My thread was closed without explanation. Why? The question was never answered.
I see Colbri is now saying that “relevant statutes have been provided.” No they haven’t. Nothing on point was provided at all.
My explanation is here. It was posted a full two minutes after I closed the thread, and a minute before this thread was opened.
My post in full:
The thread was turning into a debate, largely on the initiative of the OP. Since the question originated as part of a Great Debate thread, it was more reasonable to continue the debate in the original thread, rather than having a new one in GQ, or moving that thread to GD.
I was just asking a poster to make an actual connection betwen the cited statutes and the act that I was talking about. Jusrt because somebody randomly cites a statute doesn’t mean they’ve answered the question. I’ll let it go, though.
It looked to be pertinent to me. But mainly, I didn’t see any reason why the discussion couldn’t be carried on in the original GD thread instead of in GQ.
I was just hoping it might attract the attention of lawyers who might not being paying attention to or be aware that there was any legal question going on in the other thread.
If it helps, although it is doubtful any secular court would try such a case, you could get a Canon Court to prosecute you for sacrilege if you asked nicely ( you didn’t even have to ask at all in the Middle Ages ), it being the Body of Christ an’ all; even priests have to be careful to respectfully dispose of surplus consecrated wafers.
Perhaps it always should have been a GD thread. I don’t think it’s helpful to say that a legal question is one that is answered by citing specific statutes, or even cases. IANAL, but I have studied some law in a non-law degree. You can almost always debate the application of law to a specified set of facts, and that is what was being debated there. That’s the sort of debate that lawyers, from students to judges on supreme courts, are always involved in. If issues like that were so cut-and-dried, then decisions on appeal courts would always be unanimous, and there would be no point in appealing any further.
Dio was being his usual obstinate self – that’s not always a fault in such a debate – but the thread was perhaps being more productive than the GD thread, because it was focusing more on the legal issues involved. I would have preferred that it be moved to GD.