy a collective, religious, physical expression of belonging then great, enjoy away. But if they actually believe that a piece of bread becomes a piece of a god because someone says some words over it, then that belief is stone-cold crazy.

I enjoy dancing on the grass with fellow Deadheads. That's not crazy. If I were to believe that the beer I was drinking changed into the blood of Jerry Garcia (in essence but not in appearance, texture, or taste), then that belief would be crazy.

godless dave

10th July 2008, 04:53 PM

Really? I didn't realize these were stated beliefs. Not the "one true religion" part. That's almost always been there. But the "spread it by force of arms". I don't recall that one. Can you provide a citation?

I am going to assume good faith, that you are entirely ignorant of European history and not just yanking my chain. Here are a couple to get you started:

"Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. [...] God has conferred upon you above all nations great glory in arms. Accordingly undertake this journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the Kingdom of Heaven." - Pope Urban II http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

"We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics. Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defense of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith." - Innocent III, papal bull Ad abolendam http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/3canon.html

linusrichard

10th July 2008, 06:49 PM

You will also point to the numerous suicide-murders this action has generated in the Christian community.. just to be objective, of course.

No, death threats will be enough.

But I agree with you, the Christian lunatics (at least, these Christian lunatics) don't have the follow-through of certain Muslim lunatics. That doesn't really say much to me about relative levels of sensitivity; only relative levels of commitment.

articulett

11th July 2008, 12:37 AM

Wow. You can really buy just about anything on-line.

Do you have a link that will get them consecrated?

You can ordain yourself via this link http://www.ulc.net/index.php?page=ordain
and consecrate accordingly...

Eternal salvation is just a few clicks away, my friend.

boloboffin

11th July 2008, 03:44 AM

I do remember hearing about the Jesus leaving the cracker before digestion. That way, Catholics aren't cannibals.

Still, it would behoove them to come up with a holy ritual that doesn't lend itself to the game "Capture the Flag." This guy pwned the entire Catholic Church by taking his piece of cracker home. How lame is that?

And he shouldn't have returned it. He should have auctioned it on eBay right next to the Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich.

westprog

11th July 2008, 04:56 AM

No, death threats will be enough.

But I agree with you, the Christian lunatics (at least, these Christian lunatics) don't have the follow-through of certain Muslim lunatics. That doesn't really say much to me about relative levels of sensitivity; only relative levels of commitment.

The difference between an alleged death threat that doesn't actually result in any significant danger whatsoever, and a death threat that actually results in people getting killed mightn't seem much of a difference to you, but I'd regard it as significant.

People can get death threats for anything. Sports fans issue death threats when their favourite player is sold.

westprog

11th July 2008, 05:09 AM

So? How did Cook prevent people from participating in the Eucharist?

He didn't prevent other people participating, he prevented the ritual from being properly observed.

It's not up to non-Catholics to decide what is and isn't important about the ritual. Especially non-Catholics who think that they are crazy. The Catholics get to decide that taking the host away is a significant disruption. The people who attend mass know this. The guy who did it knew this.

It's quite permissible for non-Catholics to restrict religious freedom when it involves burning heretics. However, religious freedom means being permitted to perform rituals where they don't impinge on anyone else.

It's difficult to see how the rite of communion interferes with anyone else. If you're a Catholic (or Orthodox, or very High Church anglican), it's the miraculous transformation of bread and wine into the body of God. If you aren't, it's a meal. Either way, it's doing no harm to anyone. It takes place on property belonging to the church, and nobody has to attend except Catholics. The rules are very clear - if you take communion, you have to be a baptised catholic, living in a certain way, and you have to consume the host on the spot. If you think that is stupid, then don't take part.

If the right to carry out such rituals isn't covered by religious freedom, then what is? Godless Dave regards transubstantiation as a crazy belief. But what religious belief doesn't he regard as crazy? How can religious freedom mean anything if it only covers what some non-believer thinks is sensible?

westprog

11th July 2008, 05:32 AM

JoeEllison

11th July 2008, 05:39 AM

He didn't prevent other people participating, he prevented the ritual from being properly observed.

It's not up to non-Catholics to decide what is and isn't important about the ritual. Especially non-Catholics who think that they are crazy. The Catholics get to decide that taking the host away is a significant disruption. The people who attend mass know this. The guy who did it knew this.

It's quite permissible for non-Catholics to restrict religious freedom when it involves burning heretics. However, religious freedom means being permitted to perform rituals where they don't impinge on anyone else.

It's difficult to see how the rite of communion interferes with anyone else. If you're a Catholic (or Orthodox, or very High Church anglican), it's the miraculous transformation of bread and wine into the body of God. If you aren't, it's a meal. Either way, it's doing no harm to anyone. It takes place on property belonging to the church, and nobody has to attend except Catholics. The rules are very clear - if you take communion, you have to be a baptised catholic, living in a certain way, and you have to consume the host on the spot. If you think that is stupid, then don't take part.

If the right to carry out such rituals isn't covered by religious freedom, then what is? Godless Dave regards transubstantiation as a crazy belief. But what religious belief doesn't he regard as crazy? How can religious freedom mean anything if it only covers what some non-believer thinks is sensible?
You should seriously stop, take a step back, and consider how your posts look from the outside. From where I'm sitting, your claim is not only grossly dishonest, but sickening and disturbing in its trivialization of REAL religious persecution that exists worldwide. This is a case of some goofball swiping a cracker, and nothing more. There's no loss of religious freedom here, AT ALL, and your claim is a lie. Worse, your lie ignores the fact of true losses of religious freedom that exists in the world, and demeans real struggle when you raise this meaningless, nothing issue to the level of "loss of religious freedom."

It would be about the same as you claiming that someone telling you to shut up when you're talking to friends in a restaurant is a violation of your freedom of speech, as though a trivial interruption of your conversation is the same as being imprisoned for protesting segregation in the 1960s.

westprog

11th July 2008, 06:20 AM

You should seriously stop, take a step back, and consider how your posts look from the outside. From where I'm sitting, your claim is not only grossly dishonest, but sickening and disturbing in its trivialization of REAL religious persecution that exists worldwide. This is a case of some goofball swiping a cracker, and nothing more. There's no loss of religious freedom here, AT ALL, and your claim is a lie. Worse, your lie ignores the fact of true losses of religious freedom that exists in the world, and demeans real struggle when you raise this meaningless, nothing issue to the level of "loss of religious freedom."

It would be about the same as you claiming that someone telling you to shut up when you're talking to friends in a restaurant is a violation of your freedom of speech, as though a trivial interruption of your conversation is the same as being imprisoned for protesting segregation in the 1960s.

Is this the worst possible example of religious persecution? No, obviously not. So it doesn't matter? Well, if it were frequently repeated, then it would make the practice of the Catholic faith difficult, or near impossible.

Of course, saying that people can freely practice their religion, but obliging them to accept that their religious beliefs are nonsense, is no kind of religious freedom at all. If the Catholics have to accept that the host is just a cracker, then they have to subscribe to the atheist view of their beliefs - in other words, they aren't allowed to hold them at all.

The reason that religious freedom is such an important part of the American Way is not that Americans are tolerant people. They aren't. It's because of religious intolerance that it's important that religious freedom is inshrined in law.

JoeEllison

11th July 2008, 06:32 AM

Is this the worst possible example of religious persecution?

It isn't persecution at all. Your exaggeration of the loss and eventual return of a cracker is ridiculous.

Leif Roar

11th July 2008, 07:30 AM

He's no different to Phelps

That's taking it much too far. This guy was a jerk, sure, but what he did is still nowhere near what Phelps does.

Agular

11th July 2008, 07:55 AM

I wonder what would have happened if instead of stealing the host, he actually brought his non-catholic friend along with him to eat it.

godless dave

11th July 2008, 10:59 AM

He didn't prevent other people participating, he prevented the ritual from being properly observed.

No, he didn't. He didn't prevent anyone else from eating their wafers.

RobRoy

11th July 2008, 12:01 PM

I am not saying the ritual is crazy, I'm saying the belief is crazy. If some people enjoy a collective, religious, physical expression of belonging then great, enjoy away. But if they actually believe that a piece of bread becomes a piece of a god because someone says some words over it, then that belief is stone-cold crazy.

Sorry, this feels like you're cherry-picking just to keep the argument going. The belief is part of the ritual. <shrug>

As I said, we've come full circle on this, and neither of us is budging from our opinion. There's no point in going further.

I am going to assume good faith, that you are entirely ignorant of European history and not just yanking my chain.

I am neither ignorant nor yanking your chain. I'm going to assume good faith as well, and that you did not intend any rude slight.

Thank you for providing your examples.

The first, of course, is Pope Urban's sermon at the Clermont Council, which directly resulted in what would later be called the First Crusade. However, and it's been a while, but I don't recall Pope Urban's speech saying that Catholics could "spread [their faith] by force of arms". Take the Holy Land by force, and kill or eject the current populace, yes. That doesn’t mean I’m right in my understanding, so if there’s a relevant passage you haven’t already offered, feel free to quote it. Of course, we then run into the problem of what Urban actually said. All of the extent versions of the speech, and there are many different versions, were written years after the event. But we need not go down that road for our discussion purposes.

We run into the same problem with your citation of the Pope Innocent III’s Papal Bull, Canon 3, from one of the major Lateran Councils. This canon prescribes for heresy, not the “spread [of faith] by force of arms”. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, there is no mention of using force of arms at all, let alone to convert anyone. Again, if I’m wrong, please point out the specific passage that talks about using "force of arms" (obviously in whatever term Pope Innocent used) to spread faith.

Is this the worst possible example of religious persecution? No, obviously not. So it doesn't matter? Well, if it were frequently repeated, then it would make the practice of the Catholic faith difficult, or near impossible.

Sorry westprog, but this isn’t religious persecution. It isn’t even religious intolerance. The guy was a curious idiot, but he wasn’t persecuting Catholics. Last I knew, there is no member ship card checked at the nave, the priest doesn’t consult tithing records before you can participate in the ceremony. It is open and welcome to all. Cook shouldn’t have done what he did, and he was irreverent, but he wasn’t committing a hate-crime.

If anyone prevented the ritual from being properly observed, it was the Catholics who started making a big deal out of Cook's actions.

11th July 2008, 12:14 PM

Did anyone see the stink that people are kicking up about PZMyers over this? People have too much time on their hands, and not nearly enough civilization.

Hooloovoo

11th July 2008, 12:48 PM

Did anyone see the stink that people are kicking up about PZMyers over this? People have too much time on their hands, and not nearly enough civilization.
One of the Pharyngula articles on this topic:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php

I've scanned through that Pharyngula post and the comments after it. It got me wondering how I could get my hands on a whole bunch of consecrated hosts. If I just bought a bunch of communion wafers in bulk, and took them to a mass, would they automatically get consecrated just by being in the church during mass, or do they have to be onstage with the priest to turn into Jesus? (Jesus, what a crazy cracker!) Also, if that does indeed work, what would the magic words do to all those goldfish crackers and granola bars parents bring to keep their toddlers quiet during mass?
Goodness, can you imagine having Jesus for snacks at your next party?

godless dave

11th July 2008, 12:55 PM

Sorry, this feels like you're cherry-picking just to keep the argument going. The belief is part of the ritual. <shrug>

Exactly. But you were commenting on the ritual aspects of it, not the belief. It's not the ritual I find crazy.

As I said, we've come full circle on this, and neither of us is budging from our opinion. There's no point in going further.

Please help me understand how you think it's not crazy to believe a piece of bread turns into part of a god after a priest says some ritual words. How is that not crazy?

The first, of course, is Pope Urban's sermon at the Clermont Council, which directly resulted in what would later be called the First Crusade. However, and it's been a while, but I don't recall Pope Urban's speech saying that Catholics could "spread [their faith] by force of arms". Take the Holy Land by force, and kill or eject the current populace, yes.

Taking the Holy Land by force would be spreading Catholicism through force of arms.

We run into the same problem with your citation of the Pope Innocent III’s Papal Bull, Canon 3, from one of the major Lateran Councils. This canon prescribes for heresy, not the “spread [of faith] by force of arms”. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, there is no mention of using force of arms at all, let alone to convert anyone. Again, if I’m wrong, please point out the specific passage that talks about using "force of arms" (obviously in whatever term Pope Innocent used) to spread faith.

He said suspected heretics - non-Catholics - were to be arrested by secular authorities and their lands confiscated. The only way to avoid (or lessen) punishment was to rejoin Catholicism.

RobRoy

11th July 2008, 02:10 PM

Exactly. But you were commenting on the ritual aspects of it, not the belief. It's not the ritual I find crazy.

No, I wasn't. I was commenting on the entire thing. Sorry for any confusion there.

Please help me understand how you think it's not crazy to believe a piece of bread turns into part of a god after a priest says some ritual words. How is that not crazy?

Well, I’ve actually answered this at least twice (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3849541&postcount=49).

Like you, they may be wrong, but that doesn't make either of you “stone cold crazy”. :D

Taking the Holy Land by force would be spreading Catholicism through force of arms.

This is a logical leap that isn’t germane to the question. There is no quote that states that they would "spread [their faith] by force of arms" which was your contention. Your argument, in regards to this example, does not stand.

He said suspected heretics - non-Catholics - were to be arrested by secular authorities and their lands confiscated. The only way to avoid (or lessen) punishment was to rejoin Catholicism.

The Bull has specifics for laity and clergy to be handled in different ways. Only the laity were to be arrested by secular authorities. This is all semantics anyhow, as by definition at that time, only Catholics could be considered heretics against the RCC. Reference Canon 68 from the same Bull.

So, again, no quote to support your contention of "force of arms" used to spread faith, and your argument is completely unsupported.

As far as I can determine, the RCC's support, instigation and participation in these things is hypocrisy against their stated beliefs.

westprog

11th July 2008, 03:21 PM

Sorry westprog, but this isn’t religious persecution. It isn’t even religious intolerance. The guy was a curious idiot, but he wasn’t persecuting Catholics. Last I knew, there is no member ship card checked at the nave, the priest doesn’t consult tithing records before you can participate in the ceremony. It is open and welcome to all. Cook shouldn’t have done what he did, and he was irreverent, but he wasn’t committing a hate-crime.

If anyone prevented the ritual from being properly observed, it was the Catholics who started making a big deal out of Cook's actions.

And why is there no check at the nave? Why is the Catholic service open and welcome to all? It's because people in general behave with respect and tolerance. When, as with a wedding, there are probably going to be non-Catholics in the pews, the priest will normally point out that communion is only for Catholics. Catholics know the rules, which set down that if you are expected to consume the host immediately.

When people start saying things like

Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? ... 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 ... will ...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.

then it's clear that they regard the opinions of Catholics - and by extension, any religious beliefs, with contempt and disgust. They don't think that the practice of religion should have any kind of protection or respect.

I don't see this leading to a better, more pleasant society for everyone to live in.

Civilized Worm

11th July 2008, 03:25 PM

Someone Save The Biscuits!

quixotecoyote

11th July 2008, 03:25 PM

JoeEllison

11th July 2008, 03:34 PM

godless dave

11th July 2008, 03:37 PM

No, I wasn't. I was commenting on the entire thing. Sorry for any confusion there.

Well, I’ve actually answered this at least twice (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3849541&postcount=49).

What you said was:

To you that's crazy. To them, it's their belief, it's personal, sincere, and well-meaning. Mostly, they want to be better people, they want the world to be a better place, and no matter how they got on this particular path, this is part of how they're trying to do it. Almost all religions run under the same basic tenets of making better people and making a better world. Most even lay the responsibility first at the feet of their adherents.

You talked about what they wanted. I'm not talking about what they want, I'm talking about what they believe. Specifically, the belief that a piece of bread turns into a piece of a god.

This is a logical leap that isn’t germane to the question. There is no quote that states that they would "spread [their faith] by force of arms" which was your contention.

I can only guess that English is not your first language. A military invasion to spread the influence of Christianity is spreading the faith through force of Arms.

The Bull has specifics for laity and clergy to be handled in different ways. Only the laity were to be arrested by secular authorities. This is all semantics anyhow, as by definition at that time, only Catholics could be considered heretics against the RCC. Reference Canon 68 from the same Bull.

So, again, no quote to support your contention of "force of arms" used to spread faith, and your argument is completely unsupported.

How do you think they arrested and imprisoned people back then?

RobRoy

11th July 2008, 03:40 PM

Catholics know the rules, which set down that if you are expected to consume the host immediately.

But we've already established that Cook isn't Catholic.

When people start saying things like . . .

But your contention is that Cook was performing religious persecution. That someone is acting like an idiot doesn't make their actions a hate-crime.

then it's clear that they regard the opinions of Catholics - and by extension, any religious beliefs, with contempt and disgust.

Not necessarily. While I agree with the gist of your statement, it's too broad "by extension". Folk seem to regard all the other belief (woo, religion, philosophy, etc.) as silly, but their own belief as sacrosanct. Mormons (for example only) laugh at Catholic traditions, such as the sacredness of a consecrated host, yet bring a camera to an LDS chapel during their sacrament, and you can bottle the moral outrage and sell it on eBay.

One persons lack of respect for a particular set of beliefs does not translate into lack of respect for every set of beliefs.

They don't think that the practice of religion should have any kind of protection or respect.

I don't see this leading to a better, more pleasant society for everyone to live in.

This is probably true, but it doesn't mean that Catholicism, or any other religion is being persecuted by Cook's actions; which was your original contention.

godless dave

11th July 2008, 03:41 PM

then it's clear that they regard the opinions of Catholics - and by extension, any religious beliefs, with contempt and disgust. They don't think that the practice of religion should have any kind of protection or respect.

I don't see this leading to a better, more pleasant society for everyone to live in.

I do. I don't see society making much progress until we stop respecting irrational beliefs.

All PZ was asking was for someone - Catholic or otherwise - to go in, take communion, and keep the bread instead of eating it. If something thinks pocketing a piece of bread is disrespectul, then they have issues.

RobRoy

11th July 2008, 03:53 PM

You talked about what they wanted. I'm not talking about what they want, I'm talking about what they believe. Specifically, the belief that a piece of bread turns into a piece of a god.

No, I talked about more than that. Read on.

I can only guess that English is not your first language.

So we are going to be rude then. That's unfortunate. I had been enjoying this discussion.

If you continue to make aspersions on my intelligence or my character, I will cease to answer your questions or address your points.

A military invasion to spread the influence of Christianity is spreading the faith through force of Arms.

Where? Where's your quote? Show me the quote that says this. Show me the quote where Pope Urban stated in his sermon at Clermont that "it was good and holy to spread [the faith] by force of arms." I've asked three times now, and you keep coming back with nothing.

That's because this is a strawman and your argument utterly unsupported.

How do you think they arrested and imprisoned people back then?

Moot strawman. This has nothing to do with your contention that that "it was good and holy to spread [the faith] by force of arms."

Your quote lends no credence to your contention. Your argument is utterly unsupported.

godless dave

11th July 2008, 03:58 PM

If you continue to make aspersions on my intelligence or my character, I will cease to answer your questions or address your points.

And if you continue to be deliberately obtuse, I will do the same.

Where? Where's your quote? Show me the quote that says this. Show me the quote where Pope Urban stated in his sermon at Clermont that "it was good and holy to spread [the faith] by force of arms." I've asked three times now, and you keep coming back with nothing.

The pope, who speaks in the name of Christ and who is responsible for determining what Catholic beliefs are, told his parishioners to spread the faith with force of arms. What more do you need?

Moot strawman. This has nothing to do with your contention that that "it was good and holy to spread [the faith] by force of arms."

Your quote lends no credence to your contention. Your argument is utterly unsupported.

My quote showed that the pope told the Catholics of Europe to use force on Europeans who were not Catholic.

godless dave

11th July 2008, 04:00 PM

No, I talked about more than that. Read on.

I quoted your whole paragraph on that topic. How can I read on when you didn't right any more?

The fact that Catholics are well-meaning and sincere when they participate in the Eucharist is entirely irrelevant to the craziness of the belief in transubstantiation.

quixotecoyote

11th July 2008, 04:01 PM

Hey RobRoy, I'm honestly curious. What do you think spreading a faith by force of arms means?

RobRoy

11th July 2008, 04:01 PM

And if you continue to be deliberately obtuse, I will do the same.

Since you can't provide a single quote to support your contentions, and feel the need to continually be rude, clearly we're all done.

Thanks for playing. :D

godless dave

11th July 2008, 04:05 PM

Hey RobRoy, I'm honestly curious. What do you think spreading a faith by force of arms means?

Apparently it means something other than mobilizing armies to take lands from non-Christians.

RobRoy

11th July 2008, 04:09 PM

Hey RobRoy, I'm honestly curious. What do you think spreading a faith by force of arms means?

I assumed it to me that, in its simplest form, you offered to kill or maim someone if they didn't join up.

This is not, as far as I've been able to determine, a stated belief of the RCC. The RCC's instigation, participation, or support for such events was hypocrisy against their stated beliefs.

Skeptic Guy

11th July 2008, 04:10 PM

godless dave

11th July 2008, 04:10 PM

I assumed it to me that, in its simplest form, you offered to kill or maim someone if they didn't join up.

This is not, as far as I've been able to determine, a stated belief of the RCC.

Even though various popes, the guys who define Catholic beliefs, have stated it?

I Ratant

11th July 2008, 04:18 PM

Apparently it means something other than mobilizing armies to take lands from non-Christians.
.
They didn't have that restrictive a menu... The targets/victims of the 3rd Crusade were Christian, mostly French, but not of the proper flavor.
The inducements to the armies sent against them included wealth and land.

RobRoy

11th July 2008, 04:44 PM

.
They didn't have that restrictive a menu... The targets/victims of the 3rd Crusade were Christian, mostly French, but not of the proper flavor.
The inducements to the armies sent against them included wealth and land.

Quite, quite hypocritical of them.

westprog

12th July 2008, 06:19 AM

But we've already established that Cook isn't Catholic.

What seems to have happened is that he pretended to be Catholic to get access to the host.

But your contention is that Cook was performing religious persecution. That someone is acting like an idiot doesn't make their actions a hate-crime.

Hate crime wasn't the phrase I used - nor do I defend it. Whether or not his actions were motivated by hate or not doesn't matter particularly.

Not necessarily. While I agree with the gist of your statement, it's too broad "by extension". Folk seem to regard all the other belief (woo, religion, philosophy, etc.) as silly, but their own belief as sacrosanct. Mormons (for example only) laugh at Catholic traditions, such as the sacredness of a consecrated host, yet bring a camera to an LDS chapel during their sacrament, and you can bottle the moral outrage and sell it on eBay.

I think that that makes the general point, though. Once belief is categorised into sensible and silly, with silly beliefs being regarded as unworthy of protection, then very quickly all religion is up for grabs.

And it may well be that

One persons lack of respect for a particular set of beliefs does not translate into lack of respect for every set of beliefs.

This is probably true, but it doesn't mean that Catholicism, or any other religion is being persecuted by Cook's actions; which was your original contention.

This particular incident might be minor - but if it were to be repeated on a regular basis, it would transform Catholic worship. As you've pointed out, there's no guard on the church door. Anyone can come in, and it's not verified whether or not you're a Catholic in good standing. It's a matter of good manners and honourable behaviour. Cook took advantage of this. If his example were to be followed - as Myers was encouraging, albeit facetiously - then it would have enormous consequences for Catholics.

If religious freedom doesn't include the freedom to carry out unmolested acts of worship on private property, then it's not worth very much.

quixotecoyote

12th July 2008, 10:04 AM

If his example were to be followed - as Myers was encouraging, albeit facetiously - then it would have enormous consequences for Catholics.

Would you like to note the context that Myer's was responding to?

Civilized Worm

12th July 2008, 11:18 AM

This particular incident might be minor - but if it were to be repeated on a regular basis, it would transform Catholic worship. As you've pointed out, there's no guard on the church door. Anyone can come in, and it's not verified whether or not you're a Catholic in good standing. It's a matter of good manners and honourable behaviour. Cook took advantage of this. If his example were to be followed - as Myers was encouraging, albeit facetiously - then it would have enormous consequences for Catholics.

If religious freedom doesn't include the freedom to carry out unmolested acts of worship on private property, then it's not worth very much.

Nope I'm pretty sure the real catholics would still be able to eat their biscuits. Or are you worried they might run out of them?

linusrichard

12th July 2008, 11:38 AM

The difference between an alleged death threat that doesn't actually result in any significant danger whatsoever, and a death threat that actually results in people getting killed mightn't seem much of a difference to you, but I'd regard it as significant.

I didn't say it wasn't much of a difference, or insignificant. All I'm talking about is sensitivity, and I don't think whether the threat is carried out really relates to that. If you're issuing death threats about trivial nonsense, you're way too sensitive about it.

People can get death threats for anything. Sports fans issue death threats when their favourite player is sold.

Most of them don't, of course, and those who do are way too sensitive about it, just like the oversensitive religious believers.

petra10

12th July 2008, 02:23 PM

Oh nos what is going to happen to my son? When he was 10 his cousin took him to Easter mass because every kid gets a chocolate egg after mass.
Anyway when everyone lined up for communion my son joined in the line thinking it was for the egg.Next thing he knows the priest is puttin the bread in his mouth.

So there he is, never having made his first confession or having any catholic training, getting his first communion. Btw he didnt like it but he did get the chocolate egg at the end of the mass.

Do you think he has been forgiven. :)

westprog

12th July 2008, 03:26 PM

Would you like to note the context that Myer's was responding to?

Yes, it was a game that is all too familiar on JREF - find the most extreme voice and respond to that. If all Catholics were insane violent bigots, then maybe it would have been a reasonable thing for Myers to respond in kind.

What actually happened was that the annoying boy went to a Catholic mass. He's either a catholic, an ex-catholic or not a catholic at all. In any case, he knew the rules under which such services operate. He was spotted concealing the host, and one woman - I think middle-aged, though I'm not sure - asked for it back, and when he refused, tried to prise open his fingers. That, AFAIAA, is the extent of the violence to which he's been subjected. If that's an accurate description of what happened, I think she was acting within her rights. Nobody else in the church did anything. He was able to walk out completely unmolested. He then issued a complaint against the woman. The church also reported the incident and asked for the host to be returned. According to the cracker-thief himself, he recieved anonymous threats.

That's the context in which Myers thought it would be cute to ask people to steal consecrated hosts in order to defile them live on the internet. And that's what caused the upset.

Why not slip bacon into the kosher meals to protest Israeli treatment of the Palestinians? What harm can a bit of pork do, anyway?

quixotecoyote

12th July 2008, 03:57 PM

Yes, it was a game that is all too familiar on JREF - find the most extreme voice and respond to that. If all Catholics were insane violent bigots, then maybe it would have been a reasonable thing for Myers to respond in kind.

The most extreme voice? Incorrect.

What actually happened was that the annoying boy went to a Catholic mass. He's either a catholic, an ex-catholic or not a catholic at all. In any case, he knew the rules under which such services operate. He was spotted concealing the host, and one woman - I think middle-aged, though I'm not sure - asked for it back, and when he refused, tried to prise open his fingers. That, AFAIAA, is the extent of the violence to which he's been subjected. If that's an accurate description of what happened, I think she was acting within her rights.

She was not within her rights to assault him, but I'm not terribly upset over that.

Nobody else in the church did anything. He was able to walk out completely unmolested. He then issued a complaint against the woman. The church also reported the incident and asked for the host to be returned. According to the cracker-thief himself, he recieved anonymous threats.

So are you denying the death threats or just being coy?

That's the context in which Myers thought it would be cute to ask people to steal consecrated hosts in order to defile them live on the internet. And that's what caused the upset.

Since consecrated hosts are freely given by the Catholic church, there's no question of theft. Please don't defile the defintions.

Why not slip bacon into the kosher meals to protest Israeli treatment of the Palestinians? What harm can a bit of pork do, anyway?

Poor analogy for a number of reasons including but not limited to level of disruption, political/religoius divide, targetting of individuals, food saftey regulation violations.

You can get a blessed cracker by just coughing into your hand after returning to your pew. No one needs to even be aware. It doesn't affect anyone, doesn't hurt anyone.

Hell, if people don't want to go to the trouble, send ME the crackers and I'll consecrate them for $1.50 per batch. It's a bargain, I tell you. Results are 100% guaranteed to be indistinguishable from traditional consecrations.

I Ratant

12th July 2008, 05:25 PM

:She was not within her rights to assault him, but I'm not terribly upset over that.
.
I believe that's "battery", legally.
A misdemeanor which can grow to felony status, depending on the degree of the assault.

Civilized Worm

12th July 2008, 05:29 PM

He was spotted concealing the host, and one woman - I think middle-aged, though I'm not sure - asked for it back, and when he refused, tried to prise open his fingers. That, AFAIAA, is the extent of the violence to which he's been subjected. If that's an accurate description of what happened, I think she was acting within her rights.

So she was acting within her rights in trying to forcibly steal a biscuit that had been given to him? Seriously?

quixotecoyote

12th July 2008, 05:38 PM

.
I believe that's "battery", legally.

You are correct. Assault is any threat of violence, battery is any level of violence, from spitting to touching to stabbing. Grabbing falls within this.

JoeEllison

12th July 2008, 05:39 PM

So she was acting within her rights in trying to forcibly steal a biscuit that had been given to him? Seriously?

But, you don't understand... he was kidnapping Baby Jesus!!!!

Of course, since Catholics are "cannibals", maybe he was really trying to rescue Baby Jesus?

westprog

13th July 2008, 06:00 AM

So she was acting within her rights in trying to forcibly steal a biscuit that had been given to him? Seriously?

Yes, because he wasn't given the biscuit to take away. It wasn't his property.

This isn't some obscure bylaw that nobody's heard of. It's been part of the fundamental rule of the largest Christian religion for many hundreds of years.

You can say that the Catholic church have no right to impose such rules in their own churches with their own property. Fine, but don't pretend to any kind of belief in religious freedom.

westprog

13th July 2008, 06:26 AM

The most extreme voice? Incorrect.

She was not within her rights to assault him, but I'm not terribly upset over that.

I'm glad to hear it.

So are you denying the death threats or just being coy?

I've commented several times on the death threats. They are stupid, malicious and entirely counter-productive.

But here's a though. Phelps gets death threats. I suspect he gets quite a lot of them, being a very, very unpleasant man.

Does the fact that he gets death threats mean that he's a martyr? Does it mean that we should all threaten to picket funerals in support of him? Do we blame every person who's been upset by his actions for the fact that he gets death threats?

Since consecrated hosts are freely given by the Catholic church, there's no question of theft. Please don't defile the defintions.

Poor analogy for a number of reasons including but not limited to level of disruption, political/religoius divide, targetting of individuals, food saftey regulation violations.

Level of disruption? All that means is that Catholics make less fuss about something than Jews or Muslims would.

Political religious divide? I don't see how that's relevant. The big divide is Jewish/Muslim and they both eschew pork. One might use a big atheist pork feed as a way to unite the Middle East.

Targetting of individuals? The individuals in that church felt targetted. That woman felt targetted. He chose them.

Food safety regulation violations? Keeping a cracker in a plastic bag for a week can't be good. But we're stretching here. Pork ain't poison.

The reason that it's wrong to feed pork to Jews and Muslims is because they don't like it, and nobody has the right to make them go against their beliefs. And nobody has the right to steal a host from a catholic church.

You can get a blessed cracker by just coughing into your hand after returning to your pew. No one needs to even be aware. It doesn't affect anyone, doesn't hurt anyone.

You can feed your Jewish friend pork products without him noticing. Any harm done? As long as you restrict yourself to lean cuts and check for allergies, he's unhurt. Is it a decent thing to do? No.

Civilized Worm

13th July 2008, 08:49 AM

quixotecoyote

13th July 2008, 11:02 AM

I
Does the fact that he gets death threats mean that he's a martyr? Does it mean that we should all threaten to picket funerals in support of him? Do we blame every person who's been upset by his actions for the fact that he gets death threats?

The death threats mark the level of serious. If he had recieved death threats for raping the priest, Myers wouldn't have written the column. It's the combination of innocuous behavior eliciting death threats that merits protest.

Level of disruption? All that means is that Catholics make less fuss about something than Jews or Muslims would.

No, it means that walking off with the biscuit doesn't disrupt catholic lives a bit, while messing with Jewish food does.

Political religious divide? I don't see how that's relevant. The big divide is Jewish/Muslim and they both eschew pork. One might use a big atheist pork feed as a way to unite the Middle East.

Purely a weakness of your analogy. Myers is protesting catholics (religon) making death threats by mocking the superstitions of their religion. Your analogy is protesting a country by mocking the superstitions of their religion.

Targetting of individuals? The individuals in that church felt targetted. That woman felt targetted. He chose them.

Except he didn't target any individuals. So their feelings are irrelevant.

Food safety regulation violations? Keeping a cracker in a plastic bag for a week can't be good. But we're stretching here. Pork ain't poison.

But if you look at the regs for kosher food, you'll see pork is prohibited.

The reason that it's wrong to feed pork to Jews and Muslims is because they don't like it, and nobody has the right to make them go against their beliefs. And nobody has the right to steal a host from a catholic church.

Of course not. But they do have a right to take it when it's given to them.

You can feed your Jewish friend pork products without him noticing. Any harm done? As long as you restrict yourself to lean cuts and check for allergies, he's unhurt. Is it a decent thing to do? No.

It's also quite a pointless thing to do.

westprog

13th July 2008, 11:55 AM

It was his property the moment they gave it to him. If they're so worried about what people will do with them then maybe they shouldn't be giving them out willy-nilly.

Lovely. We can have ID checks at the door. Won't that make the world a better place.

quixotecoyote

13th July 2008, 12:02 PM

Lovely. We can have ID checks at the door. Won't that make the world a better place.

Or, as an alternative, you could stop making death threats over crackers.

Just a thought.

Civilized Worm

13th July 2008, 12:03 PM

Well it might protect their beloved biscuits which must of course be protected at all costs.

JoeEllison

13th July 2008, 12:13 PM

Or, as an alternative, you could stop making death threats over crackers.

Just a thought.

Yes, but what would the Catholic League do if you took away their main hobby? Feed the hungry? Tend to the poor? Are you nuts?!?!

Beerina

13th July 2008, 01:14 PM

.
Well, He never smites those that seriously need it anymore, even when the stench of their misdeeds flows to Gideon... or Pittsburgh, so the volunteers step in and do the job.
I've watched many priests take mouthfuls of consecrated hosts from the chalice after communion and scarf'em down.

They're supposed to do this, by the way. They also guzzle the last of the (poured) wine.

Once it's been consecrated, you can't just throw out the unused parts of Jesus' body, or Yahweh will get mad at you.

I guess.

articulett

13th July 2008, 01:26 PM

Religion is so embarrassing.

I was raised Catholic, and I always found it soooo embarrassing.

It's just so backwards and goofy. If a little girl understands that the whole thing is nutso, then what is there to make of grown ups who take this crap seriously?

--If only people kept their religious beliefs as private as they kept their pecadillos, fetishes, and other embarrassing thoughts!

Skeptic Guy

14th July 2008, 09:41 AM

Yes, because he wasn't given the biscuit to take away. It wasn't his property.

This isn't some obscure bylaw that nobody's heard of. It's been part of the fundamental rule of the largest Christian religion for many hundreds of years.

You can say that the Catholic church have no right to impose such rules in their own churches with their own property. Fine, but don't pretend to any kind of belief in religious freedom.

How do they normally reclaim the cracker? I mean after it's consumed? :eek:

Religion is so embarrassing.

I was raised Catholic, and I always found it soooo embarrassing.

It's just so backwards and goofy. If a little girl understands that the whole thing is nutso, then what is there to make of grown ups who take this crap seriously?

--If only people kept their religious beliefs as private as they kept their pecadillos, fetishes, and other embarrassing thoughts!

Sounds like you need to start sharing! Anyway, with the Catholic church, it usually makes the newspapers.

RobRoy

14th July 2008, 09:57 AM

Or, as an alternative, you could stop making death threats over crackers.

Agreed. Initially, I thought that it was just the laity leveling accusations and outrage at the idiot. That's unfortunate, but not unusual for the masses acting in an unofficial capacity. Just idiots yelling at an idiot. But I was wrong. It was the RCC itself up in arms, and describing this as a crime to be ranked with murder and violent rape. In so doing, they vindicated those threats of violence and death against Cook, lending them support.

That's damned silly, damned hypocritical, and should be damned altogether.

Here was an excellent opportunity to touch not just one human who, while an idiot, was a curious idiot and didn't intend much in the way of harm. Here was an opportunity to show that the RCC lives what it preaches.

What does the RCC do in response? Do they send a priest over to discuss the matter with Cook and his friend? Teach them about the gospel of love and forgiveness? Admonish their members for the vitriol and hate-filled threats offered?

No.

They call for legal action. Incite further public outrage. Fan the flames of religious intollerance of a single of act of stupidity.

This furthers the idea that slights, real or imagined, against the RCC can and should be met with any response deemed appropriate by the members. Even if that includes physical violence.

Once it's been consecrated, you can't just throw out the unused parts of Jesus' body, or Yahweh will get mad at you.

Actually, you can. Almost all churches have a special pipe that will deliver consecrated bread and wine directly into the ground.

westprog

14th July 2008, 10:00 AM

Or, as an alternative, you could stop making death threats over crackers.

Just a thought.

Well, this has gone from "alleged anonymous" to "Catholics" to "you" in very little time. Can I expect an FBI knock on the door shortly?

RobRoy

14th July 2008, 10:02 AM

Well, this has gone from "alleged anonymous" to "Catholics" to "you" in very little time. Can I expect an FBI knock on the door shortly?

I don't think he meant it as an accusation against you specifically, but rather as in the general "you Catholics".

Was there any doubt that the "anonymous" threats were coming from Catholics? Or do you think that there were Muslims and Hindus who were up in arms in an act of interfaith brotherhood who offered those initial threats?

westprog

14th July 2008, 10:55 AM

Agreed. Initially, I thought that it was just the laity leveling accusations and outrage at the idiot. That's unfortunate, but not unusual for the masses acting in an unofficial capacity. Just idiots yelling at an idiot. But I was wrong. It was the RCC itself up in arms, and describing this as a crime to be ranked with murder and violent rape. In so doing, they vindicated those threats of violence and death against Cook, lending them support.

That's damned silly, damned hypocritical, and should be damned altogether.

Here was an excellent opportunity to touch not just one human who, while an idiot, was a curious idiot and didn't intend much in the way of harm. Here was an opportunity to show that the RCC lives what it preaches.

What does the RCC do in response?

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."

Do they send a priest over to discuss the matter with Cook and his friend? Teach them about the gospel of love and forgiveness?

Apparently, yes.

What seems to be unacceptable is that Catholics have stated that they believe what they believe. If they had simply kept their beliefs quiet, then they would have avoided provoking a response from other Catholics.

Admonish their members for the vitriol and hate-filled threats offered?

No.

They call for legal action. Incite further public outrage. Fan the flames of religious intollerance of a single of act of stupidity.

This furthers the idea that slights, real or imagined, against the RCC can and should be met with any response deemed appropriate by the members. Even if that includes physical violence.

Did Gonzalez call for violence? Did he instigate any action apart from asking for the return of the wafer? He said that it was an important thing to him, and to his community. Did he instigate legal action, or threaten violence? Did any member of the clergy?

The chief objection in all the comments I've seen has been to this statement that Catholics place huge importance on the Eucharist. There seems to be a view that they should not be allowed to have such views, or if they do hold them, that they should not talk about them publicly.

I'll refer again to Phelps, because that's illustrative. Are the victims of Phelps to be held accountable when he gets threats? Should the people who find his harassment hurtful - the words Father Gonzalez used - be held responsible when someone else reacts inappropriately?

I have no idea whether Father Gonzalez, or other members of the clergy made other, more inflammatory statements. If they did, they were wrong to do so. But they've every right to say that they are hurt, and they've the right to be hurt.

I don't know if the local clergy have or have not condemned the death threats. I'd be astonished if they'd condoned them in any way.

RobRoy

14th July 2008, 11:17 AM

Apparently, yes.

Apparently, not. They were willing to discuss it with Cook "in hopes of him returning [the host]." Main objective here, return of the host. Not a discussion with Cook, and not the forgiveness and love which they preach is for everyone.

Pure hypocrisy.

What seems to be unacceptable is that Catholics have stated that they believe what they believe. If they had simply kept their beliefs quiet, then they would have avoided provoking a response from other Catholics.

Sorry westprog, but this is a strawman. I haven't indicated the Catholics can't preach their gospel as loudly and as long as they want. Offering threats and violence is what we're discussing.

Did Gonzalez call for violence? Did he instigate any action apart from asking for the return of the wafer? He said that it was an important thing to him, and to his community. Did he instigate legal action, or threaten violence? Did any member of the clergy?

Did he call his congregation down for offering threats and potential violence? Did he tell them they were acting the hypocrits, violating their stated beliefs?Did he place Cook's actions in perspective, or just fan the flames of hate and violence?

The chief objection in all the comments I've seen has been to this statement that Catholics place huge importance on the Eucharist. There seems to be a view that they should not be allowed to have such views, or if they do hold them, that they should not talk about them publicly.

Kindly point out to me where I offered this suggestion. Where I've even hinted at it.

I have no idea whether Father Gonzalez, or other members of the clergy made other, more inflammatory statements. If they did, they were wrong to do so. But they've every right to say that they are hurt, and they've the right to be hurt.

Absolutely. Every right. They also have a responsibility as official members of the RCC and direct leaders of their congregations, for, at the very least, pointing out the hypocrisy of the actions of their congregations and calling them to task for it.

I don't know if the local clergy have or have not condemned the death threats. I'd be astonished if they'd condoned them in any way.

Qui tacet consentire videtur. Especially in this case. When the RCC fails to call its members to account, then they are helping incite the issue, not defuse it.

quixotecoyote

14th July 2008, 12:28 PM

Well, this has gone from "alleged anonymous" to "Catholics" to "you" in very little time. Can I expect an FBI knock on the door shortly?

I know! Really westprog, could you please not involve yourself so personally in the topic?

Lovely. We can have ID checks at the door. Won't that make the world a better place.

Or, as an alternative, you could stop making death threats over crackers.

Just a thought.

westprog

14th July 2008, 12:40 PM

I don't think he meant it as an accusation against you specifically, but rather as in the general "you Catholics".

Was there any doubt that the "anonymous" threats were coming from Catholics? Or do you think that there were Muslims and Hindus who were up in arms in an act of interfaith brotherhood who offered those initial threats?

I think it's likely that if the threats were real, and were actual death threats, then they were from people professing catholic beliefs, acting because they were annoyed as Catholics. Does that mean that all Catholics should be held responsible?

Generalising the crimes of a tiny subset across the entire group is almost never a good idea.

I note that the "you" was in response to my "we". My "we" indicated society as a whole, rather than the Catholic community. A degree of trust and give and take across the board is good for everyone, not just Catholics. I'm not concerned about the FBI, really.

RobRoy

14th July 2008, 01:08 PM

I think it's likely that if the threats were real, and were actual death threats, then they were from people professing catholic beliefs, acting because they were annoyed as Catholics. Does that mean that all Catholics should be held responsible?

This is a strawman. You were upset by the perceived use of “you” as specific to yourself, when the statement was intended as a generalization. An understandable mistake, and clearly not what quixotecoyote intended ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3860034&postcount=132 ).

I've already argued that the laity's action are hypocritical and reprehensible, but not necessarily indicative of the RCC's stance. The RCC has made their own stance clear, and it is also hypocritical.

Generalising the crimes of a tiny subset across the entire group is almost never a good idea.

The general outrage against Cook from the Catholic community, warranted though it might be, is also hypocritical against the RCC stated beliefs. Their response, whether or not it included a threat of violence, was hardly a “turn him the other cheek” response, was it?

Given the RCC’s official response, the generalization is warranted.

quixotecoyote

14th July 2008, 01:16 PM

This is a strawman. You were upset by the perceived use of “you” as specific to yourself, when the statement was intended as a generalization. An understandable mistake, and clearly not what quixotecoyote intended (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3860034&postcount=132)

I suppose I should be serious for a moment and note that I was just matching westprog's grammar. Had he said 'they' in his original post, I would have said 'they', but since he said 'we' I used 'you'.

I'm happy for my 'you' to have whatever level of generalization used in his 'we'. If he includes himself in the 'we' outraged to the point of death threats, then my 'you' will will include him. If he meant 'we' as catholics as a group, then my 'you' can refer to catholics as a group.

In the existing semantic construction, the meaning of my word is dependent on the meaning of his word, which preempts accusations of personalization as the only way my sentence could have a personalized connotation is if it reflected the personalized connotation of the sentence to which I replied.

Now, if that's excessively exhaustive enough, back to the main debate!

quixotecoyote

14th July 2008, 01:39 PM

I'm becoming more impressed with this student.

http://www.wftv.com/news/16872192/detail.html

Apparently the church hit him with charges of disrupting a religious ceremony, and he fired back with hazing and underage drinking charges.

Hazing: Force or coercion to consume food or drink as part of a university organization ritual.

Underage drinking: the wine

I imagine everything will eventually get dropped by all parties, but it looks like the catholics thought they had an easy mark and ended up with a fight on their hands. It wouldn't surprise me if he dragged the death threats into this before it's over.

RobRoy

14th July 2008, 02:02 PM

I'm becoming more impressed with this student.

I'm not. I think the guy's an idiot for pushing this as far as he had. I also think the other folk are idiots for pushing him this far.

The ethics violation, though, might be the only reasonable portion of this, as it is a result of Cook attempting to use his status inapprorpiately, and is only peripherally involved with the other idiocy.

quixotecoyote

14th July 2008, 02:21 PM

I'm not. I think the guy's an idiot for pushing this as far as he had. I also think the other folk are idiots for pushing him this far.

The ethics violation, though, might be the only reasonable portion of this, as it is a result of Cook attempting to use his status inapprorpiately, and is only peripherally involved with the other idiocy.

I don't think it's idiotic at all, it seems like a good strategy. The catholics didn't drop the issue when he returned the cracker. In fact, they pressed charges. Instead of adopting a defensive posture, he counterattacked. Now he has leverage to bargain with. He's said he's willing to drop the issue if they are, but they haven't backed off yet.

eta: I may agree with you on the SGA thing, but I'd need to know exactly what he said, not just that he used it as one of the reasons he shouldn't be forced to leave. Of course, he denies saying that, so he may not have said it at all. Student government can be ridiculously dramatic and cutthroat.

Impostor75

14th July 2008, 02:35 PM

I think it's likely that if the threats were real, and were actual death threats, then they were from people professing catholic beliefs, acting because they were annoyed as Catholics. Does that mean that all Catholics should be held responsible?

Generalising the crimes of a tiny subset across the entire group is almost never a good idea.

Would anyone object terribly if I turned the last sentence of that post into a rubber stamp, and stamped it in indelible ink on the forehead of everyone who still thinks that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Backwards, obviously, so they can read it in a mirror. Or does it only apply when it's inherently reasonable Catholics; and not Muslims, who are, as we know, just have the one opinion to share between them all?

quixotecoyote

14th July 2008, 02:38 PM

westprog

14th July 2008, 02:40 PM

This is a strawman. You were upset by the perceived use of “you” as specific to yourself, when the statement was intended as a generalization. An understandable mistake, and clearly not what quixotecoyote intended (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3860034&postcount=132).

I'm actually "upset" about the generalisation. I'm sure quixotecoyote didn't intend to accuse me of issuing death threats. However, there was an implication of collective catholic responsibility.

I've already argued that the laity's action are hypocritical and reprehensible, but not necessarily indicative of the RCC's stance. The RCC has made their own stance clear, and it is also hypocritical.

The general outrage against Cook from the Catholic community, warranted though it might be, is also hypocritical against the RCC stated beliefs. Their response, whether or not it included a threat of violence, was hardly a “turn him the other cheek” response, was it?

Well, one young man was able to walk out of a full church unscathed. They could have blocked the doors and held him there.

In any case, I'm not concerned to defend each and every Catholic response. I entered the debate condemning both Donahue and the death threats.

Given the RCC’s official response, the generalization is warranted.

I'm still trying to see what the official response was, beyond "May we have it back, please". There's been a statement from a lay spokeswoman but I don't know what standing it has.

CurtC

14th July 2008, 02:41 PM

We were also advised that it was improper to actually chew the host. One was to allow the piece of yucky-tasting unleavened bread (oops, unleavened body-o-Christ) to dissolve.
Since the thing would stick to the roof of your mouth like glue, a process that took some time.
Evidently Our Lord And Savior preferred a tedious digestive process to being shredded by young teeth....

Jesus doesn't like it when you use your teeth!

Cartman: I wanna get down on my knees
and start pleasing Jesus

But remember to roll your lips over your teeth first!

westprog

14th July 2008, 02:43 PM

I suppose I should be serious for a moment and note that I was just matching westprog's grammar. Had he said 'they' in his original post, I would have said 'they', but since he said 'we' I used 'you'.

I'm happy for my 'you' to have whatever level of generalization used in his 'we'. If he includes himself in the 'we' outraged to the point of death threats, then my 'you' will will include him. If he meant 'we' as catholics as a group, then my 'you' can refer to catholics as a group.

In the existing semantic construction, the meaning of my word is dependent on the meaning of his word, which preempts accusations of personalization as the only way my sentence could have a personalized connotation is if it reflected the personalized connotation of the sentence to which I replied.

Now, if that's excessively exhaustive enough, back to the main debate!

I think I might just let this one go, if that's all right with all concerned. I've another long list of responses to chase up.

quixotecoyote

14th July 2008, 02:49 PM

I think I might just let this one go, if that's all right with all concerned. I've another long list of responses to chase up.

Fine with me. I think RobRoy represents my opinion on group responsibility well, and dissecting posts for grammar does tend to become off-topic.

westprog

14th July 2008, 02:50 PM

...
Sorry westprog, but this is a strawman. ...

Kindly point out to me where I offered this suggestion. Where I've even hinted at it.
...

Just saying that I'm sorry if my responses seem to imply that RobRoy has held positions that he in fact, doesn't support. If other posters to this thread had expressed the opinion that Webster was

an idiot

I wouldn't even have commented. I have no illusions about the behaviour of Catholics, which can often be despicable, whether it be covering up child abuse or burning down orphanages.

However, though I think in general, I'm actually fairly close to what RobRoy thinks about this, I do have some points of difference, which I will address later.

Dr H

14th July 2008, 03:05 PM

You can ordain yourself via this link http://www.ulc.net/index.php?page=ordain
and consecrate accordingly...

Eternal salvation is just a few clicks away, my friend.

Aw hell, I was ordained in the ULC years ago. I got in on a special where they were
giving out a free Doctor of Divinity degree with each ordination. Heck of a deal
for the $29 I spent. :-)

Dr H

14th July 2008, 03:26 PM

And why is there no check at the nave? Why is the Catholic service open and welcome to all? It's because people in general behave with respect and tolerance. When, as with a wedding, there are probably going to be non-Catholics in the pews, the priest will normally point out that communion is only for Catholics. Catholics know the rules, which set down that if you are expected to consume the host immediately.

When people start saying things like
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by P Z Myers
Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? ... 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 ... will ...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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

then it's clear that they regard the opinions of Catholics - and by extension, any religious beliefs, with contempt and disgust. They don't think that the practice of religion should have any kind of protection or respect.

I don't see this leading to a better, more pleasant society for everyone to live in.

As a former Catholic I can tell you that in religious instruction classes -- at age seven -- we were told by the nuns that if we were to touch the communion wafer with our fingers we would die. God would strike us down on the instant. Only the priest was allowed to touch a communion wafer with his fingers. We were told that even if we were choking on the host we should not try to remove it from our mouth, because choking to death was preferable to committing sacrilege.

It's thinking back on things like this that made me take Dawkins seriously when he described religion as "child abuse" in The God Delusion

articulett

14th July 2008, 03:42 PM

Would anyone object terribly if I turned the last sentence of that post into a rubber stamp, and stamped it in indelible ink on the forehead of everyone who still thinks that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Backwards, obviously, so they can read it in a mirror. Or does it only apply when it's inherently reasonable Catholics; and not Muslims, who are, as we know, just have the one opinion to share between them all?

Yes. It's the same problematic meme: faith, loyalty, and obedience trump the truth and make people blind to the overall goals.

The more one follows the "leader", the more faithful, fabulous, and salvation worthy one perceives oneself to be. It's the same meme.

Yes, a group can be defined by a few. if allegiance to the authority is considered "ennobling" or praise worthy... if those few are considered the "nucleus" that define the group and what it is to "believe".

Religions encourage a "form over function" type thinking-- this idea that you must not question the "man behind the curtain" and the leaders surround themselves with people who do not question their authority... the most "faithful" are promised the top rewards.

It does seem that you cannot criticize faith as a means of knowledge without people getting defensive as if you were calling all believers stupid. I think that successful religions and governments must "program" it's members to feel "blessed" by given their loyalties to the people at the top. And to me this is the opposite of critical thinking. I think of believers the same way I think of believers in psychics or Kim Jong Il-- they have been inculcated not to ask certain questions and to defending the existing paradigm no matter what.

articulett

14th July 2008, 03:52 PM

As a former Catholic I can tell you that in religious instruction classes -- at age seven -- we were told by the nuns that if we were to touch the communion wafer with our fingers we would die. God would strike us down on the instant. Only the priest was allowed to touch a communion wafer with his fingers. We were told that even if we were choking on the host we should not try to remove it from our mouth, because choking to death was preferable to committing sacrilege.

It's thinking back on things like this that made me take Dawkins seriously when he described religion as "child abuse" in The God Delusion

My mom was a CCD teacher, and I remember a package of unblessed communion wafers in church in a plastic bag looking... so commercial and unholy. I asked her if I could eat some, and she said cautiously agreed since they were unblessed.

Yesterday on the Non-Prophets podcast they anointed some communion wafers and ate some. It all seems so ridiculous and embarrassing to me.

I do think it's wrong to try to make kids think this stuff is "serious" and that something is wrong with them if they don't "get it". People have learned to defend faith so stridently that they become blind to the ways it harms critical thinking and encourages superstitious, childish, magical thinking and fears.

RobRoy

14th July 2008, 03:58 PM

I don't think it's idiotic at all, it seems like a good strategy. The catholics didn't drop the issue when he returned the cracker. In fact, they pressed charges. Instead of adopting a defensive posture, he counterattacked. Now he has leverage to bargain with. He's said he's willing to drop the issue if they are, but they haven't backed off yet.

No, not that part. I think that part is a reasonable response to what he's facing. I think think that overall, the guy isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

eta: I may agree with you on the SGA thing, but I'd need to know exactly what he said, not just that he used it as one of the reasons he shouldn't be forced to leave. Of course, he denies saying that, so he may not have said it at all. Student government can be ridiculously dramatic and cutthroat.

Agreed. I did not mean to imply that he had done it. Only that the action being taken to determine fault seems appropriate out of all the wackiness that has so far ensued.

Acleron

14th July 2008, 04:15 PM

Religions encourage a "form over function" type thinking-- this idea that you must not question the "man behind the curtain" and the leaders surround themselves with people who do not question their authority... the most "faithful" are promised the top rewards.

It's not so much that "Religions encourage", this is almost their defining characteristic. Without this approach, the internal inconsistencies of their various gods and beliefs become all too apparent.

The smoke and mirrors ritual of the communion wafer is a good example. For something so sacred, that even its manufacture was a sacred event, it sure seems to have changed (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-communion-wafers-made-of.htm)a bit over the years.

godless dave

14th July 2008, 04:19 PM

While the Catholic church itself hasn't been making death threats, they bear some responsibility for teaching people to become emotionally attached to a piece of bread.

articulett

14th July 2008, 04:22 PM

Aw hell, I was ordained in the ULC years ago. I got in on a special where they were
giving out a free Doctor of Divinity degree with each ordination. Heck of a deal
for the $29 I spent. :-)

You can perform marriages in most states, you know. If you are in California, you can supplement your income by performing gay marriages for the justices who refuse.

articulett

14th July 2008, 04:27 PM

While the Catholic church itself hasn't been making death threats, they bear some responsibility for teaching people to become emotionally attached to a piece of bread.

It is funny and sad. It reminds me of Mormon underwear. I was talking with Shermer at one Tam and joking about how it would be fun to just own the blessed undergarments and wear them around for fun. Humans can be made to do such silly things through faith.

Skeptic Guy

14th July 2008, 04:30 PM

(SNIP)

It's thinking back on things like this that made me take Dawkins seriously when he described religion as "child abuse" in The God Delusion

Exactly what I was thinking.

While the Catholic church itself hasn't been making death threats, they bear some responsibility for teaching people to become emotionally attached to a piece of bread.

And for not clearly and forcibly not telling its congregants that such death threats are wrong and should stop.

Civilized Worm

14th July 2008, 04:37 PM

Great article on this over at Butterflies and Wheels: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=2364

Do they think Jesus minds? Do they think the student will damage Jesus in some way by carrying off [a piece of?] his body? Surely not. Jesus is God, and God is omnipotent and invulnerable, so...what does it matter? God created the universe, so why would God be bothered that some erring human walked away with a cracker that is also [part of] an infinite god?

Agular

14th July 2008, 04:41 PM

RobRoy

14th July 2008, 04:43 PM

And for not clearly and forcibly not telling its congregants that such death threats are wrong and should stop.

While I'm not necessarily against assigning sacredness to bread (or anything else for that matter), I'm with you on this one. Their silence on this part of the matter is repugnant.

quixotecoyote

14th July 2008, 05:29 PM

No, not that part. I think that part is a reasonable response to what he's facing. I think think that overall, the guy isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

We are in agreement then. I do think taking the cracker was not the brightest move. I think it is defensible, especially in light of the response, but I don't think it was wise.

Agreed. I did not mean to imply that he had done it. Only that the action being taken to determine fault seems appropriate out of all the wackiness that has so far ensued.

That seems right. If he WAS using his position to try and bully people that's wrong, but based on the actions of the parties, my gut reaction says it's more likely an exaggeration.

articulett

14th July 2008, 07:00 PM

It's not so much that "Religions encourage", this is almost their defining characteristic. Without this approach, the internal inconsistencies of their various gods and beliefs become all too apparent.

The smoke and mirrors ritual of the communion wafer is a good example. For something so sacred, that even its manufacture was a sacred event, it sure seems to have changed (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-communion-wafers-made-of.htm)a bit over the years.

I agree...

Religions defining characteristics is that it glorifies "non thinking" over thinking which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't done to little kids who then grown into non-thinking adults.

Some do get over it, however, and provide amusement for the rest of us.

jxo81Ok9Urk

--So much focus on the wrong stuff, and so little focus on the stuff that matters.

Acleron

14th July 2008, 07:22 PM

Thanks for the Dave Allan video, he has always been my favourite comedian. :D

Skeptic Ginger

14th July 2008, 07:46 PM

Goodness for such a dedicated pro-life group those Jesus folks sure are quick to impose the death penalty.

fuelair

14th July 2008, 11:17 PM

Thanks for the Dave Allan video, he has always been my favourite comedian. :DNow if somebody (subtle hint Thames) would be bright enough to issue the Compleat Dave Allan!!!!!:):):):):)

RobRoy

15th July 2008, 09:22 AM

It is funny and sad. It reminds me of Mormon underwear. I was talking with Shermer at one Tam and joking about how it would be fun to just own the blessed undergarments and wear them around for fun. Humans can be made to do such silly things through faith.

It occured to me this morning that it is not faith that makes folk do things, it is fear.

I've been reading Bernard Cornwell's The Winter King (I'm not overly fond of Authurian tales, but I am fond of Cornwell), and fear is the driving force behind almost every religious action taken in the story. While certainly a work of fiction, it is nevertheless a well-researched work, and I have no reason to believe the examples Cornwell offers are illegitimate. When folk fear evil, they spit to ward it off. When they fear a storm, they sacrifice a goat. When they fear the future, the next harvest, the press of enemies, the reign of a king, they perform other religious rites, up to and including the sacrifice of a human prisoner. Religion and faith are just stepping stones born of the fear we all have for the unknown. They ascribe certain actions (religious ceremonies) with certain outcomes, and that helps alleviate, if not remove, the fear that people have. If those actions happen to come previous to an event seen as a positive (good harvest, birth of a child, peace with enemies, windfall of cash, etc.), then people begin to ascribe power to that religious ceremony, and by direct correlation the religion itself. So it's not that religious leaders sat around and tried to figure out how to make folk act silly. Rather, when something seemed to work, they moved in that direction and built ceremony around those actions.

This is all regardless of whether or not the power is real or just imagined. I make no claims on that aspect whatsoever.

Rasmus

15th July 2008, 09:37 AM

Yes, because he wasn't given the biscuit to take away. It wasn't his property.

This isn't some obscure bylaw that nobody's heard of. It's been part of the fundamental rule of the largest Christian religion for many hundreds of years.

You can say that the Catholic church have no right to impose such rules in their own churches with their own property. Fine, but don't pretend to any kind of belief in religious freedom.

I am not sure if this hasd been dealt with yet, but ...

*Religious freedom* is one thing. It is a totally different thing to allow the members of one religion to extend their silly rules to those of us who do not whish to share them.

You religion does not allow you to stone me, and on a smaller level it doesn't allow you to steal a cracker from me even if your priest gave it to me and even if I am doing something with it that neither you nor your priest agree with: It doesn't elevate your superstitions to the level of law.

RobRoy

15th July 2008, 09:53 AM

*Religious freedom* is one thing. It is a totally different thing to allow the members of one religion to extend their silly rules to those of us who do not whish to share them.

Well that all depends, doesn't it? In regards to the issue in this thread, I think they're allowed to "extend their silly rules" and request that you not take their sacred cracker or their blessed wine.

westprog

15th July 2008, 10:25 AM

In regards to the issue in this thread, I think they're allowed to "extend their silly rules" and request that you not take their sacred cracker or their blessed wine.

I'm not primarily concerned with the legal aspects here, but I've heard a lot of definitive pronouncements about what is and isn't permissible for churches.

Does anyone have any genuine legal expertise as to what rules a church can impose on its own (or borrowed) premises, and what church members are entitled to do to enforce them. I have no idea.

RobRoy

15th July 2008, 10:51 AM

I'm not primarily concerned with the legal aspects here, but I've heard a lot of definitive pronouncements about what is and isn't permissible for churches.

Does anyone have any genuine legal expertise as to what rules a church can impose on its own (or borrowed) premises, and what church members are entitled to do to enforce them. I have no idea.

For the record, I wasn't speaking legally. Just giving my opinion in regards to this aspect.

Gord_in_Toronto

15th July 2008, 02:33 PM

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire.

As the Cathars well knew -- at least until they were burned alive by the orders of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.cathar.info/1206_crusade.htm

The Albigensian Crusade was a Crusade against the people of the Languedoc which began in 1208. It is also known as the Cathar Crusade. Like all crusades it was a war, declared by the Pope, ( Innocent III), backed by the Roman Church with promises of remission of sins and a guranteed place in heaven. Why is it called the Albigensian Crusade rather than the Cathar Crusade? In order to answer this, it is important to remember that Cathar is only of many names the Roman Church invented for members of this particular brand of Gnostic Dualism. Among many other names, they were called Albigensians, from the (probably erroneous) belief that they were concentrated in the town of Albi. The term Cathar has become the standard term for them only in recent times.

Torture became a favourite method of extracting confessions for offences both real and fabricated. Its use was explicitly sanctioned by Pope Innocent IV in 1252 in his bull ad extirpanda though it had been practiced from the earliest days. Inquisitors and their assistants were permitted to absolve one another for applying torture. Instruments of torture, like crusaders' weapons, were routinely blessed with holy water.

Religion deserves to be mocked. History needs to be taught.

Sandy M

15th July 2008, 03:32 PM

RobRoy

15th July 2008, 04:29 PM

I seem to vaguely recall that in one of Rita Mae Brown's little cat/corgi/Virginia Hunt Country people mysteries, the cats/dog got into a package of the minister's (Episcopal?) communion wafters and scarfed quite a few down. But, I suppose, untransubstiated and, of course, non-Catholic, it wouldn't really matter.........not sure about Episcopal doctrine on this issue, being a long-lapsed Catholic/now atheist/agnostic myself.

The Thirty-nine Articles rejected transubstantiation outright.

More recently, the Anglican/Episcopalian churches seem to be all over the place. Some have accepted the doctrine, others have gone to cosubstantiation, or the metaphorical/power doctrines. There was also the Agreed Statement on Eucharistic Doctrine (http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_eucharist.html) by the Anglican and RCC.

I'm uncertain what weight it holds over all Anglicans/Episcopalians everywhere.