Bullet,

Thanks for the reply, you did manage to cover the points that I thought were important. I'll make other comments on your blog, as I'm still not comfortable with this forum as the place for a discussion that has become theological instead of dealing with the ethics of the situation from a technological standpoint.

Originally I thought the article was a really good example of what happens if you a)leave your computer unlocked when you step away, or b)react rather than think while at work, as a contractor or employee doesn't matter, and use company e-mail to malign and threaten someone. The places that I worked during the last 10 years of my career made signing and agreeing to AUP's mandatory, and if you thought they were joking figure out why they just needed to hire three people for existing positions.

I think that the religious and theological aspects that have been discussed reveal a great deal about religion in America. I don't condone the violence, real or threatened, from either group. If you're an atheist and make it clear that you wish to have something from a specific religious group, ie the consecrated host, so you can commit what the group could only see as blasphemy, then you got some real issues. It's not right to attack a group because of what they believe. It doesn't matter that it started with someone else stealing a host, what matters is that your actions will cause some folks to immediately threaten violence. In their misguided minds, they believe they are doing what is right, defending the faith, and more importantly defending the body of Christ. If you think that you can really say whatever you want with impunity, maybe a blog isn't a real good forum for you.

I also disagree with those Catholics and others who threaten violence because someone has publicly declared they wish to blasphemy on what is considered Holy. And you really have to keep it in the forefront of your mind, that when someone refers to it as a "cracker", they really don't understand, and your hostile comments will continue to keep them from understanding. I know that you think you're doing what's right, passing judgment based on our belief system, and thinking that if we did meet the person, we'd be justified in whatever happens. Guess what? You're wrong. At no time did Jesus promote violence, just the opposite. From the woman brought before him that was caught in adultery, to the slicing off of the slaves ear when Judas turned him over to the authorities, Jesus prevented the violence, and admonished those who wished to or had performed the violence.

If we as Christians truly take our faith seriously, there is a very large element of pacifism that is a part of it. However, it seems so much easier to take the path of righteous indignation! Well, the fact of the matter is, violence is wrong, whether it's threatened, implied or real.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and the discussion here has gotten in my mind way off base. Sorry to all for contributing to that.

Tony