My Stupid State, part eleventy-seven

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok, I could ask that... at my university disruption of a group's religious meeting may get you in trouble, but not expelled. And that'd be for talking loudly and actually being disruptive.

So if you went to the front and started taking the cup from the priest and drinking it and otherwise being an ass, that is the only way one gets to be disruptive?

Why don't you accept the fact that Cook created a ruckus by stealing the host? That fact isn't disputed. The only question now is the consequences of that act.

[SpencerH]

What a load of bollocks. Its not like he watched as his friend tried to put cheese-whiz on the cracker (prior to consumption). I could see where that would be serious enough to **** with someones education.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So if you went to the front and started taking the cup from the priest and drinking it and otherwise being an ass, that is the only way one gets to be disruptive?

Why don't you accept the fact that Cook created a ruckus by stealing the host? That fact isn't disputed. The only question now is the consequences of that act.

Except, according to all parties, he was not the one who created the ruckus. The ruckus was caused by your coreligionists who got all crazy and al-Qaedaish when they discovered he had not immediately eaten the magic cracker.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why don't you accept the fact that Cook created a ruckus by stealing the host?

Could you describe the ruckus?

[chequita guevara]

[Ben Kenobi]

Except, according to all parties, he was not the one who created the ruckus. The ruckus was caused by your coreligionists who got all crazy and al-Qaedaish when they discovered he had not immediately eaten the magic cracker.

Thanks che.

Next question, if he had not stole the body of Christ would any of this happened?

[Elok]

See, this wouldn't have happened in an Orthodox church, where we just shove it straight in your mouth. Well, I guess the guy could have stuck out his tongue with the wine-soaked bread on it, but who'd want to see that?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Gibsie
If this stupidity is reflected in his work in class, then sure, absolutely

I'd be shocked if it isn't.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Thanks che.

Next question, if he had not stole the body of Christ would any of this happened?

Well, if he had done such a thing there may have been reason to some disturbance, but since all he did was taking a piece of bakery that a sect claims is the body of christ, it doesn't matter much (that the sect has a lot of followers and can trace it's history way back doesn't count much according to validity).

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I said that first thing yesterday. Read up

Buh? I do not recall seeing you clamouring for his arrest until that last post. In fact you even said this wouldn't be an issue if he'd apologise- which he has done. So which is it, forgive the sinner or burn him at the stake?

This one involved the body of Christ, and yes, there have been incidents previously, where someone has disrupted the mass by taking the host.

Yeah but I'm not sure that referencing back to che's post on the massacre of the Jews of Berlitz and others throughout history does you any favours here.

No, but employees of the universities, according to their own code are to be respectful of other people's religious beliefs.

Employees of universities? Do you really need to dishonestly exaggerate his "position" to prove your point? I read that he's a student senator. Interestingly, there was a bit of an uproar here at the University of London a year or two back when someone in a similar position said that he'd shoot his children if they were gay. He was taken to task for it, but I'll bet you'd have been defending his rights to free speech in that incident

Just because you don't agree with Catholicism, doesn't mean they should be treated any differently then anyone else.

I'm sure that if this silly sod had been naughty with any mass-produced gift freely provided by any other society at his university, then there would be no uproar. Thus, it is you who is seeking the special treatment.

You would think this is basic common sense. Let parishioners worship in peace and do not disrupt their services.

Absolutely. But not an expellable or imprisonable offence in my opinion. I guess Jesus isn't one for turning the other cheek after all?

[Traianvs]

Back when I was a kid and we were all forced to attend a service, we did this all the time. Nobody gave a hoot.

This religious bigotry is mind-boggling. Why do religious zealots care about this. Religion is personal. If you're the one who thrives on rituals then fine, but why get all uppity because someone else isn't that fond of them like you are. If these people would chill the fack down and focus on Jesus' teachings etc things might be a lot more comfortable in this life. I mean c'mon...

Absolutely. But not an expellable or imprisonable offence in my opinion. I guess Jesus isn't one for turning the other cheek after all?

[Ben Kenobi]

Buh? I do not recall seeing you clamouring for his arrest until that last post. In fact you even said this wouldn't be an issue if he'd apologise- which he has done. So which is it, forgive the sinner or burn him at the stake?

He hasn't apologised. He returned the host, but he has never admitted he was wrong to take it in the first place.

Yeah but I'm not sure that referencing back to che's post on the massacre of the Jews of Berlitz and others throughout history does you any favours here.

Somewhat more recently then say 350 years ago.

You honestly believe no one has tried to disrupt a mass since then? Heck my old chapel on campus got spraypainted by folks who hated the Catholic church. Maybe you need to have your eyes open here that the Catholic church is the target of all kinds of idiots trying to make a statement, just like this fellow here.

Employees of universities? Do you really need to dishonestly exaggerate his "position" to prove your point? I read that he's a student senator.

Yes, and that gives him a position of authority inside the student union building, and on campus. I've met many senators, and if they do something stupid like attack fellow students because they are Catholic, then they usually have the common sense to resign, rather then cast ill repute on the entire student government.

Interestingly, there was a bit of an uproar here at the University of London a year or two back when someone in a similar position said that he'd shoot his children if they were gay. He was taken to task for it, but I'll bet you'd have been defending his rights to free speech in that incident.

No, I wouldn't. That would be incitement to riot. Saying you would shoot someone, anyone, is unacceptable for someone in a position of authority.

I'm sure that if this silly sod had been naughty with any mass-produced gift freely provided by any other society at his university, then there would be no uproar. Thus, it is you who is seeking the special treatment.

First off, it's not freely provided. It's only for Catholics. Did you miss the discussion above between open and closed communion? The way I see things is that anyone who deliberately disrupts a private gathering in order to make a political point ought to be sacked from student council.

I don't care if it's the Catholic group, or the muslims, or the Jews, or even the sci fi club if someone comes to their meetings and starts harassing members. I do believe in freedom of speech, but freedom of speech doesn't overrule freedom of religion and association. Members have the right to meet in peace without harassment from the campus authorities.

Absolutely. But not an expellable or imprisonable offence in my opinion. I guess Jesus isn't one for turning the other cheek after all?

If he were to state that he was wrong in taking the body of Christ, I would agree. He has returned it, yes, but he hasn't apologised.

[Ben Kenobi]

This religious bigotry is mind-boggling. Why do religious zealots care about this.

Why? As it was said earlier, we would like to be able to worship in peace without the interference of the authorities, including student council members.

Religion is personal. If you're the one who thrives on rituals then fine, but why get all uppity because someone else isn't that fond of them like you are.

That's fine. Stay the hell away from the mass, if that's your bag. Just because you don't like ritual, doesn't give you the right to spoil it for everyone else. You don't like it, don't attend.

If these people would chill the fack down and focus on Jesus' teachings etc things might be a lot more comfortable in this life. I mean c'mon...

Things would be perfectly peaceful if the authorities would just butt out of our business and let us have our mass in peace. I don't think that's too much to ask. Leave us alone and we leave you alone. You barge in, we are going to get angry, just like anyone else.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why? As it was said earlier, we would like to be able to worship in peace without the interference of the authorities, including student council members.



That's fine. Stay the hell away from the mass, if that's your bag. Just because you don't like ritual, doesn't give you the right to spoil it for everyone else. You don't like it, don't attend.



Things would be perfectly peaceful if the authorities would just butt out of our business and let us have our mass in peace. I don't think that's too much to ask. Leave us alone and we leave you alone. You barge in, we are going to get angry, just like anyone else.

My point was rather that if nobody paid attention to the fact that he didn't eat the wafer, the service would have continued peacefully.

=>

He did not, as in keeping with Catholic practice, immediately consume it, but took it back to his seat to show to his non-Catholic friend. Church staff observed this, confronted him (and perhaps assaulted him), and demanded return of the wafer, whereupon Webster Cook fled the service, wafer in hand.

Local Catholics lost their minds, comparing the action to a hate crime, a kidnapping, et cetera.

For catholics attending a service the wafer has an important symbolic meaning, but for everyone else it doesn't have that. Why can't overreligious people differentiate between what's important and what's not. This is something we'll probably not agree on, but these people can't put things in perspective. For you it has a symbolic meaning if it's eaten, but what's the problem if people don't eat it? He wasn't disturbing the service like you are claiming; in fact he did nothing. It was only when other people got angry with him not eating it, that the service was disturbed...

Tolerance is the key word... When I went to Jordan and Syria last year, I didn't join in with ramadan (although I didn't eat during the day anyway..) and I didn't pray along when the muezzin called for prayer five times a day. The muslims there tolerated that, even though I was in their community, with their customs etc. It's the same thing. If Cook didn't want to eat the wafer, then why couldn't these people simply let it slide...