#55539: — 12/28  at  09:37 PM
I hope I'm not taking this more seriously than it deserves, but for purposes of the level of larceny the "fair market value" of the stolen property is normally used. Typically, the higher the value of the property stolen, the higher level of the crime. All property -- stuff -- is presumed to have at least nominal value. Stealing items of only nominal value is usually called "petit" larceny. Petit larceny also applies when the value of the property stolen is more than nominal but fairly low (below, say, $1,000). Thefts of property of more substantial value are usually called "grand" larceny (a higher-level crime than petit larceny).

Determining fair market value is sometimes easy. Property stolen from stores is usually valued at retail. In other cases, valuing property is more difficult, but the process is similar to how an appraiser would value any property: You identify the pertinent market and ask what the item would likely -- realistically -- sell for in that market. If there is no market, or the property stolen is essentially unsaleable, then it has only nominal value and the crime is petit larceny. Likewise if the FMV simply cannot be determined with any precision. "Sentimental" value does not usually count. So the "delusions of the owner" have no effect. (However, there are sometimes statutes which address thefts of particular kinds of property. For example, the theft of a credit card might be defined as grand larceny even though the value of the card itself is nominal, or similarly the theft of a pet might be a higher level of larceny than the pure market value of the animal would otherwise support. It is possible -- but I don't know -- that there could be statutes setting particular levels of seriousness for the theft of "religious" objects.)

For a "curiosity" such as this bun, there may (or may not) be a market value which can be determined. One might, for example, seek to discover if other, similar, artifacts have been bought and sold and at what levels. (Checking eBay, for example.) Mrs. Tilton is on-track with her analogy to art objects.

Fair market value is a "fact." There is a FMV or their isn't, and the FMV of an object is determinable (within a range) or it isn't. While the delusions of the owner may not affect FMV, if "delusions" result in people being willing to pay more than the intrinsic value for an object, that would count.

Phillip Johnson's textbook on criminal law would probably have more on this....

#55540: Arun — 12/28  at  10:10 PM
Instead of discussing Mount Rushmore, why don't IDists discuss Mother-Teresa-in-a-bun?

#55541: — 12/28  at  10:23 PM
The nun bun is the discovery of a friend of mine. It's making fun of the "holy images in baked goods" phenomena.

Don't get your huffyness in a huff, PZ. It's a joke by folks who see more of the humor in it than you seem to!

#55554: John Wilkins — 12/29  at  01:30 AM
I want a frying pan with the Playboy Bunny logo on the surface. Now that would be evidence of a worthy deity!

#55559: — 12/29  at  03:55 AM
Personally, I find Lenin's face in Phil Plait's shower curtain a much more convincing miracle. The question is, Who sent it? Maybe Marx was Right...

#55563: — 12/29  at  05:25 AM
I paid $10 for a ba-KING pan with an acrylic portrait of Elvis on it. Was the portrait the work of intelligent design or a mediocre artist? Was my purchase of this work an example of my very bad taste or, since I am a practicing Presleytarian, an example of my worship of the King? I need to know and for anyone who can answer these questions I say: Thank you, thank you very much.

#55564: — 12/29  at  05:26 AM
The monetary value of an object may be estimated by its replacement value. Since the magic properties of the bun are irreplaceable, the bun is invaluable. Infinite number of dollars.

Or am I wrong? If I replace the bun with an identical looking artifact and it exerts the original bun´s magic, then the value of the physical object is that of solid waste. Negative, since you have to pay to get it properly disposed.

#55579: Mike Nilsen — 12/29  at  09:26 AM
Supply and Demand, baby! If the supply of idiots is high, demand for silly crap will be subsequently high.

#55618: — 12/29  at  01:22 PM
Valuing the nun bun is easy compared to the real philosophical question of the age, which comes up frequently in my business: Can you steal a free newspaper?

If you take one, obviously not.

But if you take the whole stack?

#55623: — 12/29  at  02:16 PM
Harry, if you take the paper to wrap fish, or if you cannot read, you are stealing it. Now, how much are you willing to give for the nun bun?

#55631: — 12/29  at  04:12 PM
An authenticated one? All I have.

#55676: — 12/30  at  02:00 AM
I was a regular at the Nun Bun's coffeehouse back when the whole thing went down. The guys behind the whole thing were very funny local theater folk who worked there. Think about it: The face of Mother Theresa appears to you on a cinnamon roll. And yet time after time in skeptical venues it gets trotted out as an example of credulity.

I, a skeptic to the core, think the Nun Bun was very, very valuable.

#55689: The Countess — 12/30  at  08:04 AM
Nun Bun done run. Heh.

#55692: The Countess — 12/30  at  08:09 AM
I think it looks like Abe Vigoda wearing a knit cap.

#55709: — 12/30  at  10:07 AM
And each blasphemer quite escape with the fun,
Because the insult's not on man, but the bun?

#55836: arensb — 12/31  at  10:11 PM
Do the delusions of its owner add value to it?

Yes. My mother had, for many years, a number of worthless, to any objective observer, pieces of "art". But to her, they were precious, and she proudly displayed them on the kitchen fridge.