Don't do this. Don't steal crackers.
During mass at around 9 AM, Ricci accepted a wafer on the Communion line, but "walked away without taking the communion into his mouth." After refusing a priest's requests to "accept" the wafer,
If he'd just stopped there, all would be well, but then he did this:
Ricci "turned to the priest and grabbed a handful of the wafers from the plate and attempted to leave" St. Martin de Porres Church, according to the report.
Sorry, but that is unacceptable. Blasphemy is something you can feel free to do on your own, but not when you're disrupting other people's rituals, no matter how silly they are.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Ricci's mug shot " Jonathan Ricci [of] Florida ... was arrested Saturday morning after he allegedly tried to steal "a handful of communion wafers" from a priest at a Catholic church in Jensen Beach. Ricci, 33, sought to swipe 15 wafers valued at $1 .. 9 AM, Ricci accepted a wafer on the…
Do not look at his unless you've been baptized. Oh shit, too late. There are a lot of Christians that I trust, and love. But that is because of who they are. If I just know that someone is a Christian, especially if they are the sort of person to wear their Christianity on their sleeve,…
It actually feels kind of good, considering that my job is secure, and that these critics are looking increasingly rabidly insane. I just sit back and watch their hysteria grow. Case in point: Rod Dreher, who seems to be crawling the walls and screaming right now. In his 'review' of the desecration…
Tomorrow, Kate and I will be heading off to Scenic Whitney Point to spend a few days with my family. Part of this will be the traditional Christmas Eve dinner with my father's side of the family (described in more detail below the fold). It occurred to me a little while ago that this is the one…
Alright, fine. I'll stop. Jees...
mmm guess wingnuts aren't the only ones capable of jackassery
Why would anyone want that much Jebus in the first place?
Now for the Catholics en masse to come in and call you a hypocrite.
"15 wafers valued at $1"
A buck for a tasteless cracker?? PZ, you should start selling all the crackers you received. Donate the money to some sort of science fund.
I'm sending a link for this article to Bill Donahue.
I expect that you will be receiving a written apology, and that a public apology will be printed on his website shortly afterwards.
Oh... no wait. This is *reality* we live in. Sorry.
Still, gonna send the link. Just for fun.
Well no actually I'm not because I'm going to bed. But... y'know. The thought is there.
Not smooth. The trick is to let them put it in your mouth and calmly return to your seat, pretend to swallow if you have to. You return to the pew and while you're kneeling and pretending to thank the baby jesus for the great gift, THEN you put it in your pocket.
Sheesh, Subversive training has really gone downhill. How are we ever going to win the war against Xmas?!?!
Xmas Commando camp begins next weekend people! Straighten up!
I agree. You can't take them like that. If the guy gives you one, it's OK. He gave it to you! But you can't just steal their tasteless shit.
Thievery is thievery. Just be cool. Walk up, ask for 'em wafer, and leave with your wafer peacefully.
That guy was a jackass.
I bet he was secretly building a Holy Cracker Golem!
You'd think that Buffalo Bill would have subscribed just to keep watch.
♪I don't mind stealin' bread,
From the mouths of decadence...♫
Okay, fine. They can keep their wafers. But that gold belongs to the Aztecs, and I'm stealing it back.
Rather have a chocolate jesus than a cracker one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wfamPW3Eaw
So "Disruption of a Religous Assembly" is a misdemeanor? Huh.
Oy, Veh.
-jcr
I predict another deluge of hate mail. This isn't PZ's fault of cource but the God bots will blame him anyway.
I know someone who's going to Hell, yup.
I agree. So rude.
Props to PZ for pushing politeness.
It's like a Jesus buffet. Feel free to take all the Jesus you want, but please eat what you take.
PZ, thank you for your voice of civility Street theatre is one thing; gratuitous insult another.
I subscribe to the theory that if 1 is good, 10 is better, and if 10 is better, 1,000 is better yet.
I like it.
(Carry on.)
He looks a little scruffy. Maybe he's a homeless person who just needed a little bread to tide him over until the next charity dinner?
If he'd just stopped there, all would be well
No, all would not be well. You can't choose which part of communion you want to participate in, it's not an assorted pick n' choose that you find in shopping malls. Take it or leave it. If you enter an establishment simply to abuse it customs and traditions you should be charged for trespassing.
Not to completely trivialize the event, because this is far graver, but you cannot agree to score a game of baseball and then walk away with the little pencil they give you.
Don't you just hate people who take more than their fair share of the mints when they leave a restaurant? And what about the toothpicks?
Is there a distinct law against "disruption of a secular gathering"? More priveleged holier-than-thou nonsense from the unrespectable demanding respect.
Pete, c'mon. This analogy isn't nauseating at all. Are you feeling a bit off your game (continuing the sport motif) today?
Wow. Just Wow.
By the way, I am handsomer than Mr Ricci.
But not much.
@ "Barack Obama" (you do not have authorization to use that moniker)
I agree completely. And I feel Mr. President-Elect would to.
Are you also sporting a skullet?*
*(a bald guy's mullet)
What if it comes out later he left $800 in the collection plate? Would that make it better?
What if he's been leaving $800 in the collection plate every weekend for 6 years?
Do you mean like the money from the collection plate that should go to the poor but actually goes to helping the catholic church protect child-raping priests?
I can't believe he's only being charged with simple theft. Surely it's mass kidnapping if there are 15 'bodies of Christ" involved.
But it could be a tricky theological problem; has he actually kidnapped 15 distinct entities or do they all count as manifestations of one entity. So only one kidnapping. I'm confused. This is just the situation for a theologian. It should keep the Vatican fruitfully employed....
Gavin @ #12,
Well, I suppose it's a form of disorderly conduct, but it is pretty silly that they have a special designation for this. I seriously doubt there's a specific law for disrupting any other kind of private assembly. And yet our religious friends seem to think that they're the ones being persecuted.
Not that this guy doesn't need to be prosecuted; theft and assault are serious even when the amount or injuries are petty. But we'll see this trumped up as an assault on Catholicism by Bill and his crusading cohorts, with nary a peep about all the appalled atheists here and elsewhere. I'll even bet that he tries to blame this on PZ despite this article.
No, no "skullet." I'm probably the hairiest member of our species you'll ever meet. I can go from bald to Hagred in a matter of weeks. I don't know why.
Did you see National Geographic a couple months ago, with the artist's conception of a Neanderthal? That could have been my sister.
I wish I was exaggerating.
Misrepresentation and fraud??
What does that remind me of?
He should have someone misrepresent himself to fraudulently obtain the host like you did eh PZ?
Property obtained through misrepresentation and fraud is officially called "stolen property". Even though the execution of the theft was more subtle in teh case of your hired goons.
Does crackergate have a Wiki entry yey? Is Ichy still hosting crackergate.com? Is there a FAQ somewhere? Because Barack, buddy, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and it shows.
BO
Hired goons do it for pay.
We do it for the honor of basking in PZed's mighty glow.
I wonder if our Obama hater is hiding under the BO moniker? If so, he has hit a new low, even for him.
Your sister is hairy? Tough break for her.=) (I keeeed, I keeeeed)
There are those who really dig hirsute guys, though they tend to be other men (I have no idea of your orientation and mean no disrespect)
There are NO LAWS that describe NOT eating a cracker from a Catholic church as theft.
Churches don't check your papers at the door and they don't examine every parishioner to see that they have swallowed their cracker.
I would love to know how stealing something that is worth less than a cent stealing, when it's given away freely every day.
From where I stand this act should receive the same punishment that a man would get if he went to a public block party and tried to run off with a hand full of Fritos.
Why is a ritual so fucking important? So he disrupted a church ceremony, worse things have happened.
I wonder if the Secret Service is checking entry hits for idiots using OB as a screen name?
It's like how, during the post-cracker frenzy here, demented papists were frothing and ranting about how it was vandalism and destruction of property - what, exactly, would happen to the cracker otherwise? Is it framed and put on a wall? Given pride of place on the wall?
No, it's eaten.
The crime, apparently, is to not eat it; non-destruction of property is apparently a crime to these people.
Y'all are making this way too complicated.
What I usually do is I wait until about 2:00 AM, and then I drive past the back of the rectory real slow. Generally, after I drive past the third time, a priest will come out of the doorway and approach the car. I give him a Jackson, and then he hooks me up with what I need. Simple as that.
But you gotta be careful, man, because sometimes the Bishop gets all up on the priests. And nobody wants a crosier popped in their ass.
PZ, Xena @4 suggested that you sell all the crackers you get for $1. apiece, but you should be able to get more for the body of Christ than that. See how much of a ransom you can get for "him."
But it would have been okay if he'd pulled out a knife and slathered peanut butter on the cracker before eating it?
Seriously, once you are given the cracker to consume, it is a gift of free food. There is no moral duty to eat it on the spot. Drop it in your pocket, saying, "Saving for later."
Or you could refuse the gift, saying, "I"m on a low carb diet."
Prof. Myers, I had the pleasure of attending your presentation at GMU this past weekend, and commend you on your statement here in this post.
At the time that you advocated that readers attempt to obtain or "score" (your term) communion wafers that had been blessed by Catholic priests in the context of a Catholic Mass, with intent that you would "blaspheme" them, I was quite critical of your actions. I considered it to be what lawyers like me call "theft by trick."
A communicant (someone seeking to get a Communion wafer in line) is presumed to be a Catholic and intending to receive it for its intended, extremely well-known liturgical purpose. In my view, it's roughly the same as going to McDonalds, saying "gimme a Big Mac" and walking out without paying, under the theory that one did not "promise to pay."
Perhaps there is an error in my logic. I would be grateful if anyone could identify it. I am an atheist and of course recognize that a wafer/cracker blessed or not is a fracking cracker; the issue in my mind is whose stupid cracker? and by what deceptive means does one come to possess the stupid cracker?
Cheers.
Here we go.....
What's with you fuckheads and your aversion to reading?
No wonder spoken sermons are so popular with you illiterates.
Someone else posted under Barak Obama's name a few days maybe a week ago. The link was different but I'm betting its the same loony tune.
I'll see if I can find it.
Actually Bruce it's like going into a MacDonalds and grabbing an extra ketchup packet and keeping in your glove-box rather then using it immediately on your fries.
No, no. Ask P. Rooke. It's more like...like going to McDonalds, saying "gimme a Big Mac wrapped in the flayed skin of a loved one but hold the Special Sauce," then, uh, walking down the street flashing your knee-rolls because you're wearing a miniskirt fashioned from human skin and also you stole the little pencil from last time you went to Shea. And you didn't even score the game!!!!
See?
The difference is that there's no fiscal transaction for the wafer. You aren't stealing, they are giving it away. When one goes to McDonalds, the transaction if set.
None of you seemes to understand the very basic legal concept of "contract". When an offer is made with conditions attached (as is the case for the reception of the Catholic Eucharist), then deliberate failure to fulfill all of the terms of the agreement (which can include the requirement for immediate consumption!) constitutes the crime of fraud.
If you enter with the intent to breach the contract, then you misrepresent yourself when you enter the premises to carry out your deed.
Catholic churches do not post "All Welcome" signs on their sanctuaries because they are meeting places for Catholics. People can seek membership, but non-Catholics are not specifically invited to worship, and are specifically excluded from participation in the Eucharistic meal, without being members in proper standing, and having received prior preparation.
Even Catholics are only allowed to participate after specific criteria are met.
The value is not what the perpetrator decides it is. Value is determined by the offerer/seller, not the thief. Theft of a tissue seems insignificant, however if that tissue was touched by Brittney Spears, then the value is enhanced. Minnesota courts will always use the enhanced value, as declared by the offerer/seller.
These are not penny wafers off a factory assembly line. Since they were consecrated by a priest, the value is no longer determined by factory pricing, any more than Marilyn Monroes ashtray is only a $2 chunk of glass ware. You are all sadly mistaken in this regard.
@ #55
Done being an idiot?
So if a priest forgoes the screening process and just gives them out to whoever seeks to eat it, who's at fault?
No one can eat just one?
What the kid did wrong was disrupt the ceremony. If he had palmed the cracker and no one noticed, then no harm done. What if he's germ-phobic and wanted to wipe it off first? What if he wanted to participate as much as possible, but is gluten-intolerant? (Yes, the Catholic church has said NO GLUTEN-FREE JESUS FOR YOU if you are.) What if he wanted to participate, but had a huge wave of nausea at the font and didn't want to hurl all over the priest? There are lots of reasons not to eat it right then.
PZ Myers:
Wow, Me @55, that was an even bigger load of crap than Bruce @48's McDonalds analogy. Entering a church and standing in line for a cracker in no way constitutes a contract. Do closet agnostic catholics get sued when they admit their feelings or stop going to church? Of course not, so stop being ridiculous.
I think the theist posters here have read a bit too much theology. Wacky logic and bullshit reasoning is okay in apologetics; hell, it's the only way to make sense of the bogus false premise (for the slow kids, that premise is "god exists"). That doesn't fly in the real world, though. Sorry.
That's hilarious Pilty.
Good luck getting said Big Mac without paying first.
I see this more analogous to operatives from Candidate X's political campaign receiving public fundraising and informational e-mails from Candidate Y's campaign. Surely the expectation is that the e-mails go out to supporters, but there is no litmus test in the e-mailing, no notification that it is for Candidate Y's supporters only, nothing.
The Catholic Church hands out the wafers through a simple process: Communicant enters line, goes to Priest, Priest says "The Body of Christ", Communicant says "Amen", and receives the wafer either on the tongue or in the hand for immediate consumption. At least, that's what it was like the last time I took it. Again, there is no checking: "You SURE you're Catholic?" "You're gonna eat this now, right?" or even a command "Eat this now." Just ritual words.
Kel @ 57
The thief is of course at fault because he purposefully misrepresented himself. To seek to acquire a host that is consecrated, is de facto proof that the enhanced value is recognized by the perpetrator, and the conditions that they intend to breach are known.
There is no need to security screen, the perpetrator, by the act of presenting himself before the priest asserts that he understands the contract and is compliant.
Further, the host is always held up before the recipient and the words of the contract "Bosdy of Christ" are spoken aloud. The thief must say "Amen" before being given the host. That is verbal assent to the entire contract. AKA Perjury.
Your position that a lack of a security check switches fault from the perpetrator to the victim is completely illogical and totally ridiculous.
Your simple and incorrect logic, is that if you can get away with it by deceipt then it is the victim's fault.
Try that argument at a rape trial.
In case no one's posted it yet, this is presumably the Florida statute he's being charged under:
It looks like there's a maximum fine of $500 under 775.083.
Me Moron at #55,
If you read through any of the threads during the previous cracker-frenzy, you'll find that dozens of catholics, while meeting all you listed criteria, admitted to not swallowing the cracker after the creepy man in the dress gave it to them.
Are you suggesting they need to have legal action taken against them?
You could, of course, prevent this problem by getting signatures, requiring photo id etc. in order to receive the cracker - and, in fact, I fully support that. Make it nice and legal and you'll avoid this sort of problem entirely.
Sure, you'll be making asses of yourselves - but when's that ever stopped a religion?
Yes you can, that's why they give you the little pencil instead of a proper #2 with an eraser. Duh. Same with golf.
"Yon Ricci has that lean and hungry look..."
Extra points to anyone who can tell me what show that saome from
JC
You clowns still don't understand the "fraud by deception" laws, despite having them explained to you multiple times. You're not even good Internet-pretend-lawyers. So just shut up. You bring nothing but ignorance to the thread.
So if the "thief" didn't know of the social contract that the Catholic Church has in place, how can he represent himself?
If I didn't know of Catholic rituals and one day decided to go to church and I was given the eucharist, how am I in the wrong? (This has happened to me btw)
Rape by deceit? Is this like that X-files episode where the shapeshifter guy kept sleeping with people under assumed forms?
oh man - I shouldn't kill a 750 of Hennipin before I post - saome=came....
JC
Sigh.
The minutiae regarding the legality of absconding with only the one cracker a priest/delegate gives the communicant were thoroughly discussed in the original Crackergate posts.
This post is pretty clear: PZ says "Don't do this. Don't steal crackers." - meaning don't take what is not given. Surely that's not controversial.
taking a wafer once given is fine, but reaching and taking wafers is just stealing. i'm not apologizing for the guy, but it seems to be a poor response brought on by being 'confronted' about the wafer already in his possession. he panicked, and crossed the line.
Try that argument at a rape trial.
You did NOT just try to make an analogy between rape and cracker non-eating. Wow. Go get a sense of perspective before you expect anyone to do anything other than killfile you.
As mentioned many times in preceding threads, this is simply false. Non-Catholics and Catholics in poor standing are invited to participate all the time. Some churches simply don't care that much about standing, and do consider all to be welcome.
Some churches do care, of course, and they are more than welcome to make an announcement to that effect.
#42 "this act should receive the same punishment that a man would get if he went to a public block party and tried to run off with a hand full of Fritos"
Word. I'm willing to grant that he 'stole' them. So what? Can they show how he's caused them any harm? They were giving them away anyways, so it's not like they expected to keep them either way.
Lessee...
Judas was paid 30 pieces of silver. (Probably shekels at 11 grams each) Today's silver sold at $10.56 per troy ounce. Convert from shekels equals 10.61 troy ounces of silver equals $112.04.
A decent box of Eucharist wafers is about $17 (including shipping).
Hm. How many wafers make one Jesus? Do we measure by weight, or by some meaningful number? What's the error margin? Even if one Jesus equals one box of Eucharist wafers it means that each wafer is worth only 11 cents.
So two things are obvious from this back-of-the-envelope figuring.
First, Eucharist wafers - even after being blessed - are not worth very much.
Second, Eucharist wafers that have been touched by PZ Myers are worth a great deal more. A dollar per wafer? That's almost an increase of 900 percent!
Talk about adding value to a product!
That is verbal assent to the entire contract. AKA Perjury.
I love it when the godbotherers get all lawyerly. It's like they're nostalgic for an Auto de Fe, or some other situation of days gone by, when they had real secular power, instead of the embarrassment they are now.
Face it, dipshit. The state has no legitimate interest in protecting individual crackers.
I think most of us here agree with that - the exception, of course, being the deluded papists who think that not immediately putting in your mouth what the priest offers you* and thinking it's a good thing is the most heinous crime imaginable.
* yes, I know how it sounds
Kel
If you did not know, your culpability is reduced or eliminated. These acts however were done very purposefully.
These perpetrators didn't just shoplift some wafers from a church supply store, where the unit value would be very little. They very deliberately sought hosts that were consecrated. By taking pains to get only consecrated ones, they by that fact assert their knowledge of the difference, and the conditions ahta make that difference.
Me @#55 #63
Teh Tard is strong in this one...
Aren't you just that pseudo-lawyer for internal Cannon Law crap? If I remember right you are. And that you came in here during cracker gate and started throwing your weight around but completely failed to put of proof of your legal position and were constantly being rebutted by real attorneys and even reasonably well-educated non-attorneys.
Me, you're an idiot. If nothing else, will you please look up the definition of the word perjury. It does not mean what you think it means.
What the fuck? Thanks for taking my argument and blowing it out to absurdity.
My logic is that if someone is oblivious to the customs of Catholicism and Catholicism makes no effort to enforce the customs then there's no problem.
In terms of rape, take the situation that the person taking the cracker is a the aggressor and the church is the defendant. Imagine if the defendant went to the court crying rape and the judge asked what happened. Then the defendent used the argument that the aggressor obtained sex under false pretences, that the sex was willing under the condition that the aggressor wanted a relationship where infact the aggressor simply wanted to get his end away. You don't just call it rape because you regret it afterwards.
If the catholic church doesn't screen and willingly gives to whoever asks for it, then they can have no complaints when there are those who aren't part of the flock who participate. If the Catholic Church denies the person communion and they still take it, yes it is theft.
"To seek to acquire a host that is consecrated, is de facto proof that the enhanced value is recognized by the perpetrator"
So you're saying that there is no reason anyone in the world would ever want to stand in line for a free cracker unless it was consecrated?
The little old ladies manning the free sample booth at the grocery store will be shocked to learn this.
Rape-by-deceit. Is that like telling a woman you're rich so she sleeps with you?
I was unaware we were prosecuting people for that now.
I must say with all these legal terms (especially up at #55) being bandied about then part of the said "contract" is that said cracker has indeed been transubstantiatied into the body of christ. DNA analysis forthcoming of course...
Yes you can, that's why they give you the little pencil instead of a proper #2 with an eraser. Duh. Same with golf.
People seem obsessed with the minutiae at the expensive of the actual meaning behind any analogy I proffer. Besides I have written extensively about the subject and will continue pointing out militant Atheism at my new blog.
Here are some of my previous analogies:
1) Suppose you were a milkman with rotting teeth and cankerous lips. Before delivering each milk bottle you would take a swig and place it on the doorstep. You continued to abuse you privileged access to other people's milk for years. Then one day you decide to retire. Before you leave however, you let all of your customers know what you've been engaged in by letter while also leaving a picture of your cankerous mouth under each bottle. You have gleefully proclaimed your actions to all who will listen. No one was physically harmed and yet every customer (read: Catholic) affected feels deeply violated and abused. PZ Myers is effectively that milkman.
2) Suppose your are an embalmer. You are busy embalming a person for an open coffin ceremony and you decide to pilfer there lush locks of blonde hair for the construction of high class wigs (a business you have going on the side).
This person happens to be a Sikh. In order to hide the fact you have stolen their hair you then purchase a cheap synthetic wig and replace it. In the small print of the contract (which the distraught family don't read carefully enough) you make mention of this.
After the event you then decide to publicize this gleefully on a blog. No physical harm has been done to either person and yet I would argue that this is equivalent to PZ Myer's theft and subsequent desecration of the Eucharist publicized on his blog (of which extra web traffic generates money).
3) Young ladies like to wear an item of clothing called a mini-skirt these days. The material is often sheer and by its definition does not even come close to covering the knee roll.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniskirt)
Now if someone chooses to wear such an item it does not in the least bit make rape and sexual abuse permissible despite the fact that the odds increase exponentially. In both the eyes of the secular law and of my religion the assailants are still just as culpable.
So merely because Catholicism may seem like a remarkably soft target for PZ Myers (he has since been roped into desecrating the Koran) he is still as culpable as someone who chooses to attack say the more benign and watered down religions of Quakerism/Unitarian-Universalism.
4) Suppose you had a very sacred book outlining your philosophy on life. This book also happened to be stitched together and bound in the skin and flesh of a loved one who had recently passed away.
Now desecrating the Eucharist would have the same effect as desecrating that book and posting the evidence in glee.
5) I am a KKK leader. I burn gigantic crosses into the wilderness surrounding various suburbs. These crosses happen to appear behind a larger predominately black community. A history of the town is compiled and various aerial shots are taken at great expense. These are then placed in a time capsule. After burial I gleefully proclaim what I have done. No physical harm or damage has been caused and the documents in the time capsule are correctly historical. Nevertheless, the people of the community have been violated and abused. It is a hate crime. This is perfectly comparable to what PZ Myers has engaged in.
Good, then you agree that a non-Catholic who gets communion who does not know of the requirements for communion is not responsible.
Could it just be that a consecrated host is the only one offered freely? You don't see priests handing out non-desecrated hosts. To gain a host requires no knowledge of the requirements to participate.
ROTFL! Pastor Pete, you are one sick bastard. I can't believe you keep posting that crap.
By taking pains to get only consecrated ones, they by that fact assert their knowledge of the difference, and the conditions ahta make that difference.
You are late to the party, aren't you dumbass? We've been through it a million times. How do you know the cracker PZ threw in the trash was consecrated? How would we find out for sure about any cracker removed from the immediate locale of a Eucharist in progress? A cracker is a cracker is a frackin' cracker, and none of your whining will make a secular state take ANY notice of its status with regard to being a little nest for jesus or not.
You know, this is exactly the sort of thing I was afraid of when PZ sent out a call for crackers. I know PZ wouldn't condone a stupid stunt like this, but all it takes is one stupid reader. Not to imply that this was PZ's fault--obviously not, since the timing is way off.
Ah, the real Pete Rooke - sick fuck - returns. Or perhaps his meds wore off.
Pete, the thing that fascinates me the most is that you're so clueless about life and people and the world in general that you can even begin to think that your vile fantasies are in any way analogous to a catholic choosing to put a the cracker in his or her pocket rather than in her mouth.
It's a pity the the killfile people don't get commission for the use of the script. Between you and Eric Atkinson they can afford to put their kids through college.
You may be ROTFL right now but there will come a time when you will be WOTFP (and that won't be found in any "Urban" Dictionary).
Writhing on the Floor Praying
Holy Shit. I think you are all missing the most important thing here.
Little Petey has a blog. A new blog. I'm so happy.
*sniff
Our boy is all growed up...
Pete Rooke, sick fuck, wrote:
You'd like that, wouldn't you Pete? It'd be great for you could be there, in your gimp suit, watching them suffer as you jerked off.
So much for christian love and kindness.
Yeah, I know. And you'll be there to watch me suffering from above with your imaginary friend, right? Fucking sadistic pervert.
Pete, if I were you, I wouldn't claim those analogies as my own. They're not just evidence of a sick mind, they're really crappy analogies.
"Suppose you had a very sacred book outlining your philosophy on life. This book also happened to be stitched together and bound in the skin and flesh of a loved one who had recently passed away."
You realize that there's a difference between thinking your book is made of skin and it actually being made of skin, right?
A girl in my old high school got very upset and cried when someone 'stepped on' her invisible dog at the end of one of those invisible dog collars with the wire through it (true story). Is this evidence that the person who stepped on the imaginary dog is cruel and belligerent or evidence that the girl is a nutcase?
I suppose people will respect your beliefs more when you can actually demonstrate that your cracker is made of flesh. Until then, it's not anyone elses responsibility to avoid offending people whose nutcase beliefs have no grounding in reality.
Kel @88
They are not offered "freely". There are conditions attached. If you were attending and innocently took one as a "copycat" participant, you would also innocently consume it.
These acts were deliberate misrepresentations to fraudulently obtain what they are not entitled to. That makes them criminal acts.
#93 "Writhing on the Floor Praying"
Don't sound so excited
Back to the whole death fantasies I see, Ole Petey.
Are the rape ones next?
Amen Rev. He is probably trying to drum up some business, but this is not the site for that. I think I'll pass. If anyone has a good stomach, tell us about it.
People seem obsessed with the minutiae at the expensive of the actual meaning behind any analogy I proffer. Besides I have written extensively about the subject and will continue pointing out militant Atheism at my new blog.
Here are some of my previous analogies:
Yes, and they're all terrible. You don't know how to construct an analogy, so please stop.
So I suppose while we're WOTFP you'l be ROTFLOL? Nice love for humanity you've got going on there. Seriously, it's because of people like you that I'm glad religion exists and traps y'all in, because otherwise you really would probably be homicidal maniacs.
Actually, you don't understand the basic concept of contract or contract enforcement. Which is why you got it wrong in your first paragraph and continued to bury yourself.
First and foremost, breech of contract IS NOT A FUCKING CRIME YOU DOLT!!! It is a civil matter.
Second, a valid contract has the following elements:
1. A "Meeting of the Minds" (Mutual Consent)
2. Offer and Acceptance
3. Mutual Consideration
4. Performance or Delivery
You can clearly see there is no contract in the service. The Catholic Church just gives the damn things away to anyone who gets in line without ever expressly informing the people who have shown up that they must meet certain requirements. Thus, without expressly making the conditions known, there can be NO MEETING OF THE MINDS.
Another issue is that consideration is not required. Without some sort of consideration, you don't have a contract. Rather, this unilateral action is a GIFT which takes it out of contract law.
Third, regardless of the prior, even if there is a breach, it's a minor breach and there are no damages to the Catholic Church.
If the person who takes the host doesn't destroy it in the way they'd like it destroyed, it's tough luck for the Catholic Church. They gave it to you to destroy through the process of eating. You did something different.
Oh well.
It's not a crime. It's not a contract or, if it were, enforceable by the conduct of the Catholic Church. If it is a contract, and enforceable, it's not a material breach. It's not a fundamental breach. It's a minor breach and you have no damages because the only breach is in the MANNER IN WHICH YOU DESTROYED THE PROPERTY, NOT THAT YOU RECEIVED IT OR THAT YOU DESTROYED IT.
You guys need to stop using outrage as a basis for your legal opinions. They're embarrassing.
Me, you don't know what you're talking about. Point me to the statute that a non-catholic who accepts a communion wafer would be charged under.
Remember, there's no such thing as a common-law crime in the United States. Give me a citation to a statute or shut the fuck up.
Me, #98, wrote:
I like where Me's going (the grammar! it burns!) with this. By the same kind of logic, if you invited someone to a party and you saw they weren't having a good time, you could take them to court.
I mean, the contract is that if you 'come' you are required to 'have a good time'. If they aren't capable of doing that, well, it's a breach of contract. They've fraudulently obtained access to your party after all. They should be hauled up in front of a judge, shouldn't they?
There are probably lawyers jerking off like Pete Rooke over a corpse in a mini-skirt (above the knee roll, of course)just thinking about it.
It's nothing so far.
Just some self important yammering on about "In the Beginning"
I think that's from some old Paperback cliffhanger mystery or jerk book or something.
How does that killfile thing work again?
Actually, I'm kinda glad this case came up because it will bring into question the Florida law our new buddy broke. I can't see that one passing Constitutional muster.
At the same time, it was a spiteful thing to do. I'm having fun with this, but PZ's right, there really was no reason for this guy to take 15. Just because you can show up and laugh loudly at all the inappropriate moments at someone's, say, funeral, doesn't mean you should. That'd be pretty hateful.
So, sure, I'm laughing at the guy, but come on. Just figure out when to stop. It shouldn't be a crime to simply walk out with one, though.
And burning multiple crosses is a far greater crime than tossing a eucharist. One terrorizes, the other doesn't. I won't be the last to point that out. Just like molesting altar boys isn't quite the same as whacking off in the bedroom, with the door closed.
Who said anything about being a copycat participant? I said you participate, and that doesn't require knowing any of the preconditions of participation. And as you agreed on, not knowing the pre-conditions of something freely given out doesn't make them culpible. You could get the wafer without eating it and not have a clue that it's only for catholics.
Hell before crackergate I had no clue that there were preconditions or that Catholics literally believed they were taking the body of Christ. The whole cannibal cult thing is quite disturbing. And even in the initial stages of Crackergate, I still had no idea of the preconditions under which someone should receive a cracker. It took someone to come and explain it. Again, you can know, you can take and you can do all that without understanding in the slightest that it's only for catholics. You are just equating the intent to desecrate with advanced knowledge of the requirements for the ritual.
Oh Jesus, has Petey R. started his "analogies" again. Yikes. I want to meet him just to reconcile the tortured character here on the threads and my mental picture of him.
They are not offered "freely". There are conditions attached. If you were attending and innocently took one as a "copycat" participant, you would also innocently consume it.
These acts were deliberate misrepresentations to fraudulently obtain what they are not entitled to. That makes them criminal acts.
The inquisitor is getting more grandiose and unhinged with each successive post. High comedy.
Perhaps you are aware that in some congregations it is fairly routine to receive the eucharist and return to the pew for a private prayer before discreetly consuming it. In this case, our hypothetical innocent might see step 1, but not the eating, and could reasonably believe he was given a souvenier of the two hours he wasted utterly in the company of the likes of you.
Reflect that for an action to credibly be called a criminal act, the secular state must have a legitimate interest in prohibiting said action. Please demonstrate this interest in the case of the removal of a single cracker, freely given, from a church (with no disruption of anybody's ritual; i.e. nobody notices, or cares, at the time)
On second thought, it's really worth looking at.
I got a really good hearty laugh.
Listen, "Me", I agree that obtaining anything under false pretenses is wrong, but can we dispense with the bullshit pseudo-legal arguments? Fraud requires that the person who is deceived suffer some injury or damage. Having your taboo insulted doesn't cut it. The priest's appraisal of the object's value is irrelevant, as he is not expecting to have it or anything of like value returned.
Actually, deliberate failure to fulfill the terms of a contract can never be fraud, unless the intent to breach the contract existed at its inception. I know that would be the case here, but I needed to point out how your grandiose but ignorant pronouncements on law only hurt your argument.
Here we go, another entirely new definition of a criminal offense pulled straight from the darkness of "Me"'s cloaca. Perjury can only be invoked for false statements made under oath or affirmation.
Do yourself a favour: drop the legal pronouncements. They only discredit your argument and make you look foolish.
Dear Peter Rooke,
Please seek help sir.
Stupid analogies at #87
1) You have taken something that nobody has offered you. Thus it is unlike the communion wafer. Also, you have endangered others by the contamination of their milk. Hence, it is not like the communion wafer.
2) You have taken something that nobody has offered you. Hence it is unlike the communion wafer.
3) Rape involves harming an actual human being. Hence it is unlike the communion wafer.
4) The book was not offered to you. Hence it is not like the communion wafer.
Section 871.01, which I quoted in full in post #64, was upheld against a challenge of vagueness and overbreadth by the Florida Supreme Court in 1977 in S.H.B. v. State, 355 So.2d 1176 (1977).
I don't think you'd have much of a free speech challenge to it either. Maybe someone else has a different opinion on that.
In any case, I highly doubt this guy has the funds to litigate a constitutional challenge, and I doubt the ACLU or anyone else would want this as a test case to challenge the Florida statute.
The guy will probably get a small fine (or maybe no fine) and that will be the end of it.
Unfortunately, he did - he consulted the bible and found that his own sick, hateful, violent urges were fully supported, over and over, by god's actions in the old testament. Racism, misogyny, incest, rape, ethnic cleansing, murder, torture and more - god gives them all two thumbs up!
There is no need to security screen, the perpetrator, by the act of presenting himself before the priest asserts that he understands the contract and is compliant.
Further, the host is always held up before the recipient and the words of the contract "Bosdy of Christ" are spoken aloud. The thief must say "Amen" before being given the host. That is verbal assent to the entire contract. AKA Perjury.
Let's see here, the guy in the dress is a child molester, every last person in line has broken one of the ten commands since the last wafer line...perjury, liturgy...I'm confused
Do yourself a favour: drop the legal pronouncements.
No, do us a favor and pray continue! It gets funnier with every post. (With Pete here, it's taking on some of the flavor of a reunion concert: Crackergate's Greatest Hits.)
Moses @ 103
The contract violation bestows the status of stolen property on the host. That makes it a criminal offense.
Your list of conditions proves my point. By violating all four terms, theft results.
1. A "Meeting of the Minds" (Mutual Consent)
- By entering to acquire the host, you consent
2. Offer and Acceptance
- Offer: host is held up before recipient and "Body of Christ" is spoken; Stating "amen" and receiving is your acceptance
3. Mutual Consideration
- Church offers host, recipient offers obedience to teachings, including immediate consumption
4. Performance or Delivery
- Priest gives host, recipient consumes it
In these cases of deliberate violations of these terms, the crime of fraud is committed.
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.52
Subd. 2.Acts constituting theft.
Whoever does any of the following commits theft and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 3:
(1) intentionally and without claim of right takes, uses, transfers, conceals or retains possession of movable property of another without the other's consent and with intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession of the property;
Ooh, if this the Crakergate ;greatest hits, maybe we can run up a few 1000 post threads and let PZ pay for his daughters tuition. Post a lot Pete. PZ needs the tuition money.
Hey me, what if the person eats the cracker, but then immediately throws it up and takes the goop home?
I want to hear from all the people who predicted, so confidently, that PZ would lose his job over it.
Suck it, losers.
Me,
I know your post was directed to Moses, and I'm certain he will tear it to shreds all on his own, but I would like to point out to you that you have cited a Minnesota statute.
Even aside from everything else that it wrong with your legal argument (like, oh I don't know, the fact that it's a fucking gift) are you under the impression that Minnesota statutes apply in Florida?
Stop with the legal arguments. You don't know what you're talking about.
I mean really, how long does it have to be in the person's stomach to be acid-washed of all holiness? A few seconds? A few minutes? If a pregnant woman retches due to morning sickness while getting the cracker, does she have to re-swallow the crackery bile? What if the person goes home, has a couple of beers, and then throws up? Should they fish out any obvious cracker bits from the toilet and eat them? I'm really curious as to the extent of the meaning of theft here.
I still take communion when I go visit my relatives in the midwest because I don't see any merit in informing them of my apostasy (I only see them every five years or so and they're getting quite old.)
Am I a thief, or just dammned?
@119
I think I'm starting to get it
When the liturgical perjuror says the body of christ and it's just a crappy cracker, he's committing fraud??
Put on proof. Because I know at least three non-Catholics to have taken communion because they didn't know better. When I was in HS I was going to take communion but didn't because the friend who brought me stopped me.
Bullshit. That's like saying a Frenchman comes to America, gets off the plane, goes to a restaurant and thus knows all of our dining customs. And when he eats his salad with dining fork, it's okay for the restaurant proprietor to yell at him and sue him, or even throw him in jail, because he used the wrong fork!
Putz.
Laughably stupid. As I said in my post #103, contracts have requirements to be contracts. You don't know what they are, and you're ignorant enough to think breach of contract is a crime.
It's not.
And perjury is in regards false testimony while under OATH. Putz. Seriously. You were totally putzarific in that paragraph.
It shows you really don't have a grasp on this issue. For the Catholic Church to enforce the "not-a-contract" contract you keep inventing they're required to do their due diligence on the meeting of the minds.
The onus is on them to make sure their requirements for performance are explicit in the contract. Really, they teach you this in school. The rules are the rules, and one of the rules is that the offeror is the one who takes it in the shorts if the contract is ambiguous.
And now you're crying. You have no legal theory worthy of even toilet paper. You don't understand the law or contracts.
You just have outrage and impotency and a desire to punish people who don't kiss your ass. And you're more than willing to say anything, no matter how stupid or ignorant, to win your "outraged victim" argument.
Get over it. We know you're outraged. We don't care. In fact, it's pretty damn entertaining.
You're still laughably wrong. And now you've jumped the shark with your rape fantasy. Great job, asshole.
It's an interesting metabolic question, really - I mean obviously once it's shit it isn't holy, because there are no rituals about burying any waste one excretes for the next two days, but where does the deholifying happen? In the throat? The stomach? The colon? Obviously not the mouth, since spitting it back out is so bad, but I'm curious to know where exactly Jesus gets absorbed.
Yet it was given freely by the priest...
S*** it, losers.
Whether or not I'm a loser will be decided in the eyes of the Lord and your time will come too.
I admit, I was wrong on whether Dr. Myers would be fired/ However, will this derail his tenure track? Likely.
Dammned: Adj. Condemned to an eternity of constipation.
Sorry. Couldn't help myself.
Or serial killer. Looks like the wacko is off his meds again. Next up, rape fantasies involving young girls in short skirts using dull knives.
There is something drastically wrong with that guy. Missing almost all of a normal personality at the least.
I admit, I was wrong on whether Dr. Myers would be fired/ However, will this derail his tenure track? Likely.
Dude, he already has tenure. Comprehension FAIL.
The Catholic equivalent of karma. Payback will happen in the next life, so you better be good in this one...
JohnLightfield,
Haven't you heard? Communion crackers are the new popsicle stick. When I was much, much, much younger I built a plant stand in the shape of a Japanese temple for my mother out of several thousand popsicle sticks. While most communion cracker buildings can be built using bought crackers that isn't true if you are building a model church.
Oh shit, it's bug-fuck-perverted-crazy-guy again. I just threw up in my mouth a little.
I mean really, how long does it have to be in the person's stomach to be acid-washed of all holiness? A few seconds? A few minutes? If a pregnant woman retches due to morning sickness while getting the cracker, does she have to re-swallow the crackery bile? What if the person goes home, has a couple of beers, and then throws up? Should they fish out any obvious cracker bits from the toilet and eat them? I'm really curious as to the extent of the meaning of theft here.
It is the actual act of consumption that has special meaning. We would not expect you to eat your own bile any more than we would expect you to eat your faeces.
It also a dead giveaway as to just how little faith they actually have in their own beliefs. One would assume that, for mistreating the host, a transgressor would go to hell for all eternity. If I believed in that nonsense, I'd be perfectly happy to let that be the punishment rather than make any bother about seeing them pay for it in this life.
Guess they don't trust their god much, do they?
For the most valid opinion in the matter of PZ being criminally laible, here is the most relevant expert:
http://www.co.stevens.mn.us/docs/departments/attorney/default.html
Ask him.
So what do you think we ought to infer from the above-mentioned expert's failure to charge PZ with any crime?
They do, it's just God made them in His own image, so they are petty & vengeful too. ;)
So merely because Catholicism may seem like a remarkably soft target for PZ Myers (he has since been roped into desecrating the Koran) he is still as culpable as someone who chooses to attack say the more benign and watered down religions of Quakerism/Unitarian-Universalism.
Petey I supposed you missed the memo but PZ added a copy of The God Delusion just to show that nothing is sacred.
Hey, St. Martin de Porres is a Peruvian saint. He's famous for being black (yeah), and for self-flagellation. And of course, that's a good thing. Just a curious fact. Don't know how that crazy dude got his name on a Florida church.
Peter Rooke,
I just re-read a few of your analogies (which they really aren't... but I digress).
I'm afraid you need more than medical help. I think you need an exorcism. That stuff is really messed up dude.
One last time... please sir, seek help. Now.
Pete, you fail to grasp academic tenure/promotion decisions. PZ's blog is not really part of his promotion story (he already has tenure). For another disappointment for you big time.
Kel @ 129
You know it was not freely given. If they were lying around in a bowl, or if priest was just handing these out to anyone on the street, they would be freely given. The perp entered with deliberate intent to defraud. That is the crime. Like I said earlier, if it was a mistake made from ignorance, it is excusable. These particular acts were very very deliberate.
"Whether or not I'm a loser will be decided in the eyes of the Lord and your time will come too."
That's the worst you got?
Great Cthulhu will not look fondly on you.
Pete Rooke is the Catholic equivalent of Tobias on Arrested Development. Just can't help but let his subconscious desires manifest in his language.
randrew,
Hhmmm. Which flavour?
There's a great deal Pete fails to grasp.
As for disappointment, well, he's a christian - he should be used to disappointment by now.
@ Nerd of Redhead
I profess that I don't have much insight into the inner working of academia. This episode can only have hurt Dr. Myers; that much is plain though.
Does the priest hand in to the other person, yes or no? Of course he does. It's not only free, but it's given too. It's not like there's a bowl of crackers with a "take one (but only if you are Catholic)" sign. The priest gives it to the participant. Back to the rape analogy, you can't withdraw consent after the event even if the action was taken under false pretences. Consentual sex doesn't become rape because it was given under false pretences.
First of all, we weren't discussing whether PZ had committed a crime. We were talking about the guy in Florida. You know, the subject of this post? Remember? (And don't you even know enough of the facts to understand that PZ didn't physically go into a church to obtain a communion wafer?)
Second, I don't have to ask the County Attorney with jurisdiction for Morris. I (unlike you) have the requisite training and experience to look at the statutes and caselaw myself and figure out if there's a decent case. There isn't. No matter how much you want there to be one.
Third, does the fact that the County Attorney has not sought to bring criminal charges against PZ mean anything to you? I mean Crackergate was months ago, and PZ is still walking around free. Doesn't that tell you anything?
Dave L @ 140
These crimes had not been reported to him before now.
No report = no action // Report = Action.
The prosecutor does not go out looking for crimes. They deal with ones that are reported to them. Call him and see what he says.
This episode can only have hurt Dr. Myers; that much is plain though.
How can this possibly hurt a minion of the anti-christ?
...because nice people swallow?
You, Me, Whatever,
There is no intent to defraud. For it to be fraud requires that someone suffer damages or injury.
I certainly think there's a moral argument to be made for the wrongness of this action, but I'm not going to hang around this thread and defend it after you're gone out of your way to dump it on the floor and pour Industrial Stupid Concentrate all over it.
Yep, his blog is no longer linked on the university website. But Buffalo Bill has linked it on his and all those outraged Catholics who take the "turn the other cheek" message to heart have more than made up for it. Though keep posting Pete, every post you make only puts more money into his pocket. That'll really show him...
Oops. I'll be damned, since I'm sure not dammned!
And btw, in the LCMS, at least my experience of it for 35 years, no one assents to the "body of christ" statement with any sort of response whatsoever. You just take the fracking cracker, usually placed deftly on the tongue of the recipient, but not always.
I will be providing various Power Point presentations (about the existence of God) on my blog in the near future. Until next time..
Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, monks are fighting.
No. Really. They are.
In what way? I've read the article; I don't see that the person involved has claimed that he was influenced by PZ.
The events are unrelated - except in your mind. And you've displayed (repeatedly and sickeningly) that that isn't a place where logic and reasonable thought occur on a regular basis.
What makes you so sure? Are you his secretary?
I think in this case the most appropriate equation would be:
Report = Number Blocked
Why don't you call him? I have a natural aversion to making an ass of myself which you seem to be unhindered by.
bwwwwwwwwwahahaha
I can hardly wait.
Pete... I looked at your blog. Did you really mean "Crackegate?" Typos are something we all suffer from, but at least check your headers!
I'd also like to point out a minor flaw in your analogy. Contrary to what is implied by your rape analogy, most rapists simply go for whatever is easy to remove. It has little to do with how sexy it is. Some will carry scissors to make this easier.
You logic explains how a lot of criminals might excuse heinous crimes against human beings: because they are capable of confusing those things with the rights of a cracker.
PZ,
What the hell did you expect? You either expected it, or you didn't, both of which had consequences, which I'll leave to your gentle readers to sort out. Let the excoriation begin...
Heh. Hey, Pete! I'm working on an Excel spreadsheet that disproves your ppt.
No. Really. I am.
(pssst. Can anyone help me with pivot tables?)
Welcome to 1997. You could get with this millennium and use Flash, or get with this period of the net and use Youtube. Powerpoint is so web 1.0
@ Wowbagger
There is no unwinding or the jack n' the box to be done by PZ Myers, there is no rewinding the tape. He has planted the seed in the minds of his acolytes for this type of theft, trespass and abuse, and the wind has taken hold of these ideas - like the seeds of a dandelion infecting the productive and worthwhile vegetable patch. No rational person could say these events are unrelated, this type of thing just didn't happen prior to the "the Great Desecration".
Well, I'm convinced. There's no way anyone who's realised they can live without your non-existent sky-fairy can possibly resist the awesome power of your fully operational death star slide show.
Will you include some shots of your library of human-skin-covered books?
Won't someone please think of the crackers?
ooo... acolyte.... I get to wear a dress without being teased
I just thought I would catalog some of our resident legal expert, Me's, more egregious misunderstandings of the law, which he's demonstrated in a remarkably short period of time on this thread:
1. Breach of contract is a crime.
2. A contract can be formed without consideration being paid by the offeree.
3. Perjury can be committed without being under oath.
4. Minnesota criminal statutes apply to actions taken in the State of Florida.
Each of these examples is a massive Law Fail, Me. You don't know what you're talking about.
I remember in high school, the std and birth control clinic (Canada) used to have a big basket of condoms out for the taking. I assume that these condoms were given under the "contract" of entering a vagina or anus or mouth at some point. If I took a condom or three and couldn't get laid I would have committed a fraud according to the theist nutbags here.
And misrepresenting the value of an item to make it seem more valuable for sale or in court is also fraud, and doing so is viewed much more harshly than theft of a tissue. In the case of the tissue, the accused is well within his rights to demand PROOF that The Trailer-Girl touched it, thus justifying the value. In the absence of being able to substantiate its value, a value appropriate to a "normal" version of the item will be assumed.
Similarly, one might demand proof that the wafer becomes the body of Christ or in some other way changes materially if the prosecution is going to say it's anything more than a wafer with an insignificant financial value.
Since they're also giving them away, it will be hard to make a theft charge stick. The priest almost certainly didn't do due diligence to ensure he wasn't giving them away willy-nilly.
Contracts, as suggested somewhere above, require consideration for compensation. In the case of the holy communion, that relationship does not exist. There is no compensation in consideration of receiving a wafer, therefore there is no contract. Now, if people actually had to BUY their communion wafers, that would be different, but they don't (despite what people may think of you if you don't regularly tithe to the church).
Disturbing the peace, on the other hand, will certainly stick. Everyone has the right to be an asshole, but not a disruptive one.
The battery charges probably won't stick either. I don't know how it is in the USA, but in Canada, forcibly detaining someone who has not committed an indictable offence, if you are not a peace officer, may be criminal and the detainee in such a position might be justified in using force to flee. Beating up old guys in a church though... well, you wouldn't want to be tried in front of a jury on that, you'd want to be in front of a judge only.
My guess - the judge will call him a nasty name, he gets a small fine, and is asked to swear out a peace bond.
I'll let you know when you qualify as a 'rational person', Pete. Here's a hint: it'll be around the same time you stop having disturbed fantasies about corpses in miniskirts and books made of human skin.
I'll be writhing on the floor screaming FUCK YOU, YOU SICK BASTARD! :)
Is that prayer? Do I seemed worried by your pathetic threat Rooke?
What's the bet that this perpetrator had never even heard of PZ Myers or 'Crackergate'?
Yeah, I don't like that at all. The tradition is certainly asinine and stupid, but they have the right to do so--don't go and disrupt them, no matter how insane their little service is.
I agree. The people in any catholic church have probably suffered enough - their miserable, guilt-focused, hate-filled religion demands it; plus there's the burden of choosing to support an institution protecting child-rapists - and I don't see any point in frightening them any more by disrupting the service.
Of course, if the papist trolls had any reading comprehension skills they'd find that PZ never advocated disrupting any services and has plainly spoken out against doing such a thing.
But when you'll believe a lie like christianity i guess you'll believe anything.
@178
Looks and sounds mentally ill to me
can't come into contact with PZ through the foil hat
It is true that three lefts make a right. At least when the blocks are reasonably square. But no amount of asserting the violation of a non-contract contract is a crime makes it a crime.
You don't have an argument to make it a crime. You don't even have a decent pseudo-legalish argument to make it a crime. You just have outrage and self-deception bordering on pure Internet wankery. A quick google and here you are, from a reputable source, since you won't listen to a damn thing I have to say on the criminal aspect:
Bottom line, your argument has been it's a contract. One that you can seek CRIMINAL penalties for. Even though breach of contract is NOT A CRIME. But lets move on. You've lost that part of the issue, though you refuse to acknowledge you're completely wrong.
Contract Elements:
Element 1: I go in and take the host when I'm 15 instead of being stopped. I don't know any better. There was no meeting of the minds despite ANY UNWARRENTED ASSUMPTIONS YOU OR THE PRIEST MAY HAVE HAD. Your failure to act and make your contract requirements known, and the law requires it of you to assert contractual status in this exchange, means there is no possibility of a valid contract.
Regardless of your unwarranted belief I know your unspoken assumptions and requirements.
Element 2. "Body of Christ" is not an offer. If he said "Chicken and Dumplings" it'd still not be an offer, though it'd be a lot more humorous. An offer MUST BE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGOUS. Body of Christ is not clear and unambiguous and has no more clarity than saying "Chicken and Dumplings." It's a statement of religious belief.
Part 3. When I took your cracker, you didn't tell me there were any requirements. You just said "Chicken and Dumplings." Nobody who doesn't know what the code "Chicken and Dumplings" means could possibly understand what the Catholic Church wanted. Further, I never agreed to any of these unspoken conditions. You cannot expect to prevail in your assertion of a contract when you have withheld material terms and/or conditions.
So, once again, you failed to establish an important contract element by failing to say you were seeking consideration, rather than making a gift. You must ask for consideration.
This would be the only thing you actually performed. But since you missed all the other critical elements, it's not material. You GAVE me a cracker. It was a gift. Sure, I didn't eat it. But you never said I had to, either.
You know, fraud is not the word you're looking for. Because breach of a non-existent contract isn't a crime. Even though you have deluded yourself into believing otherwise.
I know that statute. It's been posted in this argument before. You can read what it says, but you don't know what it means. That's the problem with the law. You can read black-letter law and think you know what it means. But you have to see how the criminal justice system works to understand what it really means.
Bottom line: You can't turn a gift, and your error, into a crime. You can't turn a breach of contract into a crime. No matter how much you wish to make it so. And further arguing that breach of contract is crime will not be responded to. Nor will "it's a contract, no really."
It is a gift. Or a contract in which the Catholic Church withholds all of it's terms and requirements and thus is unenforceable and, even if it were, its damages would be limited to the actual cost of the cracker.
Pete "well meaning fool" Rooke, this episode will have no effect on his promotion. With the extra traffic, it even helps him out financially. Time for you to get real. Nobody cares that you were offended. Get over yourself.
Has he brought charges against PZ Myers? Will he be convening a grand jury? Pushing for an indictment. Setting a trial date? After all, if there was a heinous crime committed, shouldn't he be, as an officer of the Court, seeking criminal sanctions?
Maybe he was hungry. Or his friends at home were.
Okay, my beloved but sucky 49ers are playing. Night all.
Ohh... 104 yard TD on the KO!!!!
Acolyte.. you arrogant, self-righteous piece of..
PZ didn't teach me to think
7yrs old, my first cracker, my thought was...this is a trick like Santa
I think we not only have a right, but a duty to interfere in rituals that violate the rights and liberties of people who did not give their informed consent... such as genital mutilation, arranged marriages, mental abuse etc...
...but stealing a bunch of crackers from a bunch of nuts during one of their gatherings certainly isn't a case that warrants intervention.
Me,
You're not clear on the whole "minds" bit, are you?
"Meeting of the minds" is about, well, minds. It's not about the physical actions the parties take--it's about the parties understanding that there's a contract in the first place, and what that contract entails.
If someone doesn't know or believe that the cracker comes with any obligations, then he's not consenting to anything by taking it.
If I took a condom or three and couldn't get laid I would have committed a fraud according to the theist nutbags here.
Not to mention you would have had a pretty bad weekend.
Seems odd to say that this was inspired by PZed.
Wasn't PZed's "crackergate" inspired by what happened after that unfortunate student ran off with a christchex?
I'm also quite sure he wasn't the first.
Not that I expected rational thought from this freak.
Interesting "analogies" there son.
Are you legally allowed to live within 100 yards of a school?
Just curious.
Now if someone chooses to wear such an item [mini-skirt] it does not in the least bit make rape and sexual abuse permissible despite the fact that the odds increase exponentially.
Well then you would think that there would be more rapes in Florida than Alaska or that old women wouldn't be raped. And yet neither of these things are true. Why do you think that is Petey?
Minnesota courts will always use the enhanced value, as declared by the offerer/seller.
This is simply not true. If you steal a rose from my rose bush I can't claim that it is worth a million dollars because I think that it came from God's anus. There has to be some kind of reasonable demonstration that the object is actually worth the value you are claiming. And since it is impossible for the catholic church to prove that blessing a cracker changes the value, they can't claim more than the couple of cents that the cracker cost them.
There is no contract because a contract requires an exchange. There is no exchange of value in taking a host. Also, by law a contract can not be "trifling". An exchange involving something worth only a few cents can not, by law, be a part of a contract. A trifling contract would be suing someone because you gave them an M&M and they didn't give you a Jujube back.
The agreement (if there even is any since the church does not require any response from the person getting the cracker - not even the "amen") would be like my giving you a tootsie roll (even one I blessed) 6t5e4on the condition that you carry it around in your pocket for an hour. If you eat it before the hour is up, do you honestly think I could have you arrested or I could sue you? If you really think that then you are an idiot.
Yeah, right, this will "hurt PZ." Because nobody in history ever took a communion wafer out of the church without PZ's urging, yes? See, the Catholic church is trying to use this episode to prove PZ is "in league with Satan." It would be natural for them to see PZ's "desecration" as a spell resembling "Satanic magic."
When I was a Presbyterian third-grader, I attended a church where the preacher broke a loaf of bread at the altar, but different bread was actually prepared to pass out. The ceremonial loaf stayed on the altar after the service, where a couple of my friends and I, bored to tears waiting for the grownups to drink coffee, used to sneak in and snack on it. We got a talking to after doing this for a few months, but nobody truly seemed all that concerned.
But kids do that on Halloween. You offer them a single treat and they grab a handful.
MikeM (#107) asked,
This may already be answered, but:
1. Install Firefox: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/
2. Download the Greasemonkey addon: http://www.greasespot.net/
3. Restart firefox
4. On the same page as 2, click on Find User Scripts below the download link.
5. Search for "killfile scienceblogs". There should be only one script. Click the link.
6. If you've installed everything correctly, you should see Install Script above the script details.
7. After installing, you may be asked to upgrade the script. Do this under "Tools->Greasemonkey->User Script Commands". You shouldn't need to restart firefox again.
From there, just click Kill or Hide Comment to block all or any particular comment.
I only just did this a minute ago and already I'm glad that I can avoid the scum that washes up here (one can also unblock a comment if one were so inclined).
As to the question of the law and its connection to religion... notice the wording:
(1) Whoever willfully interrupts or disturbs any school or any assembly of people met for the worship of God or for any lawful purpose commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
So even though the law mentions "worship of God," it seems to do it only because "worship of God" may not always be a lawful purpose. The law basically says it is a crime to disrupt these three things:
1) a school
2) any assembly of people met for the worship of God
3) any assembly of people met for any lawful purpose
You would think 3 would cover 2 but who knows. I assume that this would cover worshiping of god in an unlawful way.
Yeah. Cracker talk tends to bring out the ultra-crazed god-soaked loons.
Must stupid people be doing this? Put the cracker in your mouth and walk away, then spit it out. Don't ruin it for the rest of us!
-_-;
I don't tend to killfile out the god-soaked loons; every single one of their hate-filled rants just reminds me how empty their claims of god-given moral superiority are. And then I mock them for it.
Those who don't provide any redeeming entertainment value (Eric Atkinson, I'm looking in your direction), on the other hand, get blocked.
Capital Dan (#198) noted,
What gets me is that we've talked about this thing about, what, 20 times now?
Each time, there's at least one commenter who thinks they can take Myers down for incitement or intolerance or some other charged word redefined from colloquial meaning.
And now that Myers is specifically pointing out that deliberate incitement is uncalled for?
He still gets chastised by the same pricks.
They're too much in love with their self-righteous hatred to give it up, so I have no problem dropping them like a bad habit (or a bad Catholic pun).
Be ready, the Rookie is waging war on reality. Here is his declaration of war.
The Rookie is joining forces with Billo, Fox News and Colbert to defend Christmas.
I cannot stop laughing right now.
I bet that's the first time Pete's ever used the word 'exposing' without it being sandwiched between 'indecently' and 'myself'...
Another insane Christian blog... at least it will make for good cannon fodder on fstdt.com
Of course they will condemn PZ no matter what he does. They need to feel persecuted. To them, it gives their beliefs a sense of legitimacy, I figure. I mean, the more you criticize them or question them or try to inject reality and rational thinking into their silly, hypocritical dogma, the more they will bark about being oppressed or misunderstood or persecuted.
You can hardly talk to a Christian these days about their religion without having to suffer an endless rant of how everyone who doesn't believe as they do is out to kill their god and other paranoid nonsense.
I wonder if the church will follow jesus' teaching and turn the other cheek? I'm giving 10 to 1 odds on NOT.
Also, anyone know what's up with that holy water? That shit really burns my skin.
Posted by: gypsytag | November 10, 2008
Also, anyone know what's up with that holy water? That shit really burns my skin.
Are you a vampire?
Ricci already had accepted some cracker meat but was then asked to accept cracker meat. He couldn't accept cracker meat without getting more cracker meat. Then Ricci was mobbed by people that had some disagreement with what the preist had requested Ricci to do. Did the preist put Ricci at risk intentionally? Does the meat distribution center have a sign that explicitly states "all meat must be consumed before leaving"? Did Ricci state that he was leaving, maybe he was just going to sit at the back so he wouldn't be eating in front of anyone. It seems Ricci may well have been setup by the disgusting christians.
If you read the whole thing you'll notice the guy was pushing two elderly men around, and cursing them. Sounds to me like a crackhead, or someone in need of mental health care.
I am insulted. Pete doesn't have my name on his list. I'm firmly against christmas. My campaign to restore Yule is going to be as ugly as I can make it.
Out with that namby pamby christ, in with the old time festival and binging, feasting, orgies, and puking. To hell with christmas carols, trot out the bawdy songs.
This year the solstice is on 21 December.
That's awesome, Tom. Good eye. When I first read it, the separate protection of assemblies for the purpose of "worship of God" struck me as redundant, but I hadn't drawn that conclusion: there are, implicitly, unlawful assemblies for the "worship of God" protected under the statute.
Pete "the zombie" Rooke #87,
You can't coast off your previous analogies. Show that you can produce new ones. Please feel free to use any of the following in your new analogies :
sexual attraction to plants, Aztec human sacrifice rituals, interracial cannibalism, incest, and placentophagy (the practice of eating the placenta after childbirth).
OMG!!! Feynmaniac
could we get a TIG (this is gross) warning.
I'm eating here.
Posted by: Patricia | November 10, 2008
I am insulted. Pete doesn't have my name on his list.
Patricia, I would suggest doing something slutty with a cracker. I have an idea. You ever seen the movie ? There is one scene where a man, a woman and a chicken are having sex.
Actually, the man and woman are screwing while the chicken is trapped between them. Recreate the scene only with a cracker instead of a chicken. This way, you can claim to know the flesh of christ in the biblical way.
The Rookie would have to come up with a new analogy to cover that one.
Gypsytag, it is no more gross then the Rookie's fantasies. Also, you have not answered my question, are you a vampire?
I guess we can now add another crime to PR's list of offenses. Spamming.
I chased him over a couple of threads one day trying to get him to show me some proof of god. Needless to say, none was forthcoming. And he thinks a PP presentation will do the trick, he needs to get some meds.
Janine,
not that i know of.
It's not just a pp presentation. According to his, what I feel will soon be infamous, blog;
I for one am looking forward to this. However, because this is Petey, I think some sort of disclaimer would be needed before watching the video.
The disclaimer should say, "abandon sanity all those who enter here".
Let's hope for the sake of youtube that he does a better job arguing for the existence of God than he does here. Methinks he'll be a catholic VenomFangX but with less teenage girls fapping over him.
Janine, I have to admit I have never thought of adding a chicken. I did have a thought about doing something especially slutty with a cracker, but the shaving bit put me off, so I decided to leave it to Bride of Shrek.
I know he's wildly entertaining, but his recent reposting of his bizarre analogies convinces me that Pete Rooke is both brain-damaged and mentally ill. I'm doing him no favor by allowing him to flaunt his insanity here, and I'm considering banning him...just to keep the threads on a more even keel and to shoo him off into some quiet corner somewhere.
I feel like we're mocking a handicapped child. What does everyone else think? Let him linger a while longer, or bring out the axe?
Now I feel bad about mocking him.
It's not as if there's a shortage of trolls... I say the axe.
Hey, "Me", aka "J" aka "Language Police" aka "Cephalopod" aka "You" aka whatever other pseudonym you want to use: knock it off. I don't care if you use a pseudonym, but pick one and stick with it. I'm about to block your dishonest ass from the site.
As for contacting the Stevens County attorney, go ahead. This is a small town; I know Charley and Deb; their daughter was my student and was even a guest poster on this blog last year. I am confident that Charley is quite scrupulous in his handling of legal matters, and if this actually were a legal matter I'd have heard from him last August.
Nitwit.
Keep him around a little while longer, but do keep an eye on him, and let's see where his insanity and delusions take us.
You/J/Me is more worthy of the dungeon then is the Rookie. Not that the Rookie is not also deserving. But he makes me laugh. The troll of many names never did.
Wait.... are you proposing an online poll?
Rooke is as obsessive as Kenny, and less pleasant. He is much less intelligent than many that have been dungeoned, and far more boring.
And the offensive and repellent list of gross-out garbage is not something that needs to be preserved for the ages.
Feh.
*ostrakon*
Wrong time to vote on the fate of trolls, PZ. There are only 4 of us awake.
All the legal banter about what constitutes theft or fraud are really fairly tangential here. This is about what amounts to "disturbing the peace". The guy caused a scene and interrupted something these people consider sacred. Its like being invited to a wedding, only to leave the back of the service screaming like a monkey during the vows. You were invited, it was expected you would stay until the end and then leave quietly. You made a scene and 'ruined' the wedding - but you commit no crime.
This would have been a much more interesting case if he hadn't acted like an idiot. If he would have just walked off with the one cracker and they pursued and called the cops.... now THAT would be an interesting discussion of whether or not he broke Florida's laws.
I'm not really smort enough to comment on matters scientific so I normally lurk, but if it's just the opinion of a longtime reader you want PZed, I say let Petey stay and continue to creep us out. As various Warners Bros cartoon characters have said over the years, "I like him. He's silly."
OK, sure, Petey's also a boring godbot and, yes, disturbed, but let's count up how many other Trolls-4-Jeezus have been this entertaining. Not many.
As to "Me" or whatever it's calling itself... It's just dull. I've been skimming past its posts.
Dear PZ,
Please ban the guy. I only wish I had never read the 'analogies' in the first place, let alone have them re-posted. I have a gut feeling that this guy's dangerously deluded. Seriously.
At #54, Me wrote:
The value is not what the perpetrator decides it is. Value is determined by the offerer/seller, not the thief.
And yet, the Martin County Sheriff's Office places the value of the actual real bona fide authentic body of God at about $0.07 (and that's rounding up.)
I'm happy to have Pete around, mostly 'cause I like sinking the boot in (figuratively) by turning his warped desires back on him and using colourful expressions. Plus he's a great reminder of how religion fails to make a person decent.
I'm torn....On the one hand Rooke is by far the most (unintentionally) entertaining poster I've ever seen here. On the other hand, his recent work has become stale and his presence does distract others from the topic of the thread. I agree with Blind Squirrel @228, we need more people here to decide. I think this deserves a thread in itself. We could milk out all the jokes out of it and then decide.
P.S. Is this Pete Rooke the same one that originally posted those weird analogies? I half suspected there was a real Pete Rooke who posted the analogies who then left and afterward someone took his name and started having fun with it. If this is not the case then yeah, he has real mental health problems.
PZ - Please review the threads and axe Truth Machine. He has been vile while you were out of town.
Pete Rook is a silly ass, Eric Atkinson is a stupid ass, and Walton/Scott from Oregon are both a boring ass.
For a report on a shapely ass, you'll have to consult Ken Cope. Bride of Shrek and I could be fair judges of a manly ass. Errr...have I wondered here... I've been cooking hemp all day....
What's to lose but a gravy stain on the boxer shorts of Pharyngula? Purge him. Wash and wear them anew.
Bring out ze axe!
If you ban him, he'll simultaneously declare it an attempt to silence him as well as an ideological victory. It's just the combination of faux-repression and faux-victory that the overly-religious crave. He gets to feel vindicated, the Science Blogs server will see a brisk decrease in comment traffic, and bad analogies involving corpses will completely disappear from Science Blogs.
It's a win for everyone. Well... except for the feminist blog he will doubtlessly haunt next.
No, bust Truth Machine. He went too far this time.
At #54, Me wrote:
None of you seemes to understand the very basic legal concept of "contract". When an offer is made with conditions attached (as is the case for the reception of the Catholic Eucharist), then deliberate failure to fulfill all of the terms of the agreement (which can include the requirement for immediate consumption!) constitutes the crime of fraud.
It's a good thing for the church that there's no contract between the church and communicants, because the church would be hard pressed to prove that it was living up to its part of the bargain.
The Church promises to provide the actual body of God to a communicant.
So, an unsatisfied communicant takes the church to court, alleging the church only delivered a plain, tasteless, wheat and water based wafer. As evidence, the communicant gets a number of experts to testify as to the composition of the wafer, and they all truthfully testify that the wafer is a small thin baked wheat product.
To counter this evidence, the church is going to provide what actual evidence that it gave the communicant the body of God for the communicant to consume? It can't be done.
If there is fraud being committed, it's on the part of the Church.
Yikes, I always suspected that Truth Machine would be the first person to both win a Molly and be thrown in the dungeon. What did he do?
Well, Pete R I had a look at your analogies, at least the first and last, and neither of them hold water. One, the milkman would be fired, or go out of business when all his customers canceled their contracts. Second, burning flaming crosses in your own land and photographing it, then sending those photographs to anyone is not illegal. It is an a$$hole thing to do, but not illegal. Black people may be offended by it, and you may, hopefully, get the beating of your life, but they have no right to not be offended. However, there is a few major differences between the two situations. First, the black people in your analogy are not asking for any special privileges, churches constantly are. Second, attacks on the black people in your analogy are unprovoked, whereas people like Bill Donohugue and indeed the behaviors of the church itself practically begs to be attacked.
Finally, I doubt very much whether any court would accept your case to prosecute people for not adhering to your religious practices, since that would violate church / state separation.
Amen, PZ.
I don't think you should ban Pastor Pete. As unhinged as he is, I've seen worse online.
I also agree with Wowbagger that he's a good example of what religous indoctrination can do to a human being. A cautionary tale.
At #168, Pete Rooke wrote:
this type of thing just didn't happen prior to the "the Great Desecration".
Oh, sure it did, Pete.
Remember all those Jews who stole consecrated communion hosts so they could take them home and kill Jesus yet again?
Remember how the hosts bled?
And remember how because of this desecration of the actual body of Jesus, the Catholics tortured and massacred whole bunches of Jews?
Or are you saying that the Jews never really stole the hosts and--oops--Catholics made a teeny tiny bit of mistake when they tortured and killed all those Jews?
And remember in the original Crackergate threads, a number of Catholic posters wrote that long before PZ threw god in the trash, they had taken consecrated hosts home?
Or are you going to claim that these Catholics were lying in their posts?
I doubt PZ is asking for opinions who to ban, he's singled out PR; I think it's inapropriate to offer suggestions.
Re truth machine, he annoyed other regulars in this thread.
I was about to argue against truth machine's banning since I tend to find his vitriol entertaining - when it's directed appropriately - but yeah, it got a little too nasty in that RFK thread.
Do we have a time-out room? Like a dungeon, but only for a limited duration?
I think Pete Rooke was constructively adding to the conversation.
...
...
...
Bah hah! I kill me! Fuck him and his knee-roll fantasies.
Pete Rooke is like a display at a museum. When 'moderates' come on here to complain about atheists picking on them, all we have to do is show them the stuffed Pete Rooke and his rantings and they'll understand.
Come on PZ, don't ban Pastor Pete - let's keep him as a pet!
A pet Pete.
FWIW Moses @81:
Bruce @47 had not posted previously about canon law, nor to the best of my knowledge on any other topic on Pharyngula.
He and I were in attendance at the GMU lecture, seated on the right side of the audience about six rows back. And he is an atheist, albeit an ex-Catholic, and we have discussed the question of the ethics of acquiring consecrated host on various occasions.
Shouldn't the question be whether Pete Rooke has managed to contribute to discussions in some positive way? I can't think of any. To keep him just to have someone to make fun of doesn't seem like enough any more.
i was originally unfased by pete rooks comments going up the post, and was onderinng if you all were merely attacking him because he christian. Ah ,but then the crazy started appearing, and whoo boy, that's some amazingly detailed and sick shit. PZ can't be responsible for what his readers do, and besides, i heard a story where a man took a few communion crackers and he was getting death threats. It is on one of Morsc0de's videos (probly a daily dogma segment), and i can't help but think that this is all Ridiculous. It's in poor taste to act like that firstly, no matter wht somebody said, and B. There IS no Eurachrist. Jesus was speaking figuratively, and he said so afterwards. Pete, I'm glad you dialed it down in later comments, but you're looking a little shakey there bud.
Free food!
Thanks for posting PZ. this is probly one of the funniest posts i've read in a long time. The absurd crime, the absurd reaction, the moronic lawyer-pretend bullshit. It's fantastic, especially since athiests are siding with catholics here and they REfuse to accept any support on the issue. comedic gold.
I notice that on his sad excuse for a blog, Pete "milkman with rotting teeth" Rooke gives his astrological sign in his profile. Pete, don't you know that meddling with occultism is a hellfire offence according to the tenets of your own superstition? Lucky for you there's no god!
My votes on banning:
Rooke: Yes (as you suggest, it would be merciful)
truth machine, OM*: No, definitely not
*Speaking of which,...
PZ: "Blasphemy is something you can feel free to do on your own, but not when you're disrupting other people's rituals, no matter how silly they are."
Maybe, I'm not fully convinced though. Churches that are open to the public, I view as pretty much the same as any other establishment that's open to the public (but arguably even more open because of their tax-exempt status). And actually as much as I think people ought to have the right to do what they want in a pleasant environment I don't think that that necessarily trumps the rights of other people to be annoying and then get kicked out. If this happened in someone's home and this person was uninvited I think I would side with the people having fun with their ritual. Except for the stealing part, I don't see this as being any different than someone being disruptive in a bar; I think people have a right to act like a jerk in a bar, and the bar has a right to bounce their ass when they act like a jerk -- I can't see any reason why religious rituals ought to be afforded any more or less protection than any other activity.
Pete Rooke (#86):
If I remember rightly, he was careful to 'desecrate' an English translation of the Koran. Had it been the actual 'sacred' Arabic text, the Mohammedans' reaction might not have been so muted.
He desecrated what the Catholics sent him, it's not his fault that Catholics suck at making points.
At my home town in Australia (I don't live there anymore thankfully), the mayor is a complete bastard. To make a point, he burnt the aboriginal flag outside an aboriginal building. Later he defended his actions by saying it wasn't a real flag, it was only a replica.
i.e. the fact that the koran is in english is entirely irrelevant to the symbolism of the action. You are just splitting hairs in the hope to keep your indignity at his desecration of the cracker. In short Pilty, you are pathetic and everyone here can see through your game. Give it up loser
ROFL. I'm sure it's been mentioned a million times, but I want a photograph of this incident with the caption:
"BLASPHEMY
UR DOIN IT WRONG"
your fault, P.Z. :D
Why would Catholics want gluten-free crackers in the first place? Why don't they simply pray for the gluten to have no effect on them and trust that their god will take care of it?
Isn't that in the Jesus contract, whereby literally anything requested in his name will be granted?
Or is that all just a myth?!
Ban or not to?
For Pete Rooke, the question for me is whether he still means to contribute something positive to the comments, or whether he is just screaming at the cold, cruel world outside that it's going to Hell. Does he still muster some semblance of courtesy to his fellow human beings, or is he just out to rend and destroy the evil atheists? The honest answer will determine how I vote.
For Truth Machine, he's demonstrated that he can add significant value to the blog. He knows how to comment; he has just been mean and destructive lately. I think a fair deal would not be to ban him, but to yank his handle and OM, and let him continue to post under a fresh new handle on the same footing as other commenters. If he can demonstrate the same quality of posting that got him the OM, he can surely get another one.
Keep little Petey around. He's entertaining and is a good example of the brain rotting potential of Religion.
However, if all his posts turn into an advert for his blog Off with his 'ead.
There are a few other commenters here that deserve the axe.
I find Pete Rooke very loopy. Sometimes he makes sense, but then like today, he gets over the top. I think he will eventually be banned, so the question is now or later. Now that he has his own blog, he will infest us to get us to read his manic ravings. I suggest ban now to keep him from spamming.
You know what "they" used to say about mexican beer? Well that was just racist bullshit.
Holy water on the other hand...
Me @54,
When an offer is made with conditions attached ... then deliberate failure to fulfill all of the terms of the agreement ... constitutes the crime of fraud.
Now that is quite possibly the single stupidest piece of pseudolegal babble I have ever read. You're not a law-talkin' guy, I take it. Well, stop trying to play one on TV teh intertubes then.
And if you really are a lawyer, I strongly encourage you to seek employment with the Thomas More Institute. They can put lawyers of your calibre to good use.
As a fairly recent Catholic convert and even more recent daily reader of Pharyngula, I would like to let Dr. Myers know how much I appreciate his support against this type of disruption. Along the same vein as Christians informing non-believers that they're going to hell, this sort of behavior seems to bring out the worst in all of us.
that is quite possibly the single stupidest piece of pseudolegal babble I have ever read
Emm... it was the stupidest until I read the rest of the stuff Me has posted in this thread.
Kindly advice from me to Me: Dude, everything you have written here is amazingly wrong, for multiple reasons. And quite a bit of it is, as our physicist friends would say, not even wrong: it doesn't rise to the level of error, it's just vaguely legalese-looking but meaningless nonsense, strung together.
Finally was able to read the whole thread. You guys are so effing smart and clever that it just makes me all warm inside. <3
Pete's blog is laughs aplenty and I love it I love it. That is all.
Oh oh, and P.S.:
Banning Pete: no. He's hilarious. And we don't want to vindicate him. Ever.
Banning TM: no, but I think a suspension would be smart.
lol 261.
Someone should make a grainy black and white documentary called Blaspheming: The Right Way.
(Billy outside a church trying to light a match in the wind) Poor billy, he's blaspheming all wrong. Here, Sally will show him how it's really done...
PZ,
Banning them would just increase the prolificacy of 'Persectuted by Militant Atheist' flames that already clog up this poor ol' Internet.
Not, of course, the VALIDITY of them, just the number!
None of you seemes to understand the very basic legal concept of "contract". When an offer is made with conditions attached (as is the case for the reception of the Catholic Eucharist), then deliberate failure to fulfill all of the terms of the agreement (which can include the requirement for immediate consumption!) constitutes the crime of fraud.
Not true according to English law. Though I'm not qualified to comment in relation to any US jurisdiction, the law of contract tends to be similar, since both countries use the common law system.
In English law, "deliberate failure to fulfill all the terms of [an] agreement" (where such agreement is supported by consideration and therefore constitutes a contract) constitutes a breach of contract actionable in the civil courts, but it does not in itself constitute the crime of fraud (or indeed any other criminal offence).
In this case I don't think an English court would, on the facts, find a contract at all; giving someone a wafer would seem to be a gratuitous gift and therefore unsupported by consideration. And even if a contract were established, I don't see how any substantial loss could be established so as to permit an award of substantial damages. Again, I don't know how this area of law differs in Minnesota compared to England, so anything I say must be taken with a pinch of salt.
Of course, it is true that actually stealing crackers, as Ricci did according to the original blog post, does constitute the crime of theft (as well as the tort of conversion), giving rise to both criminal and civil liability. But Me's submissions at #54 on the law of contract are simply incorrect, to the best of my knowledge.
Rev.'s probably right @ #264. I'll change my vote on Rooke to: Let him linger a little while longer. FWIW, he does appear to be mentally unstable, but he doesn't scare me as much as BobC.
Why?
The catholics accept that Pilate had no culpability.
In their canon, It was the Jewish people's fault.
It just seems odd that people against whom a real crime has been committed would post youtube videos or blogs instead of just going to the cops. I mean, if someone steals my car I'm sure going to bitch about it online, but it won't be on my top ten list of things to do. If however someone just stepped on my sensitive toesies... it would be like number two.
Not to condone someone interrupting a church service in any way. It's like interupting a wedding. Sure, it is a religious event, but it's not significant because it's religious... it's significant (at the risk of sounding tautological) because it has been assigned significance by the culture of which it is a part. Like the souperbowl. You're going to look like a douche if you break in and steal someone's tortilla chips, and they won't need jebus as an excuse to be offended.
Petey Rooke's obsession with PZ seems to have an undercurrent of malice: he admonishes PZ with analogies involving books bound in human skin and mini-skirted co-eds just begging to be raped. This creep is a butcher knife and duct tape purchase away from becoming a stalker.
My Mom divorced her 1st husband because he went to prison for raping someone. The Catholic church excommunicated her because divorce is wrong.
The Catholic church has not excommunicated Hitler.
Catholic morals.
According to the page linked to, he was charged with "disrupting a religious assembly"
That's a crime?
MUSICAL CUE: Cheerful marching band stuff. It has a tinny, crackling quality, like it's been recorded in front of a big metal horn attached to a needle scratching the track into a wax cylinder, after which the cylinder was rolled along a dusty street by a six year old pushing it with two wooden sticks nailed together.
TITLE CARD: Blasphemy and You!
ADDITIONAL TITLE (dissolves over title card): EAC Industrial Films Unit, (C) 2008
ADDITIONAL TITLE (dissolves over title card): Certified production--Consolidated Atheists, Commies, Pipefitters and Belly Dancers Local #183
Title dissolves. We discover Timmy, a young, cheerful, and Very Caucasian denizen of a 50s suburb, dressed in a short-sleeved white dress shirt and dark slacks. Both shirt and pants are startlingly precisely ironed. He has a brush cut, extremely white teeth, and a beautifully wide-eyed smile.
UNASHAMEDLY PATRONIZING, ANNOYINGLY CHEERFUL NARRATOR: As girls and boys become young men and women, their bodies and minds develop, and change. Where once their preferred activity for a lazy summer Sunday afternoon might have been flying a kite, playing with marbles or rolling a used hi-fi recording along a dusty street with two sticks of wood nailed together, new urges as they grow will lead them to try new things.
FADE MUSIC CUE. The camera dollies back, and we discover Timmy is standing in front of the doorway to a church. He smiles widely at the camera, opens the door, and enters.
NARRATOR: This is Timmy. Timmy is going to try his hand at blasphemy for the first time today...
haha. exactly.
NOO to banning truth machine. He is sometimes a tosser and he often wrong but he is a usually a wrong tosser in ways that are somewhat interesting. Also he does good work when Pharynguloid group-think starts setting in.
Greaseminkey/killfile: the solution to all your personally desired banning needs.
Pete (Sick Fuck) Rooke @ ~#159
Great - more fiction writing! Will there be photos, too? I'd like a few of the short mini-skirts, because I'd like to find out just *how* short they really are; giggity!
Oh, by the way, Pete - Powerpoint is the product of a convicted monopolist; better to use Impress from OpenOffice instead. (The best part? Just like those frackin' crackers, it's FREE!)
Do you have a li-sanze for that greaseminkey?
Snark aside, yes - it's a misdemeanor like petty theft, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault, disorderly conduct, trespass, vandalism.
That's not my greaseminkey...
Snark aside, yes - it's a misdemeanor like petty theft, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault, disorderly conduct, trespass, vandalism.
Is trespass a crime in Minnesota law? Under English law trespass is not criminal in itself; it's a civil wrong actionable in the law of tort, but unless aggravated in some way it doesn't constitute a criminal offence.
@268:
You knowingly converted? Huh. I would say something insulting, but it sounds as though you're suffering from enough afflictions as it is.
ah, the simple ways that our jumbled up legal system reminds us that we are not one country under god or anyone else. we are a union of semi-autonomous states.
@289:
Yes, I knowingly converted -- not sure how one would "unknowingly" convert. I appreciate your restraint as far as the insults go. I visit Pharyngula daily but don't often comment -- for fear of just such a backlash.
For the posters who are wondering about the Florida statute that Ricci is most likely being charged under, I quoted it in full at post #63.
You could have been baptized as a child and then switched at birth.. maybe..
Never mind the backlash. We atheist may be irritable and badly smelling, but there is a movement out there to try and not be an asshole to everybody. Others will certainly disagree, but I personally find Catholicism a much more respectable position than say... the Pentecostal movement, or Scientology.
Minnesota? Every State! We have some very strong property restrictions in the US. You can be arrested for entering on private land if warnings have been posted without aggravated behavior, unlike the UK.
Susan, we have had many believers post here regularly, Scott Hatfield being the most prominent. As long as you keep mention of your deity/religion to a minimum in the appropriate threads, and don't try to convert people or imply we should convert, you won't have any problems.
What's this about being charged with "disruption of a religious assembly"? Why not just "disruption of an assembly"?
I personally find Catholicism a much more respectable position than say... the Pentecostal movement, or Scientology. - Timothy Wood
Can't agree with that. Even in the last 50 years, it's responsible for far more unnecessary suffering and premature death than either through its opposition to condoms.
PZ has already told Truth Machine to fuck off, and yet he comes back and pulls his same nasty tricks. I still say ban him - or at least throw him in the pit for a year or so. Maybe he'll use that time to get some meds.
I'm always apprehensive to quell discourse even when it's ridiculously polarized or whacked (Petey R.). That said, TM has continually breached the civility line with PZ. He's become an uberlogic curmudgeon who values his own opinion above everything including respect and civility toward his host. (I know, I know -I've breeched that a few times myself) I'm not saying he can't disagree with PZ or must kiss his ass, hell - PZ wouldn't respect TM if he deferred to him, he just doesn't have to assassinate him.
Ultimately, It's PZ's blog; it's his call on whoever he wants to ban. I don't really have a stake one way or the other.
As Tom noted at #196, the logical inference is that the legislature intended to protect unlawful assemblies for the worship of God from being disrupted. Kind of funny, really.
E.V. at #294
You quoted the section of the legal dictionary dealing with civil actions for trespass. The section summarizing state criminal trespass laws is further down:
I should just note, in light of all these posts about trespass laws, that there's no indication Ricci is being charged with trespass. That wouldn't make any sense.
He's almost certainly being charged under the Florida statute I quoted at #64, making it a second-degree misdemeanor to intentionally disrupt an assembly of people gathered for the worship of god. There's a maximum $500 fine.
Charley will receive a dossier on your crimes shortly. If he perverts justice for a town-mate, then so be it. It's his personal option to circumvent due process in Minnesota if he wishes. There is always a price.
God, you really are a nitwit. Apart from your meritless accusations against PZ, you don't even understand what the phrase "due process" means. (Don't they teach this stuff in school anymore?)
Due process is a right guaranteed to defendants, you fool. Even if you were right in your accusations (and you're not even close) it would not "circumvent due process" for the state to not prosecute a person.
Will this dossier of yours be written in crayon?
There is no compariosn between telling people they are going to suffer forever and eating a cracker...none.
Likewise how on Earth can you read the rationalism on this blog and then convert to perhaps the most superstitious religion on the planet?
Six of one, half a dozen....
Lowell:
Thanks for the clarification. I'm familiar with trespass laws in Texas. Walton asked bout trespass laws in the states from the list of misdemeanors in the thread above. It was singled out only as a quasi-analogy. Perhaps "disturbing the peace" would have been a better near-analogy. or not.
Jason A. #146
He might if he's plump enough !
we have had many believers post here regularly
That's true, Susan, though I should warn you: I used to be one of those believers. Then I lost my faith because that bad man PZ told me about evolution.
Personally? Whether this website helps you do it or not, I think it would be great for you if you shook yourself free of RCism. But if that does happen, I hope you haven't already spent a lot of money buying all the equipment.
Wow
I'm definitely against banning TM. Fact is, he usually makes excellent points that contribute to the discussion and, 9/10 times, he's right. He didn't get the OM for charm. He is very rude, often to people who deserve it, but if he misfires and pisses-off his friends too much, pretty soon he'll have none. He knows that. It's his choice, his loss. Given that SC herself doesn't want him banned, that should be the end of calling for him to be banned on account of the RFK thread.
AJ @300: NICE! it should be a video that all youtube athiests can favorite.
i know i would, if it had more of story added to it lol
I don't know why anyone seriously considers banning truth machine (or anyone other than PR) was ever in the cards.
But, given tm is being mentioned, for those who suggest suspension, I find it significant that tm has been absent since the most recent fracas. I believe he's fully aware of the consequences of his occasional bout of berserk aggression.
And, Patricia, your animus towards him (and I suspect I know its genesis) has become tiresome to me.
Further, your constant appeals to PZ to punish tm do you more harm than they do tm. I suggest you desist such, absent further perceived provocation, as it gives you no credit.
Tom. #196 & Lowell #210
I am a mite polluted but I read that to mean that any assembly of people met for the worship of God wasn't any assembly of people met for any lawful purpose and hence illegal & therefore needed special protection?
@306:
"There is no comparison (sic) between telling people they are going to suffer forever and eating a cracker...none."
I'm uncertain as to how we might effectively compare these two and come to any sort of logical conclusion.
Since atheists don't believe in hell, or eternal torment, or immortal souls, I'm not sure why it would bother an atheist any more than it's just not a very nice thing for one human being to say to another. As a Catholic, I've been told many times that I'm going to hell (mostly by overzealous evangelicals - which include some of my own family). It's never really bothered me much since 1. I don't believe them and 2. the decision of whether or not I'm going to hell is (thankfully) not theirs to make.
Kel (260):
Bollocks. That's a completely spurious comparison. Of course there is no such thing as a "replica flag". A flag is the image. It makes no difference whether it's woven, painted, or printed on cloth, plastic or paper -- any symbolism attached to it or to its destruction transcends the particular medium.
By contrast, for a pious Mohammedan, an English translation is not the Koran. The Koran is the supposedly inspired Arabic text that supposedly pre-existed the creation of the universe.
Now it's possible that Professor Myers was unaware of this, in which case he can at least be credited with a measure of physical courage. Then again, it's possible that, as an educated man, he was well aware of it, in which case he can't.
mas528 (275):
Pilate is most certainly not regarded as blameless. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "His name will be forever covered with infamy because of the part which he took in this matter".
Pilty, you should really read all the archives. Your argument has been covered in detail, including that it is old Arabic that is the sacred language. Modern Arabic is different, and Korans in modern Arabic are not considered sacred. PZ just used what was given to him. Now, if you want to score him a Koran in old Arabic, do so. PZ will be glad to mention the source of the Koran when he desecrates it.
also @ 306:
"Likewise how on Earth can you read the rationalism on this blog and then convert to perhaps the most superstitious religion on the planet?"
I'm an odd duck. I enjoy reading things that challenge my faith, that make me think about why I believe what I believe. And I am always interested in why other people believe what they believe. In some weird way, reading Pharyngula has actually strengthened my faith.
But again, I'm an odd duck.
And I'm sure the only correct version of the bible is the King James version too... Again it's not PZ's fault that Catholics sent him an English version of the Koran. Remember that PZ didn't go out of his way to perform these desecrations, they were merely objects he had lying around the house.
But don't let that stop you from being indignant. Just another cannibal cult member.
Piltdown Man #258
If I remember rightly, he was careful to 'desecrate' an English translation of the Bible. Had it been the actual 'sacred' Latin text, the Catholics reaction might not have been so muted.
O hi O
I don't know why anyone seriously considers banning truth machine (or anyone other than PR) was ever in the cards.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/whats_wrong_with_william_aye…
I really do appreciate (and am touched) that Patricia and others were angry about what he said to me, but really it was no worse than anything he's said to anyone else and for which I've repeatedly defended him. Of course, it's PZ's decision how he wishes to respond to tm's treatment of him, but I don't think he deserves banning on those grounds, and the last thing I would want would be for our argument (in which I was an active participant) to be any sort of factor in that decision. He's extremely difficult, but he brings a lot to this blog.
Nerd of Redhead (318):
And? That just reinforces my point - that for Mohammedans the Koran proper only exists in one particular language.
Has Prof Myers actually stated he would deface a classical Arabic Koran if one were sent to him??
Rolan @314:
You have to read the text of the statute itself. I quoted it in full at #63, but here's the relevant excerpt:
As you can see, there are two specific references to (1) "any school" and (2) "any assembly of people met for the worship of God" and then (3) a general reference to "[any assembly of people met] . . . for any lawful purpose . . . ."
So, to answer your question, no, the statute does not imply that all assemblies of people met for the worship of god are unlawful.
It does, however, imply that it would be possible to organize an unlawful assembly for the worship of god. (Based on the cannon of statutory construction that all words in a statute have meaning; a presumption against redundancies.) Read literally, the statute would make it a misdemeanor to break up such an unlawful assembly.
(Needless to say, I do not recommend testing the law by organizing an unlawful assembly for the worship of god---whatever that is---and then trying to press charges against the police who willfully interrupt or disturb it. Nobody's going to read the statute that literally. It's just a funny example of sloppy draftmanship.)
Pilty, score him the Koran in old Arabic, send it to PZ with your real name so you can be properly thanked, and sit back and wait for your reward.
Faith is make-believe, anathema to knowledge and understanding. Dogma is make-believe knowledge, explanation of dogma, make-believe understanding. Religion is a vestigial excrescence, from the ignorant bawling infancy of our species, on society and reason. We are no longer illiterate desert nomads. The fiction no longer serves a purpose.
How could it be otherwise?
Kel (320):
Only if you're a hellbound Protestant heretic, lol!
Except to allow certain kinds of people to justify their urges towards otherwise antisocial behaviour: hating, persecuting, murdering and so forth; oh, and fleecing suckers out of their cash.
Not that that in way implies we should endeavour to retain it - on the contrary...
Nerd of Redhead (325):
ne nos inducas in tentationem ...
Will Prof Myers publicly declare his intention to deface a classical Arabic Koran if one were sent to him?
Pilty, I notice Bill Donohue hasn't sent him one, so draw your conclusions. Again, score him one, send it to him with your real name and address so you can be thanked as the source, and see what happens. Put up or shut up.
SC @322, I stand corrected.
That said, in this particular thread, PZ asked for opinions on only one person, so I still consider that proposing other candidates for banning is unsolicited.
I've learnt a lot from tm.
Is like nuts in a pub/bar,but worse, because at a drinkin hole people sometimes wash ther hands
Pilty, you're an idiot and a liar. This is simply a lie:
I tore up a Koran that a Catholic had sent me. It not a matter of avoiding an Arabic Koran, it was what I had on hand.It would depend on the book what I would do to it. If it were an expensive edition that looked pretty, I'd hesitate to destroy it. If it were something cheap, it would be in the trash on the day it arrived.Now go away. You're simply annoyingly dishonest.
Why should he? So he can appease you? You've missed the entire point of Crackergate, though that's hardly surprising.
proposing other candidates for banning is unsolicited
As is your opinion on those proposals, and my response to it. So? :)
Emmet Caulfield (326):
Right. We've progressed all the way from this to this.
@ 336: wow. isn't that like 10 steps backwards? the end is nigh.
The only thing I can think of is that the victim had jalapeños the night before and the priest had to wash his penis hurriedly in the font.
Did you see his picture? Dude was just hungry.
Susan, I for one am pleased to have such as you here. I too seek to examine the claims of those who believe differently, so as to test my beliefs.
Regarding
Three salient reasons why it "bothers" many of us because of the angst and confusion is causes others, children in particular, and because, historically, the Catholic Church used it as an excuse to torment and kill those whose "souls" would thereby be spared Hell, and because it leads to a mindset where this (our actual life) is but a miserable testing station for our putative future life. There are many others, outside the scope of this brief comment.
Even if one is an atheist they are not clueless to the intent of what the individualis saying to them
Ah so your into the whole predestination thing. God chooses. Cool. Of course you don't believe your family because you have your own unevidenced view, it's the beauty of it. No matter what you believe you can't prove diddly.
Well then you are not odd but simply credulous with a tenous grasp on rationality. If being exposed to rationality allows you to find comfort in dogma then really your not really interested in challenging your faith are you?
But life is a journey and this may just be a particular turn for you. No denomination loses more members than the RCC so their hold may lessen.
PZ, i don't think you would desecrate the "sacredest" version of the Koron, and it's because they aren't cheap at all, they are probly very ornate and pretty. Psychopathic hatemongering religiousity, but PREtty hatemongering religio-fashism. lol
SC @335,
So, I consider this to be PZ's soapbox, and therefore further consider it rude to ask PZ to ban someone else. Perhaps I make too much of the difference between responding to PZ requesting opinions on this matter versus appealing to him for bans unsolicited.
Since you asked.
A very small price to pay to progress from this to this.
Rickr0ll @342, I suspect that PZ is imaginative enough to desecrate an object without causing physical damage; desecration is a symbolic act, after all.
i think PZ doesn't need to be told who to ban. period. it's his blog, for christ's sake, let him run it
Not that much difference, really. Both are tools used to convince people that they should embrace something they don't need (religion/fast food) when there are better options available (atheism/healthy food).
Plus I don't remember too much institutionalised murdering of people who had differing opinions on how significant Ronald McDonald is - or whether he, the Hamburglar and Grimace are really all one or three separate beings. I think I'd consider less murdering over such things to be a progression.
Since he had suggested more than once that he was considering banning tm, Patricia's comment didn't come out of nowhere. And she was very clear about her reasons, so your remark - "your animus towards him (and I suspect I know its genesis)" doesn't make much sense. She was just flirting with him on the thread I linked to above, for Pete's sake. She thought he crossed a line he'd been skating around for a while.
Again, I don't think he's done anything to deserve any negative action, but there wasn't anything out of line about her comments, whether you found them tiresome or not. And it certainly wasn't the first time anyone suggested a ban without being asked, and it won't be the last.
PZ Myers (#333):
Professor Myers, I've just reread your 'Great Desecration' post and I can't find any mention that the book you defaced had been sent to you by a Catholic.
I therefore assumed you had acquired it yourself.
Not an unreasonable assumption.
Naturally I apologize for misrepresenting your actions. Will you please extend me the same courtesy by apologizing for incorrectly calling me a "liar"?
And would there be a colour picture posted on your blog showing this (inexpensive, unattractive) copy of the classical Arabic Koran lying there in the trash?
Pilty, who should we believe. You, who are a confirmed liar and bullshitter since you are a godbot, or PZ, who is honest and straightforward with us?
Believe what you will, just do it elsewhere.
John Morales @ 340:
"Three salient reasons why it "bothers" many of us because of the angst and confusion is causes others, children in particular, and because, historically, the Catholic Church used it as an excuse to torment and kill those whose "souls" would thereby be spared Hell, and because it leads to a mindset where this (our actual life) is but a miserable testing station for our putative future life."
I agree. Attempting to instill a fear of the torments of hell in order to control others (particularly children) is deplorable (which was the point I was attempting to make in my original comment at #268). I regret that I was unable to emphasize it adequately.
Additionally, thank you for your kind words of welcome.
Pilty, it was mentioned several times in this thread that the book was sent by Catholics. You really should read what other people have to say.
JimC at #341:
"Ah so your into the whole predestination thing. God chooses. Cool. Of course you don't believe your family because you have your own unevidenced view, it's the beauty of it. No matter what you believe you can't prove diddly."
Actually I meant my comment to be flippant. I'm afraid you took me too literally. In reality, my views on heaven and hell would probably be considered quite unorthodox, but I didn't feel like a discussion of that here, on this blog, would be welcome.
And no, I can't prove diddly. I wasn't attempting to.
SC,
This will be my last comment explaining my perception and opinion on this matter.
First, if you deny animus after her posts on this thread, then I can see no way to convince you otherwise.
Second, as to its genesis, I saw her as initially admiring of tm's aggressivenes, to the extent she wished to "sic" him on annoying posters; on at least one occassion tm was contemptuously dismissive ("Your brain is the next battleground") of her when she tried to contribute, and you're obviously familiar with the RFK event. I know you're smart enough to follow my thinking on how this explains its genesis; I further admit I may well be mistaken or inept at evaluating motivation. And that's enough of this.
Point 1) The Islamic belief is that the Koran only exists in the original Arabic. Translations are not possible. Copies of the Koran in other languages are considered to be commentaries or explanations.
Point 2) The Islamic belief is that Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims living in non-Muslim countries. The idea that it does is only about 40 years old and can be traced to Ayatollah Khomeini. By strict Islamic law it is impossible for a non-Muslim living outside of a Muslim country to desecrate a Koran.
Why would I do that? She was suggesting that he be banned.
I'm starting to doubt you're smart enough to follow Patricia's thinking; that, or ignorant of even more of the story than you've already acknowledged.
Well, you are. It seems clear that it was specifically the RFK thread that she had in mind. As I just mentioned, she and he were recently getting along like gangbusters, which she pointed to herself on the RFK thread. There's no reason for you to assume any sources of her feelings other than his recent behavior (and not toward her).
Here's the AP story:
JENSEN BEACH, Fla. - Police in said they arrested a Connecticut man after he tried to steal communion wafers during a church service. The Martin County Sheriff's Office said 33-year-old John Samuel Ricci, of Canton, was cornered by fellow churchgoers when he grabbed a handful of wafers from the priest during communion services Saturday.
The Stuart News reported that Ricci was being held down by six or seven offended parishioners when deputies arrived at St. Martin de Porres Catholic Church in Jensen Beach. Police say two parishioners, ages 82 and 61, received minor injuries in the scuffle.
Ricci was charged with two counts of simple battery, theft and disruption of a religious assembly. He was being held Tuesday on $2,000 bond at the Martin County Jail.
-----
Here's the sheriff's report:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1110082body2.html
sounds like the Islam i am familiar with. very very particular about who and what being excactly what they want them to be without room to manuver. there's a theory that "radical muslims" don't exist, but rather, that the 6th pillar of Islam was abandoned by the majority of the religious leaders and followers - which makes a whole lot of sense. maybe athiests should have a pilgramige to the Galapagos islands, and post 5 times a day on the inadiquacy of ID reasoning and ontological arguments. i like the idea
any other thoughts lol?
Didn't you encourage this behavior by asking people to steal communion wafers for you? Since you now realize your error, perhaps you should apologize for soliciting theft in the first place.
Kel (352):
Yep - after my original post on the subject.
Eliot Caulfield (344):
How about from this to this?
Jay, #359, wrote:
Sigh.
Jay, start from the start; that way you stand a better chance of not looking like a clueless dimwit. Read this post and then come back and present your argument.
@361: Yep, you actually have a point there pilty lol. well, it's not funny, but you laugh to keep from crying right?
Yeah i agree with Tom, if the Koran that PZ got was from a catholic, there was no way to descecrate it any further than that. Need i mention the Crusades?
Thanks everyone for sticking up for me. I had to work an extra long time today, as we are expecting a bad storm for the next two days.
I'll deal with you later Piltdown Man.
Good night sweethearts!
Piltdown @317:
Um, from the Vatican - I draw your attention to the
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Gotta love doublethink.
Kel@259
He desecrated what the Catholics sent him, it's not his fault that Catholics suck at making points.
Pilty@316
Now it's possible that Professor Myers was unaware of this, in which case he can at least be credited with a measure of physical courage.
You kept on going after it was mentioned.
Kel @366, you didn't mention that the allusion to "physical courage" is classic fatwa-envy.
Pilty, #361
Nice picture. One problem. Sheep go to heaven. Goats? Goats go to hell. Why do you think that is?
I did not, but it is quite obvious. It seems Pilty just wants to feel victimised because of his religion.
goats are horny lol that's why. Did anyone else look at Tom's post on Islamic law, or am i the only one that's up to speed?
As I've mentioned before, a PDF edition of the Arabic Quran can be downloaded (eg, here:
http://www.quraaniclessons.com/holy_quran_arabic.asp
), and a few pages printed out, and nailed.
Thus, there is no chance of being accused of having stolen a book from a mosque, or of damaging a book that has any real value. Yet it will have the same exact words on the paper as a real Quran.
For the sake of equivalence, I suggest also dl'ing and nailing a Hebrew copy of Genesis, and a Greek copy of the gospel of John, and maybe a copy of Dianetics and the book of Mormon as well, and the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and perhaps the Sanskrit Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas, and the Sutras, just to hammer the point home: Your pieces of paper, your right do do whatever you want with them.
Cover all the desecration bases...
oh come on, Eastern religion isn't a terrible thing like the Abhramic faiths. why don't you nail the Kabbalah as well (VEry intruiging Jewish mysticim). How about nailing also the crosses upside down with them (there are a couple of diferent denominational differeces) be sure to nail specific books that aren't present is Protestent Bibles (might as well do all the other apocrypha as well too, just to be safe.) then, write a pamphlet for the flying spagetti monster and deasecrate that as well. i think that should about do it, unless you can manage to find druidic writings or the written Greek/ roman mythological stories.
John Morales (365):
Herod, Pilate etc were not aware that their actions furthered God's plans. They acted freely and their personal motives were evil or cowardly.
Kel (366):
The fact that he defaced a translation sent to him by a Catholic doesn't in itself tell us whether or not he was aware of Islamic sensibilities regarding this matter.
Rickroll (363):
Right.
Aaaaand Piltdown dutifully exhibits the double-think.
Hey, Piltdown, look up cognitive dissonance.
Which is entirely missing the point. It was the Catholics with their Fatwa envy who sent the koran, PZ merely obliged. What does it matter if he realised if the translation isn't considered holy? Shit, I'm betting those cartoons of muhammad looked nothing like the prophet either, but it didn't stop the fanatics going into a frenzy there.
You are just doing this to maintain your feeling of persecution. Why don't you just admit it? All evidence points to the triviality of the act yet you are the one harping on about it 4 months later. Let it go Pilty, and say something of worth to this blog.
John Morales (376)
I prefer to think of it as intellectual suppleness.
Kel (377):
It doesn't matter a jot in the wider scheme of things, it just leaves Prof Myers vulnerable to accusations that he deliberately chose a soft target when he decided to desecrate a Host.
The cracker was desecrated because members of the Catholic Church decided to value the safety of a cracker above and beyond a human life. It's wasn't a soft target, it was to show that nothing should be sacred above human life. Have you learned nothing from this endeavour? It seems like you are going out of your way to maintain your indignity.
Kel:
Unlike Mr Rooke, I don't see Crackergate as a "hate crime" against Catholics or an affront to the "human rights" of Catholics. I see it as an instance of lèse majesté against the Creator from which no good will come.
However questionable Mr Rooke's analogies may have been, his image of the dandelion seeds was a strong one. PZ has started something which may well have unexpected consequences.
That explains your tapdancing skills.
So why are you posting here instead of praying for our eternal souls?
And as for the creator, the laws of physics are very ambivalent to the musings of this species. ;)
Piltdown "double-think" Man,
But how can PZ's actions in any way go against the creator if, as you have suggested, said creator has already established his eternal plan of "predestination", and that PZ's actions are furthering his plan ?
A crime as archaic and irrelevant as the creator it's claimed to offend.
Also victimless.
You'd think that if God were the all-powerful being that Catholics make him out to be that the actions of 6 billion blasphemers would not be able to phase him in the slightest. Why are Catholics worried about an all-powerful being? To me it's either that they don't have enough faith in God's abilities to look after himself OR they are masking their own indignation at the action by calling it an affront to God.
God's a big boy, he can handle himself.
I don't agree with Piltdown here. Not being a transubstantiationist, I don't attach any special significance to the physical mutilation of a wafer; and while I shouldn't think God, assuming He exists, appreciates being mocked, I imagine He's far more angered by those who profess undying devotion to Him and then commit self-aggrandising or entirely malevolent acts ostensibly in His name. (Like some Catholics, it has to be said.) If I were God, I would have more respect for the intellectual honesty of a convinced atheist than for the intellectual dishonesty of someone who uses the language of belief to act in their own interests. (Note: I'm not accusing Piltdown of doing this. I think he's well-meaning. But it has to be pointed out that parts of the Catholic church hierarchy have certainly, in the past, been less than perfect in their moral rectitude.)
However, I do think that mutilating the Eucharist is an unnecessary attack on Catholics. Criticising their beliefs, or those of any other religious group, is, of course, absolutely legitimate. I will do so now: I don't believe in the divine authority of the Pope, in transubstantiation, in the ban on contraception, or in a whole host of other Catholic teachings. But there's a difference between reasoned criticism and unnecessary offence.
From a different perspective, it's like the difference between those conservative Christians who profess to disapprove of homosexuality on moral grounds - but discuss it civilly and without attacking homosexual people personally - and those who go around holding up signs saying "God Hates Fags". The former is a reasoned opinion (albeit IMO a wrong one); the latter is simple hate. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with opining, on reasoned grounds, that God does not exist, that Christ was not divine, and that the Catholic Church has no special divine mandate; all of these things are reasoned and defensible viewpoints, and no one has a moral entitlement to object to their expression. But wilfully desecrating the Eucharist simply to piss off Catholics... that is simple hate. (Note, though, that it should not be illegal. Freedom of speech applies across the board, however repugnant a person's views. I would fight to defend Fred Phelps' right to claim that "God hates fags"; and I would fight to defend your right to desecrate the Eucharist. But that doesn't mean I think that either of you are acting in a defensible manner.)
That'd be right. Tells us we can't 'handle ourselves' - sin of Onan and all that - but he's allowed to? Bloody hypocrite.
JimC @ #341:
"Well then you are not odd but simply credulous with a tenous (sic) grasp on rationality. If being exposed to rationality allows you to find comfort in dogma then really your (sic) not really interested in challenging your faith are you?
But life is a journey and this may just be a particular turn for you. No denomination loses more members than the RCC so their hold may lessen."
Sorry for the tardiness of my response. I had to think about your assertion that I wasn't really thinking about my faith!
If I do as you seem to suggest and renounce my faith and embrace atheism and accept the fact that there is no God, what is there left to think about? What is left about my faith to challenge? I would, in effect, become almost exactly like those Christians who blindly accept their faith and never think on it again - those Christians who receive the most ridicule here. Forgive me because this is going to come across harsher than I mean it to be but, of the two of us, it would seem that I'm the only one doing any thinking here.
Dont they make a little blue pill for that?
Pilty is good at doublespeak, very poor about the truth. For example, Pilty has never shown any physical proof for his imaginary, but weak, impotent god, and yet still professes to believe in he/she/it.
Posted by: Piltdown Hoax | November 12, 2008
PZ has started something which may well have unexpected consequences.
Typical of a fool who named himself for a falsehood, he cannot get his facts straight. Does the name Webster Cooke mean anything?
Perhaps PZ was able to reach his tentacle down to Florida to influence Webster Cooke's actions.
They were exactly as evil and/or cowardly as the Catholics who set heretics on fire.
That's a step up from most of the Catholics, at least.
Since it was God who might have been offended, assuming that there is a God, and that God turned into that particular cracker, and that the God-as-cracker found being nailed offensive, it is exactly up to God to deal with said offense.
There's a whole universe full of questions that we don't know the answers to. Why not think about that?
The apologetics of theists, of course.
"Skeptic" comes from the Greek skeptesthai, which precisely means "to think carefully".
You might want to re-think your argument...
PZ, you're a scholar and a gentleman.:)
I don't want to get into any of the rest of this, but ... JM, I've said before that I like you, and you've just reminded me why, and I feel an acknowledgment is due.
Pathetic.
truth machine, I hesitated before posting this, as it may be perceived as sycophantic, but stuff what others may think: I want you to know that I consider your acknowledgement a rare and unexpected compliment, and I really appreciate it.
Of course not! That would just remind him (and everyone else) what kind of person he is.
as it may be perceived as sycophantic
Gosh, ya think?
pfft, sycophant :P
OTOH, JM, I didn't appreciate "tm was contemptuously dismissive ("Your brain is the next battleground") of her when she tried to contribute", considering that her "contribution" was http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/your_brain_is_the_next_battl…
Eric's (not Atkinson) arguments aren't that easy to dismiss.
tm @403, I figured. But, apparently, as SC has already concluded, I'm (in my own words) "inept at evaluating motivation". I still think P thought she was contributing, I still think you were "contemptuously dismissive" of her.
If I'm shown to be wrong*, I'll suck it up; but I'd rather be wrong than dishonest or mealy-mouthed about what I say.
* Which Patricia could easily do, should she so choose.
I still think P thought she was contributing, I still think you were "contemptuously dismissive" of her.
I was contemptuously dismissive of that "contribution", which not only didn't further the debate that was going on between eric, Kel, Wowbagger, et. al., but was prima facie mistaken -- eric may well have been wrong, but he wasn't being an idiot or an ass. My complaint isn't that your statement is false, but that it is misleading; had Patricia "tried to contribute" by addressing eric's arguments, it would be a different matter.
Your note at the end of this post pretty much summed it up for me, John:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/god_and_sex_two_potent_ideas…
Lovely.
And yeah, I'm sure Patricia's anger was long-simmering. She really seems the type to hold a secret grudge, all evidence to the contrary.
What about what I've presented on this thread?
SC,
We appear to agree on the facts, but not the interpretation.
I don't think I'll change my opinion purely on the strength of yours, so it's up to Patricia.
Regarding that note, I was being honest - but I draw your attention to the qualification "likely", indicating I was speaking hypothetically. Furthermore, I don't consider I'm likely to make life-choices that would lead to such a quandary in the first instance. Further again, any grudge I had would of necessity have to be secret, in the circumstances applicable to the hypothetical. Duh.
We appear to agree on the facts
A perhaps relevant fact: "when I start liking you just fine, you always do this"
Patricia's statements now shouldn't be any more convincing to you than her comments at the time (her flirting and getting along well with him).
I know. Scary.
Oh, much better.
"I would probably - hypothetically, mind you - turn my Jewish neighbors over to the Gestapo, but I'm unlikely to move to a country with any such organization so this makes no difference."
? You're really exhausting sometimes.
A perhaps relevant fact: "when I start liking you just fine, you always do this"
Quoted as evidence of what, exactly, other than the fact that Patricia had again genuinely started to think you were OK until you started in with this behavior yet again? It's probably a statement many people here would make.
Relevant to "long simmering".
As for "this behavior yet again", she skipped right over you calling me a prick, and only saw my response -- which was intentionally a parallel construction (regardless of whether your ideology allows you to acknowledge that). But then, you're "sweeter than [I] will ever know, as you keep demonstrating".
Hypocrite.
Sorry about the misplaced ending quote mark.
That's not at all relevant to the "long-simmering" issue, and you know it. You're trying to conflate two separate issues. But since you brought it up: "As for 'this behavior yet again', she skipped right over you calling me a prick, and only saw my response..." - I called you a "hurtful prick," which any reasonable person would've taken (from a friend, at the time) as a sign to stop and pay attention to the hurtfulness of his/her comments. (Had I ever used the word hurtful before here? I don't think so.) Further, it was in the context of fucking months of insensitive behavior on your part, including toward PZ.
SC @409, I wrote: "I would, but only under immediate duress and with feelings of self-loathing. I'd likely rationalise it as "her or me", and plot revenge thereafter."
You don't know me or my contumacy*, so I'll excuse you for failing to appreciate the degree of duress that such a concession would entail and your attempted gibes.
* I have been expelled from schools, have had broken teeth, was expelled from home by my mother, and withdrawn from a tertiary course out of resistance to authority or bullying - just to give you an inkling.
Intention aside, you yourself acknowledged the possibility that it is no such thing, and I suspect you recognize that it is not. I accepted, from what I knew of you (although as I'm learning this was likely all mistaken), that your use of it was not misogynistic. Doesn't make it any less horrid.
That's not at all relevant to the "long-simmering" issue, and you know it.
No, I don't know that -- in fact, I disagree; Patricia's belief that I "always do this" quite obviously feeds any feeling of hers that I should be banned.
As for the rest, it is off point -- Patricia ignored and/or did not understand the context of the remark that she so objected to. But there's a lot of context here -- no one else knows what you meant by "Have fun in Boston", or what it meant to me. You aren't the only one hurt here, but you seem unable to grasp that as you think you're such "sweet" innocent victim. I guess we both dodged bullets. But that's our dirty laundry, which has already seen too much airing here.
Good night.
you yourself acknowledged the possibility that it is no such thing
Uh, no; "and even if it isn't" doesn't acknowledge anything.
I suspect you recognize that it is not.
I recognize that it is; as I said, "is so". Sheesh.
I would fight against this. I would never, under any circumstances, go along with it. I don't give a flying fuck about your degree of duress.
There's no evidence she had any such feeling before that night. Frankly, I think she's been protective of me just as I have been of you, both here and on RI.
I'm sure you're right (and my apologies to everyone). But if you've been hurt, I've seen no evidence of it, here or anywhere.
It acknowledges the possibility that it isn't, as anyone can see.
Fool.
SC, this belongs in the "God and sex" thread, but
Really. That's a saintly claim; there's not many that would willingly suffer even unto death and have their dear ones and other innocents similarly treated, purely to avoid compromising their principles, knowing all the while that the deed demanded of them would certainly then be performed by another.
I've read of such as you claim to be; they really exist. May you never be in a position to have to live up to your claim.
As I believe I mentioned on that thread, John, I have indeed been in a reasonably analogous situation, on two occasions. I did my best to protect the women in danger then, and I'm sure I would again. Doesn't make me a saint, or anything like it, and had really nothing to do with principles, but the men who were standing by doing nothing in both cases can go to hell.
There are more than you think. Study some fucking history.
That's an entirely separate issue that was not raised on that thread, as I recall. Are you suggesting this was at the base of your thinking? If so, then we weren't having the same discussion.
Fool.
No Paris of Troy am I.
SC @423, I often err on the side of understatement. Let me just say that I'm pretty sure that, under sufficient duress, I'd break and do that which would cause me self-loathing.
When you wrote (my emphases) "I would never, under any circumstances", I provided circumstances that challenged your so-righteous claim. Do you still hold to that claim - literally any circumstances?
Again, you try to belittle me. I am aware of martyrs of various faiths, of admirable stances taken during the Holocaust etc. Unlike yourself, I just don't think those who cannot be broken by some means are a significant portion of the populace.
Since you appear to think you know what I consider that proportion to be, care to state what that proportion is?
tm @405, I try to express myself carefully, especially when responding to you. I first wrote "she tried to contribute", and later "I still think P thought she was contributing".
John, that's disingenuous. Your statement made it appear that I contemptuously dismissed Patricia for trying to contribute, but that's not what I did. When referring to someone as "trying to contribute", the image that comes to mind is not saying that, despite being uneducated, you can tell that one of the participants is an idiot and an ass. Regardless of what Patricia was trying to do, her contribution showed that she was way out of her depth, as I said. And it isn't all that much of a slam when she herself had just referred to her lack of depth.
The quote: "tm was contemptuously dismissive [...] of her when she tried to contribute".
1. It was not intentionally dishonest or an attempt to mislead. It might be misleading or poorly phrased, but it was not disingenuous.
2. What I meant was (a) she tried to contribute (b) in your opinion, she did not contribute (c) you responded.
Had I written "tm was contemptuously dismissive [...] of her because she tried to contribute", then I would accept your inditement. I was referring to temporal sequence, not to motivation, by the use of the word "when".
I was being literal. I used "trying to" because I didn't consider that she, in fact, did contribute on that occasion, but did think she attempted to do so (obviously, not via argument, but by "throwing her weight into the ring" in her own style).
As to your final paragraph, note I've said nothing about your motivation for that comment.
Corrections: in (b), your -> mine; inditement -> indictment.
John,
I have a flight to catch, and I'll be gone for a week. I'll address your distortions when I return, if I'm so inclined.
SC, I'd really rather cease this conversation. I probably should've before this.
I was just wondering if the Catholic Priests go to the homes of the people who are sick and or bed ridden to give them communion? Does anyone know this? I was thinking, although this probably isn't the case, maybe the guy was getting it to take home to a family member or a friend who was unable to get to church that day, and perhaps he just freaked when he perceived he being attacked. ? Not that he was justified in shoving down the 2 old men.
Or perhaps he was taking it to run DNA tests on it. To make sure he was getting what the church said he was. Again probably not but just two options that popped into my head when I was reading the post earlier.
#432 - Yes, Catholic priests do routinely bring communion to those who can not leave their home. They also do this at hospitals and nursing homes.