My favorite is still Montezuma’s description of Christian worship (in the movie).
“Their God becomes a cookie. And then they eat Him.”
and then he is forced to convert and they strangle him to death.
But if Nick Milne says so, it must be true? :rolleyes:
I agree with Czarcasm about this discussion. “The kid who kidnapped the host has been impeached according to what’s not said on Facebook and Nick Milne agrees!” It’s just plain nuts.
My response to you is that is your right,but I wonder what happened in your life to put such hate in you heart? I don’t worry about having some one try to push their beliefs or non beliefs on me,just not make it the law of the land. There is good and bad in a lot of things it isn’t the religion but the way some use it to excuse their own behavior. Some use a knife to kill another person , some to slice bread to share a piece with another; it is the use that some use religion for, not the religion, at least that is my way of looking at it, if you think differently that is your right.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it…I see it differently!
My opinion is informed from reading and considering all of the sources. It is worth pointing out that it appears that the Fox News story appears to be relying on Cook himself as the source of the information about death threats. And it is not like Fox News are renowned for their fact checking ability. That other news stories and accounts leaves this out indicates that they may not think it is actually true.
I think the most interesting facts that come from multiple sources is that:
- Cook is a student politician with a position of eliminating all student funding to the Catholic campus group
- Cook charged the group with violating a number of school policies, including the fairly ridiculous one that the Eucharist violates the school anti-hazing laws, and started doing so before the Catholic group made any accusations of their own.
- All of Cook’s charges against the Catholic group have been dismissed.
Given these facts, the impression I get is that I think Cook did go to the Mass intending to obtain a Eucharist as a prop in some sort of political stunt against the Catholic group. Probably it was just inteded to gain him popularity with the anti-religious/anti-Catholic voters. However he completely underestimated the seriousness with which Catholics that the Eucharist, and how unpopular generally this move would make him. He then fabricated the stories of “just wanting to show his friend the host” and “recieving death threats” to try and play the victim in the situation and possibly gather more support. It also appears that while some people at the Eucharist did physically grab him, to call that assault would be an exageration of the seriousness of it. Just touching someone does not qualify as assault.
I think what is really the most telling detail in the story is that the school has not found enough evidence to act on any of his claims against the Catholic group, and that Cook himself was impeached from the student council for dishonesty. In either event there is a lot more going on here in this story than just a sweet little innocent student being set upon by crazed, violent Catholics. It appears that the situation with the Eucharist is Cook’s creation, designed to discredit the Catholic group, but ultimately backfired onto him.
I think if PZ Meyers was really interested in the truth as he claims, then he would have actually looked into some of the details of the story before using it a springboard for his usual anti-religious bigotry. That he took the story entirely at face value shows that he doesn’t really care for the truth, but rather just cares about denigrating those that disagree with him.
Calculon.
I simply pay attention. And I feel no compulsion to pretend religion is nicer than it is.
No, religion is bad in itself. Like racism or sexism, it is a malignant force regardless of how anyone decides to “use it”.
None of the details of the story have been impeached.
Cook was impeached from his student senate position by by other students with a vote of 33 to 2. Read about it here
I hesitate to map out your arguments for you, lest I miss what you’re actually thinking, but my best guess here is you believe that the moment the priest handed out the bread in question, it became the property of the man, and thus any attempts to take it back by force were robbery.
Is that close to where you are on this?
I have to agree that does read like this Cook fella is if not outright lying at least bending the truth to push an agenda. I’d like to hear his version of events before I pass judgement though I have to admit his silence isn’t in his favour.
Why am I stooping to participate in such a stupid and irrelevant “great debate”? I don’t know. I keep coming here because I was enjoying the discussion about evidence for god versus evidence for the Loch Ness monster and all that.
Nevertheless, Cook’s impeachment was overturned! Read about it here:
http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/2.10660/sen-cook-s-appeal-passes-1.1420266
http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/10/25/webster-cook-unimpeached/
That is absolutely correct. It was his property.
Irrelevant to anything that happened with regard to the cracker.
Ha. Thanks.
OK. I’d contend it was a conditional gift.
It’s not his property merely because it’s handed to him. He didn’t buy it, for example. It’s a gift, given without compensation.
Now, when does a gift vest? A unconditional gift vests the moment it’s given and accepted. A conditional gift, on the other hand, is revocable if the recipient does not fulfil the conditions associated with the gift.
If I give $1,000,000 to my college, and attach no conditions, I cannot later demand it back if they use it to fund, say, a Humanistic Atheist Chair professorship. But if I give the gift for the purpose of promoting religious education, they cannot fund that chair, and if they do, I can demand my money back.
So I don’t agree that the communion bread is his property. It’s a conditional gift, and the condition is that he immediately eat it. When he fulfills that condition, the gift vests in him (and a good thing too). If he does not fulfill that condition, it’s not his property.
In your example of the chair how would you legally bind the college to using it for said purpose?
It was overturned on extremely technical grounds, specifically that they didn’t “publicly post notice of interviews with witnesses.”
It still seems fairly absurd to believe his claim that he was only taking the wafer to show to a friend and there’s no reason to believe his story at all that he was “physically assaulted”(to use Dio’s expression) by a woman when he tried to take the wafer and that this “assault” was what caused him to not give the wafer back.
The school authorities dismissed his complaints and they’re certainly in a far better position to judge than us, so I don’t see why we should believe them, particularly since he’s so unreliable.
By making the college aware of the limiting purpose of the gift before bestowing it.
How is this done practically? Do both sides have to sign a contract or something?
I deny that any such condition exists. Certainly not legally, The recipient made no such agreement or contract, and I defy you to show my that a “conditional gift” can legally exist when one party is not made aware of, and does not make prior agreement to, the alleged “conditions.”
In other words…cite?