Your cite doesn’t back up your claims or Dio’s claims. Dio claimed the student was “physically assaulted” and you said “people” grabbed at him and tried to pry his hand open.
Even if we assume the student in question was telling the truth and not exaggerating, just one person supposedly tried to stop him from leaving the church with the wafer, which is consistent with the fact that people can be arrested for attempting to take the wafers and leave without consuming them.
Furthermore, a woman grabbing him by the wrist to try and stop him from leaving, but letting him go when he asked her to, is not a case of “physical assault” that would be criminally prosecuted.
You’ll notice that the school apparently didn’t feel an assault occurred and the Church spokesman said they didn’t even know of any physical contact had occurred so it’s very possible the student exaggerated and the situation clearly was not as Dio implied.
Contempt for a belief is not bigotry or hatred. Everybody has contempt for at least some beliefs, including the Catholic church. Beliefs are not automatically entitled to respect. The idea that it’s not permissable to disrespect beliefs is just misguided, PC nonsense.
When people get “physically assaulted” the police are supposed to get involved.
When you say “they use their own discretion” are you conceding that the authorities decided no assault or at least there was no compelling evidence that an assault occurred?
It’s not relevant what the school said. He was the victim of an assault and attempted robbery. The fact that the school didn’t care is beside the point.
It also doesn’t alter the fact the he was subjected to harrasment and death threats, so the original point remains that this student was, indeed, harmed because he wanted to take his cracker back to his seat and show his buddy.
It sounds to me like there were two different “people” who grabbed him. Grabbing him and trying to pry his hand open is considered assault.
Again, there were apparently two, and I doubt that someone could be arrested for trying to leave with a wafer that was handed to him. As you say, “cite?”
She didn’t let him go when he asked her to, according to his statement. Whether it would be criminally prosecuted is not relevant to this discussion.
Yes, that is possible. It’s also possible that the Church spokesman was not fully informed of what went on. But Dio said “assault” and according to Cook’s version, it was assault.
What universe do you live in where the cops go around arresting people for minor assault complaints? This is not an effective or meaningful angle for you to take. The kid got assauted. It was a minor assault, but it was an assault. They also tried to rob him.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not the student’s description of what allegedly happened constitutes assault, how can you be so certain that it actually occurred. The news report recounts the church officials saying they knew nothing about it and the school apparently didn’t consider it an assault.
How can you be so certain that events transpired the way the student said since the school, which is in a much better position to judge what happened then you doesn’t think so?
Considering the fact that someone posted a story of a man who was arrested for attempting to flee a church with some of the wafers rather than consume them on the spot, it sounds like if anything, the police would have agreed that the kid should either give the wafer back, or eat it there rather than disrespecting the ceremony.
Death threats are more than just words. Especially from believers, who are known to follow through and often lack anything resembling a real moral code to restrain them. And no, “God says so” isn’t a moral code, since God being imaginary says whatever they want him to say.
They don’t need any reason to hate atheists besides them being atheists. Nothing atheists can do will make them not hate atheists. If they were allowed to they’d imprison or kill us all, or try to terrorize us into “admitting” they are right. It’s what they’ve done for millennia whenever they had the power.
Actually, if people are going to insist that he was “assaulted” it’s extremely relevant as to whether or not the police would have considered the act, an assault.
If you’re talking about Christians, the above paragraph makes little sense since Christians are the group in charge of the US and yet atheists aren’t being locked up, tortured or killed.
Sorry, but the idea that white, middle class atheists have to worry about being persecuted by the US government is utterly absurd.
It should be pointed out as well, that the only “evidence” for this assault comes from Cook himself. Other church parishoners, and also the school itself does not agree with this version of events. According to this story the school dismissed his filed complaint due to “lack of evidence”. That Diogenes is now trumpeting this as absolute truth is somewhat ironic.
In fact there is a lot more to this case than originally meets the eye. The previous linked article presents Cook as someone that is actively looking to remove Catholic and other religious influence on campus, complaining that they are “publically funded” because they recieve support from the university.
Secondly there is the interesting part in the first article that Cook was voted to be impeached from the Student Senate not because of his disrupting the Eucharist, but because he allegedly (and falsely) represented himself as a student government official. If that is true it hardly paints him as a reliable witness.
Also the story shows that the reaction of the church is not really what it is being made out to be. Firstly the church only filed a complaint with the university after Cook filed his original complaint. We don’t know exactly why the church filed it’s complaint, but perhaps they felt it necessary to protect themselves from the false accusations of Cook. Secondly, the church denounced threats against Cook, and instead offered to pray for him and requested that he return the Eucharist. Many other UCF Catholics did the same, and it was these passionate, but ultimately peaceful requests that changed Cook’s mind. Also while the story does say he was threatened, particularly with someone breaking into his room to recover the Eucharist, neither story characterises them as “death threats”. That appears to be a made up detail brought into the story. In either case since the church denounced such threats, it calls into question whether the people threatening Cook were indeed acting as Catholics at the time. Certainly in theatening him they were acting against church teaching.
Given the conflicting versions of the story I am not cinvinced we know exactly what did happen, but I think the version being presented in favour of Cook is far from the most likely course of events.
Because the government is jealous of its official monopoly on force and won’t let them. And because the same laws that protect the less popular religions (who would also be persecuted, and have been) also protect atheism. Without that we’d be subjected to casual killing, the way equally unpopular groups like child molesters would be.
Heh, all along I was accepting the story that the guy was “assaulted”, that he “only wanted to take it toi show his friend”, and that he had “death threats” as a result.
It turns out all three of thes facts of this story look somewhat dubious.
The “assault” only occurred if you believe this guy, and not the school or the cops. I don’t see any reason to.
Particularly as the “just showing a friend” notion looks like complete, self-serving bull. The guy’s clearly an agitator.
Much more likely, he was deliberately shit-disturbing, during a religious service no less, and my sympathy for him decreases proportionately. Why can’t he just hand the thing over when asked? Because he was “assaulted”, so he decided to show them who’s boss? Gimmie a break.
Finally, where does the “he got death threats” come from?
They don’t typically have to worry about personal violence* much, because the government is protecting them. Remove that protection and you’d see many killed. There’s millions of people in America who’d cheerfully bring back stoning if they could, or just go with the firing squads.
*Property damage like a trashed car is another matter.