The Eucharist is not a cracker!!! Before you post such ridicious sites and I might add disrespectful of others, you might need to pick up a copy of the Theology and Doctrines of the Catholic Faith. If you want your rights to be respected it goes both ways. God forgive you!
The desecrator did not in any way threaten or infringe catholic rights. he didnt halt a service or call for any kind of discrimination against them. he just insulted their cracker. DUH.
and why whould i want to read tripe like that you suggest?????????
I still don't get why people are complaining about this on youtube. If it's illegal then contact the freaking authorities and have these people stand trial.
If you are at a park and some organization or company is having a picnic, and you go to their foodservice and present yourself for a free meal, is that not stealing?
If all finishers in a race get a backpack and a t-shirt, and you (without running the race) present yourself and take those items, is that not stealing?
If you enter a police station, acquire a badge, send it to a friend who defaces and destroys it, have crimes not been committed?
but the catholic church is proselytzing. they explicitly want to draw in everyone. and if jesus existed, he seems to have wanted to get a diverse crowd. and besides the property is worth nothing, as it is merely 3 grams of flour.
Mr. Cook's self-proclaimed advocates and defenders, PZ Myers of U of Minnesota, and Dominique Poulin of Quebec Canada went beyond Mr. Cook, by not only illegally acquiring their hosts, but then destroying them very publicly, accompanied by shows of arrogance, derision, and mockery, all done with an invalid sense of impunity.
They also have called others to commit the same crimes. Incitement is the Legal Terminology for that.
Kogs999: You are ritht in that it is not illegal to break anything, provided that you own outright and acquired it legitimately. It IS ILLEGAL to destroy property you did not acquire legitimately and therefore you do not have right of ownership to.
The principles of ownership and exchange are the most ancient and basic legal principles. It is so simple cavemen understood it.
Although you and others are attempting to have this framed in the court of public opinion as a free speech issue. That is a false framework for it; especially to any and all who choose to disregard the real presence in the Eucharist, and claim that the host is (by their own admission) a piece of real property... with an owner, who has property rights protected by the state.
Those property rights were violated when Mr. Cook misrepresented himself in order to fraudulently obtain the "property". The Catholic Eucharist is offered only to people satisfying very specific qualifications, and accepting very specific conditions for handling.
yeah, but the conditions are mumbo jumbo. doesnt cc require unquestioning/undoubting faith when taking the cracker? surely lots of non-Catholic spouses of Caths (inc my dad before he converted) eat em
and i took plenty when forced to go to church after renouncing religion
your argument is laughable. the property is worthless. it consists of about 3 grams of flour
Most noteworthy, is that each recipient must verbally assent to the conditions of this contract (covenant) when the host is held up before them and described as "Body of Christ". The recipient must speak publicly the word "amen", which is no less than their public, verbal agreement that they understand and accept the contract and it's conditions, and that they will honor it. It is only then that they are given a host.
Unqualified individuals can only acquire this particular type of property through deception and perjury. Once received into the hand of such a perpetrator, the property status changes to "stolen". There are criminal statutes in force in all US states that prohibit misrepresentation, fraud, theft, transport of stolen goods, and destruction of property. What Mr Cook did was in fact break several laws. The secular law of the land applies here as well as it does to any physical location in the US.
yup.....LOOKS LIKE A CRACKER TO ME! wow...so am i a saltine racist?? i just called us BOTH crackers....hmmm...
dercorradog60 1 year ago
The Eucharist is not a cracker!!! Before you post such ridicious sites and I might add disrespectful of others, you might need to pick up a copy of the Theology and Doctrines of the Catholic Faith. If you want your rights to be respected it goes both ways. God forgive you!
mflyon 1 year ago
@mflyon IT is a cracker -- if you dont belive me get a DNA test done. You can call it whatever you want it's still a cracker -
Just like I could say I am Jesus but unless I have some ID or proof you probably shouldn't take my word for it
badpanda84 1 year ago
@mflyon
The desecrator did not in any way threaten or infringe catholic rights. he didnt halt a service or call for any kind of discrimination against them. he just insulted their cracker. DUH.
and why whould i want to read tripe like that you suggest?????????
Daniel0112358 8 months ago
I still don't get why people are complaining about this on youtube. If it's illegal then contact the freaking authorities and have these people stand trial.
federalD 3 years ago 3
If you are at a park and some organization or company is having a picnic, and you go to their foodservice and present yourself for a free meal, is that not stealing?
If all finishers in a race get a backpack and a t-shirt, and you (without running the race) present yourself and take those items, is that not stealing?
If you enter a police station, acquire a badge, send it to a friend who defaces and destroys it, have crimes not been committed?
splee9e9 3 years ago
@splee9e9
but the catholic church is proselytzing. they explicitly want to draw in everyone. and if jesus existed, he seems to have wanted to get a diverse crowd. and besides the property is worth nothing, as it is merely 3 grams of flour.
go fuck yourself and have a nice day
Daniel0112358 8 months ago
splee9e9 3 years ago
Mr. Cook's self-proclaimed advocates and defenders, PZ Myers of U of Minnesota, and Dominique Poulin of Quebec Canada went beyond Mr. Cook, by not only illegally acquiring their hosts, but then destroying them very publicly, accompanied by shows of arrogance, derision, and mockery, all done with an invalid sense of impunity.
They also have called others to commit the same crimes. Incitement is the Legal Terminology for that.
CRIME = TIME
splee9e9 3 years ago
Its not illegal to break a FUCKING CRACKER...SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DELUDED HALF-WIT.
kegs666 3 years ago
Kogs999: You are ritht in that it is not illegal to break anything, provided that you own outright and acquired it legitimately. It IS ILLEGAL to destroy property you did not acquire legitimately and therefore you do not have right of ownership to.
The principles of ownership and exchange are the most ancient and basic legal principles. It is so simple cavemen understood it.
splee9e9 3 years ago
@splee9e9
so when pple chew, swallow and digest Jeebus, theyre NOT destroyin wafer? oops i mean Him?
Daniel0112358 8 months ago
Although you and others are attempting to have this framed in the court of public opinion as a free speech issue. That is a false framework for it; especially to any and all who choose to disregard the real presence in the Eucharist, and claim that the host is (by their own admission) a piece of real property... with an owner, who has property rights protected by the state.
splee9e9 3 years ago
Although if it really is Jesus then its not really proporty.
You cant own a person ( even if dead)
badpanda84 2 years ago
Those property rights were violated when Mr. Cook misrepresented himself in order to fraudulently obtain the "property". The Catholic Eucharist is offered only to people satisfying very specific qualifications, and accepting very specific conditions for handling.
splee9e9 3 years ago
@splee9e9 "The Catholic Eucharist is offered only to people satisfying very specific qualifications,"
Intersting and what would thouse qualitication be and do they disclose them at mass
badpanda84 1 year ago
@splee9e9
yeah, but the conditions are mumbo jumbo. doesnt cc require unquestioning/undoubting faith when taking the cracker? surely lots of non-Catholic spouses of Caths (inc my dad before he converted) eat em
and i took plenty when forced to go to church after renouncing religion
your argument is laughable. the property is worthless. it consists of about 3 grams of flour
Daniel0112358 8 months ago
Most noteworthy, is that each recipient must verbally assent to the conditions of this contract (covenant) when the host is held up before them and described as "Body of Christ". The recipient must speak publicly the word "amen", which is no less than their public, verbal agreement that they understand and accept the contract and it's conditions, and that they will honor it. It is only then that they are given a host.
splee9e9 3 years ago
Unqualified individuals can only acquire this particular type of property through deception and perjury. Once received into the hand of such a perpetrator, the property status changes to "stolen". There are criminal statutes in force in all US states that prohibit misrepresentation, fraud, theft, transport of stolen goods, and destruction of property. What Mr Cook did was in fact break several laws. The secular law of the land applies here as well as it does to any physical location in the US.
splee9e9 3 years ago
Nice one.
deBeuk 3 years ago