Re: OT: host desecration or hate crime?

On Jul 18, 7:03 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:34 pm, tension_on_the_wire <tension_at_h...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jul 18, 10:00 am, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

its more likely that the guy wanted to taste it. catholic wafers are
notorious for their cardboard-like taste.- Hide quoted text -

He could have done that right there in the line along with everybody
else.
Why are people so intent on coming up with possibilites about his
intentions when he stated them quite explicitly himself?

where did he state them, other than to say he wanted to show his
friend? do you think your lying goes undetected?

"The UCF student leader said he stole the communion bread, known by
Catholics as the Eucharist and believed to be the body of Christ, to
show to his non-Catholic friend"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378081,00.html

"Webster Cook says he received death threats and eternal damnation
after he removed a wafer of bread from his mouth during communion and
smuggled it from the church in a Ziploc bag"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378081,00.html

He admits that he stole it. He claims that he smuggled it. Neither
act was necessary in order to taste it. He removed it from his mouth
in order to do it, so clearly tasting it was not the issue.
Furthermore, you cannot provide any quote in which he claimed he just
wanted to taste it. You are confabulating. As a lapsed Catholic, he
already knew what the wafer tasted like. This is the third time I am
posting this information, with the reference. Please demonstrate one
post where I have ever lied, as evidence, before you make such a base
accusation. It is in no way likely that he "just wanted to taste
it". What is your evidence for suggesting that it is likely at all,
never mind more likely than the other things which he actually
admitted he was doing? Your statement was totally and completely
incorrect.

and what if the friend HAD gone in the line with everyone else? then
youd be crying that a non-catholic took communion.

Despite the fact that the friend was right there with him, in the pew,
(here is the proof, in case you think you are detecting me in my lying
again):
"Cook said he just wanted to show the Eucharist to a friend he brought
with questions about Catholicism before consuming it."
http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html
and the fact that he could have accepted the wafer in his hand, gone
to sat down, showed it to his friend, and then consumed it as he was
supposed to do, none of which would have required keeping a Ziploc bag
in his pocket for removing it from the church, he chose to accept it
in his mouth, sit down, take it out, and stick it in a Ziploc bag,
none of which was necessary in order to "show his friend", hence he
was lying. He admitted that he stole it, or smuggled it. He did not
need to remove it from the church to show his friend, who was right
there. So his excuse was a lie. In addition to that, he then later
claims:
"Cook, who was raised Catholic, said he decided to bring the Eucharist
home after a church leader tried to physically pry it from his hand".
http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html
Again, another statement directly from Cook, in which he claims that
his decision to remove it from the church was not made until they
tried to take it from him. So how did he conveniently happen to have
that Ziploc bag in his pocket for the purpose? Another piece of
evidence that his explanation was not truthful. What is so difficult
to understand about this? These are all statements from Cook. And he
mentioned nothing about "wanting to taste it".

"Cook still disagrees with the more than $40,000 in student funds
distributed annually to support Catholic and other religious groups on
campus, but seemed conciliatory in his letter."
http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html
He has been more than forthcoming about his real reason for this
entire incident. Why do you want to ignore all these statements, tell
me that you are detecting me in my lying, and suggest that it is "more
likely that he (the lapsed Catholic) wanted to taste it"? Not a very
reasonable conclusion as far as I can see.

If you had read my post to Mark Isaak, you would have seen all these
references and my conclusions. Every quote is based directly upon the
statements of Webster Cook himself, not upon any reporter's summary of
the events. Every statement claims he said these things. The press
is extremely careful when they use the words "He said". It is not
someone else's interpretations or guesses as to his motives or
intentions, these are the things he said to explain his actions. They
are inconsistent with the facts of what he did. He was covering up.
If you cannot understand it the third time I am posting this, then you
need to go and read it again, and slowly. Use basic logic. It is not
that hard to understand if you ask yourself why he had to go in there
surreptitiously with a Ziploc bag. And though you have said it many,
many times on this thread, it was NOT his right to do that. Where,
anywhere, in US Law, is it the right of someone to go into a private
club on private property and violate the rules of their membership?
Where is it the responsibility of that private club to take any
actions to exclude people who have not been granted admittance? They
may choose to do it, as any private nightclub will do with a big
bouncer at the door, but it is not their legal responsibility to do
it. It is their right to sue any trespassers, though, if they were so
inclined. Most can't be bothered, they will just chuck the offender
out. And it seems that this student will also not get prosecuted most
likely, judging by the tone the university and the congregation is
taking. But they could do it within the law if they chose since he
was trespassing, as an imposter, posing as a member of that club, in
order to achieve his agenda.. That is not within his rights as a
citizen of this country. Laws pertaining to private property are
quite explicit in this country. Why, again I ask for the nth time, is
this church exempt from that in your personal opinion?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: host desecration or hate crime?
    ... organized Catholic church, you are preaching to the choir (please ... Who committed an individual act of revenge against one congregation? ... "Webster Cook says he received death threats and eternal damnation ... Catholics were unforgiving, according to WFTV.com" ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: host desecration or hate crime?
    ... act was necessary in order to taste it. ... his non-catholic friend that would have wanted to taste it. ... "Cook said he just wanted to show the Eucharist to a friend he brought ... in his pocket for removing it from the church, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • There are stupid people, then there are REALLY stupid people -- and then you get the christi
    ... Webster Cook says he smuggled a Eucharist, a small bread wafer that to ... and people in the church fought with him to get it ... Catholics worldwide became furious. ... Church officials say UCF Student Senator Webster Cook was disruptive ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: OT: host desecration or hate crime?
    ... friend, to prove that he could do it, should be allowed to proceed on ... You make it sound like like he barged in on the middle of a Communion ... The act of entering a Catholic church and presenting ... Catholics or former Catholics on the thread are welcome to comment on ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Republicans publishing their own version of science
    ... > Life has managed with and even capitalized on toxic chemicals many times. ... > I do not know about the Church ever being a friend to Galileo. ...
    (talk.origins)