US: Taking a cracker hostage is a mortal sin.

Remove all ads!

Disrupting the rites of a congregation is a form of trespassing in my book, though I'm sure that in 5 minutes flat the lawyers here will chew my clothes off. It certainly is in bad taste and I think that the Catholic leadership there have a right to expect an attendee to cooperate with their rite while he is in their building.

I don't think this is a hate crime. However, if something similar happened in a Muslim or Sikh building THEY would certainly try to paint the action as a hate crime.

No argument from me that the death threats are an over-reaction and need to be condemned in the strongest of words. The kid also needs to be re-educated, as I have opined before.

 

@LKD,

Sorry, I cannot find anything new on this story. FOX news has an 'interview' with the friend of the Eucharist-thief, it's about 10 seconds long so no revelations there.

 

Then it should not share the same name as a religious ordinance. To call that marriage means that the state is interfering with religious matters.

That's not morally right. In the case of forcing a judge to legitimize a gay marriage against his religious belief, that's also unconstitutional. If he is asked to resign over the issue, he can refuse. If they try to fire him, then he can and shouls sue for wrongful dismissal.

The same law that guarantees his freedom of religion? Part of upholding teh law is defending his own constitutional rights.

And if he refuses, do you fire him because he's a Mormon? Try substituting in Muslim or Jew and see where you get...

But what happens when that doesn't work out? A temp comes in and sends a gay couple before this judge. Does he not have the constitutional right to refuse to participate and require them to go to another judge?

By getting in the line to receive communion he agrees to partake of the ritual as expected. Entering the line with intent to do otherwise would be deceit. Doing this would be disturbing the peace and trespassing.

If they ask you to take it outside and you refuse, you are trespassing. Likewise, if you tried to take a coffee into a Mormon building, I think you'd be asked to finish it outside before entering. You would still be welcome to dispose of the cup in a garbage can inside the building, but you'd be asked to finish it outside. When you enter a religious building, you are expected to behave appropriately.

I agree that's excessive. But I would expect some legal repurcussions over the incident.

I'll leave that to the court. If he was earnestly trying to show his friend a communion wafer, then the court will realize he's an idiot, call him an idiot several times in the process of levying a fine for trespassing and disturbing the peace. If this was actually a hate crime, committed in protest against the catholic church, then the comments of the Judge and the punishment would be more severe.

 

What religions and faiths should we respect? What if there is a group of people who believe wearing a shirt is a sin? Should they be allowed to work shirtless? A cracker is a cracker is a cracker no matter how many people claim it is the body of god and offending people who get offended for such things is a good thing. Like those Muhammed cartoons, the muslims were up in arms for a few drawings. Incredibly silly and very dangerous, this is the same thing. If the religious loonies get to dictate what is offensive and what is not we will soon be back in the stone age. Things like these are good as it exposes the outrageousness of so many peoples beliefs. I am sure most of you would think I am silly if I claimed that the empty yoghurt bottle next to my computer was the holy bottle of god and should be revered as such no? How can people not find Christianity or Islam or whateveroreligion just as silly? Is it based on the following? The more followers you have the less outlandish your beliefs get? The older your beliefs are the less silly they get? I don't get it? Most of you scorn how completely bizarre the scientologist are but you are willing to nod your head in respect to the old monotheistic religions? There is no difference! Whether you worship a yoghurt bottle or the biblical god your claim to reason is the same!

 

Yeah, you don't think so? For instance if a Jew was hired to work in a sausage maker's he could just refuse to do any work because of his religion. Or he has a right to demand to do a job that doesn't require him touching pig? Puh-lease... Or a muslim working as a barman has a right to refuse to serve alcohol?

Come on! If your religious beliefs are at odds with a particular job - don't take on that job!

 

So what you're saying that this isn't really about whether homosexuals have the right to marry? This whole issue is really just about the word "marriage"? If that were actually true, wouldn't that be a bit petty? Words mean different things to different people, and your faith doesn't own the word "marriage". Gnarff, most US states where gay marriage is legal don't actually have "gay marriage". They have gay civil unions, but those civil unions are just as vociferously protested as the gay marriages, so if this whole thing is really just about a word, you'll need to send those protesters a memo.

Why isn't it morally right? Since a judge is elected or appointed to execute the law under the full understanding that the laws he is required to execute will change from time to time, he knows that he will occasionally have to enforce laws he doesn't agree with. It's a condition of his employment. If you refuse to accept a condition of your employment in the real world, you usually don't get to keep your job. Why should the courts be any different?

Requiring a judge to perform a legal marriage of two homosexuals in a non-religious procedure violates neither his religion or his constitutional rights. All you are asking the judge to do is verify that consent is mutual and sign the paperwork. You are not asking the judge to bind the couple in a religious ceremony. Besides, Gnarff, do you honestly believe that gay marriage is the only legal procedure that goes against the edicts of your religion? What about divorce, liquor licenses, copyright cases involving pornographic films, licensing for prostitution in Nevada, strip clubs, gambling, etc? A judge's job is to enforce the law. He doesn't get to write it. If the judge isn't comfortable with that, he is welcome to find another job.

Of course not! I fire him because he refuses to do his job. His religion is irrelevant.

Aside from the near impossibility of such a situation (courts employ more than one clerk and the security requirements of the job would make hiring a temp for such a position nigh impossible, even after a thorough background check and a week of training), this is why I suggest that a judge should either agree to perform any bench marriages that come his way or he should have them all put on someone else's docket. A temp is going to follow established procedure when scheduling marriages. If the procedure is to place them in dockets A,B,C, and E, he won't put them in docket D. If there were a screw-up, the judge would have the right to move all the marriages over to the appropriate docket. If the judge just moves the gay couples that reach the front of the line, that would constitute preferential treatment being granted to heterosexuals on the part of the state, which would be illegal.

 

joaqin, the issue isn't whether people get offended over things that happen every day. The issue is that when you enter the private property of a faith group (or any group, for that matter) you should respect their practices, or at least behave in a way that seems respectful, regardless of your personal beliefs. If you don't agree with what is happening, then remove yourself from that location.

Let's take a wedding for an example. If you attend a wedding and it's time to throw the bouquet. Some idiot guy muscles his way in with the girls and says "I always wanted to catch a bouquet!" The bride wanted a perfect, no hassles wedding and is now upset. Why? Because some dork decided to disturb the proceedings for whetever reason. The bouquet catching isn't a religious ceremony or anything, but the lack of respect shown by this guy is inappropriate and should be treated as a disturbance of the peace.

As for the yougurt cup comment, I realize that you pride yourself on being as offensive as possible for the shock value, and I try to be understanding, but sometimes you go too far. You might consider trying a slightly more civilized tack to make your points. I attempt to show respect for differing belief systems -- I don't think it's too much to ask the same from you.

As for the whole judge and gay marriage / civil unions issue, I firmly believe that there must be a middle ground that protects the rights of all the players involved. Finding that middle ground is difficult with absolutist extremists (both the Christian and Gay varieties) but not impossible.

The problem lies when the parameters of the job changed. It's not like a Muslim taking a job at the pig slaughterhouse. In the 60s and 70s the idea of gay marriage was not even on the radar. It's not a decision that most people getting into law thought they'd ever have to tackle. I simply don't see the value in turfing a judge who has served the community well for several decades to appease a vocal minority's whim, especially when said vocal minority can easily and without significant trouble get what they want from another source.

I've pondered what Drew said (about how no JP has been fired for refusal to perform a gay marriage), and I am going to venture that it is very likely that the courts have an impromptu system similar to the one I postulated earlier. At least I hope they have, because the idea that otherwise spotless JPs have been quietly shoved out is too depressing to contemplate.

 

LKD, I wasn't trying to go for shock value. I was dead serious about the yoghurt bottle metaphor. Can you please tell me what the difference is between me claiming my yoghurt bottle is divine and Christians claiming a cracker is the flesh of god or well, there are plenty of other dubious statements various religions make. Judging by your reaction you would not show respect for someone worshipping the holy yoghurt bottle, would you? What if the cult of the yoghurt bottle could trace its origins thousands of year back in time and had a following in the millions? Would that make it respectful? I view Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Scientologi and whateverism just as you would view me if I said I worship an empty bottle full of sour yoghurt leftovers. I would be happy if you could point out the difference in believing in a divine yoghurt bottle and believing in for example one of the thousand variants of the biblical god.

As for your example I get your point but you could have chosen a better one. I would find it hilarious if some dude dived for the bouquet and if the bride is so stuck up that she can't find the humour in it, it gets even funnier.

 

If the guy had it on his desk at work and expected me to genuflect to it as I walked past, I wouldn't. If it were on his desk and I believed that he truly believed it to be something sacred, I wouldn't mock him for his belief. And I certainly wouldn't go to his church and spit in the bottle, which is the equivalent to what the kid did. Even if I thought him to be wrong, unless he did something that showed he was dangerously unstable, I would respect his position. That's what human rights is all about -- respecting the differing beliefs and attitudes of others, and leaving people in peace to practice their beliefs without interference.

Oh, and as for the bride thing, I was trying for a non-religious example of a jerk interrupting something that was special to someone else. It doesn't matter if the jerk doesn't think it's important -- the bride who shelled out thousands of dollars did and it's his utter lack of respect for her feelings (and this kid's utter lack of respect for the feelings of the people whose Mass he disturbed) that makes me dislike people of his ilk.

 

I think you would have a hard time argueing this legally. That's up there with saying that walking into a person's house means you are legally agreeing to buy item X they want to sell you. On top of that, while it could be trespassing (if the legal arguement is allowed), it isn't disturbing the peace. That's what the Catholics did in response.

But what if they ask you to go outside, but leave the sandwitch for them to 'purify' (really making things up here, but play along)? As I understand the law (which is to say not completely), the moment they gave him the cracker without him first consenting to a legally binding agreement about it, it became his to do with as he pleased. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hah! One, I don't have the same faith in the justice system you do. It all depends on the judge he gets, and then on whether or not anyone appeals and what judge they get, and so on. I still don't see him as guilty of disturbing the peace in any way, and only of trespassing through a questionable extension of informed concent and one's right to govern what happens on one's property.

I do think that those that accosted him should be charged with disturbing the peace at the least, maybe even assault and attempted theft, but that's questionable.

As to the yogurt, if he was passing it out in little baggies with the expectation (but not agreement from everyone that took it) that they put it in their cubicle, and someone decided they were hungry and wanted a snack, that's too bad for him. Likewise, if I'm passing out Bibles to random strangers and someone takes it and starts ripping it up, while I may be upset, it's now their Bible to do with as they please.

 

If it has been voted into law, and assuming you live in a democracy, then by definition it is something the majority wants or at least doesn't oppose. It is precisely for this reason that civil servants are not allowed to pick and choose which laws they uphold.

 

In the 60s, they were too busy protesting inter-racial marriage...

 

Exactly the disrespect that we religious folk put up with because we CAN'T legally shut them up. That is as much hate speech as the religious prohibition of Homosexuality. But when dealing with the faithful you must remember what they believe, and if you violate that, you will offend them on some level...

Again, the cartoonist mocked what they hold sacred. Of course they will be pissed off. And in a religion where a few of the more extreme members have gone way overboard, that's where it becomes dangerous...

It also reflects how disrespectful the detractors can be. If that's what Aetheism is about, then I will say it's just as hateful as they claim religion is.

And would you be angry with me if I pissed in it? Or threw it in the garbage while you were out? Or told you how stupid you were for your belief?

I find it so foreign to my understanding that I can't relate to it. Something about it gives me a bad feeling though...

That may work in the examples you cite, or for a few other jobe like prostitute, porn star, whatever, the jobs are obviously in violation of religious ethics, and if no accommodations can be made for them, then you're right. If the Jew in question could be assigned to grind hamburger to make sausage out of beef, then the employer should accommodate him. But with a Judge, this is not the case. In fact, a Judge is considered a noble profession in religious circles. A Judge should NOT be forced to violate his personal religious ethics in the name of law when it is possible to assign the case or contract to another judge who does not share those prohibitions. To do otherwise is unfair discrimination.

No, it's about forcing Christians to legitimize the homosexual relationships, whether you call it Marriage or Civil Unions or anything else you want to call it. It's about reducing something sacred to a piece of paper akin to what you wipe your backside with after you're done with your daily constitutional...

I don't care for Gay Civil Unions either, but I recognize them as a State attempt to accommodate a minority. I just wish they could do it without shoving it in the face of the religious--including a Judge, JoP, Marriage Commissioner or anyone else who could legitimize a heterosexual relationship.

But this is not a simple disagreement, but a violation of his deeply held religious beliefs. Beliefs that ARE protected by the Constitution. A political disagreement with the Marijuana laws is one thing. He can disagree, but he still has to sentence drug dealers that come before him. Gay Marriage is different as he has to actively legitimize something his beliefs consider among the worst of sins.

Simply legitimizing the relationship between two homosexuals is a violation of his beliefs. It is unconstitutional to force him to do that under duress of termination. I have no issue with homosexuals wanting to come out of the closet. I have a big problem with trying to force Christians into that closet...

Divorce is a fact of life. Sometimes a divorce is seen as better than a marriage where the covenents are broken routinely.

Controlling vices, restricting where they can and can't be practiced, and whatever is not a violation of the Mormon faith. The Judge can and should try to recuse himself from cases where he would be required to view pornography. Actually, in Las Vegas, there is a significant Mormon population, and many of them work in Casinos or bars. AS long as they aren't gambling or drinking they don't have a problem. My Grandfather was a Tobacco Farmer while he served as a Branch President. My church respects the need to work in the world, as long as that work does not demand that the worker violate the laws of God with no opportunity to accommodate his faith.

You fire him because he refuses to violate his religious beliefs. This is just as unconstitutional as firing a guy becasue of the colour of their skin.

Just as illegal as forcing someone to act against their religious beliefs. I guess the lawyers screwed the pooch on this one...

At face value, there is no difference between your statement that you can't prove and my statement that I can't prove. And if I defiled your yogurt bottle you'd be pissed at me, just as the catholics are pissed at the kid for defiling the host.

I would be obligated to try, but I admit it would be difficult. It sounds just too foreign to my understanding.

Hell, at one wedding I even tried to congradulate one of my male cousins on his fine catch after the bride threw the bouquet! Nobody heard me though and the ceremony went on with the woman catching the bouquet doing whatever she was supposed to do after that. I really don't remember much else as it was during my drinking days...

Not really. It was a Catholic Church, a Catholic Service, and I believe that the announcement would be made as part of the ordinance that those wishing to PARTAKE of the Host should come forward. The emphasis is on partake, and that anyone getting in the line is assumed to be consenting to partake as expected. I have heard that there is a means for those that are not catholic to enter the line to receive the blessing of the officiator, but I have never been a part of this.

Again, I disagree. By acting in a manner other than proscribed for those partaking of the communion (which you agree to do by entering the line), you are disrupting the orderly procession of the ordinance.

Consent is implied when he lined up to partake.

In Canada, in any individual riding, the member of parliament is determined by a first past the post system, meaning that the candidate with the most votes in that particular riding (electoral district) gets the seat. I would bet that in over half the ridings this is NOT 50% of the vote (considering that there are three major parties, a fourth party in Quebec, and a number of fringe parties). Further, only 50% plus 1 of the members of Parliament need to support a motion for it to pass. Also, just because some guy got elected, he doesn't always vote as his constituents desire. In the Gay Marriage issue, the parties forced their hand, co-ercing them to vote along party lines to get the legislation passed. The vote was not recorded so that the individual members could not be held accountable to their constituents for their vote on the issue. To say it was democratically passed is quite a stretch...

So you suggest that Civil servants lose constitutional rights that everyone else gets?

 

Then why on earth aren't you out there protesting open marriages, unions between atheists, unions between satanists, prostitutes, and porn actors? Gnarff, the fact is that lots of people get marriages that you will never in a million years consider sacred or approve of. If you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to recognize that civil marriages performed by government beaurocrats not only aren't sacred, but in fact never were, then you need to get a clue. A marriage license is a piece of paper. A judge in a bench marriage signs that piece of paper. That's it.

Of course the constitution protects beliefs. What it doesn't protect are actions. Jobs, even federal jobs, require people to do things that go against their religious beliefs all the time. Our constitution protects people having this type of moral dilemma by allowing them to quit or, when both reasonable and possible, move to another department.

Actually it isn't. Signing a ****ing marriage license does not legitimize the marriage. It was already legitimized before the clerk even issued the license. All the judge does is notarize it. His job is not to approve or disapprove of the union, but to witness and rubber-stamp it. His role is simply to ensure that no one is underage, mentally incompetent, or forced to marry against his will. If he has a problem with it, he can quit or have bench marriages placed on someone else's docket with no questions asked.

So what you are saying is that it is OK for a Mormon to facilitate gambling by running a table in a casino or facilitate drinking by mixing Margaritas in a bar, but it somehow isn't OK for a Mormon to facilitate a gay marriage by signing and notarizing a legal document? Don't be ridiculous. If it isn't OK for a Mormon judge to sign the paperwork, then it isn't OK for a Mormon clerk to hand over the marriage license, it isn't OK for a Mormon bartender to mix Margaritas, and it isn't OK for a Mormon dealer to take bets at a blackjack table.

So, you are saying that it would be unconstitutional to fire a hindu for refusing to cut meat. It isn't. Even if a the owner of a once-vegetarian indian restaurant decides to change policy and start serving meat, he isn't obligated to keep the vegetarian chef on staff. If the vegetarian chef feels that serving meat violates his religious beliefs, he is welcome to find another job. By the way, Gnarff, hindus see meat eating and preparation as equal to murder. Proportionally speaking, asking a devout hindu to prepare meat dishes is asking a far greater sin than asking a Mormon Judge to sign some paperwork for a non-religious civil marriage. It may be hard, it may be cruel, but it is not unconstitutional to terminate an employee for refusing to do his job unless you are asking him to do something illegal.

No one is being forced to violate his religious beliefs. No JOP has yet been fired or asked to step down for refusing to perform gay marriages. Why, you ask? Because bench marriages are rare, usually happen during a recess or while the judge is in chambers, and judges that don't want to perform them simply tell the clerk not to send any bench marriages their way. It's not that hard.

Most JOP's, being either self employed or clergy (most of them are merely licensed by the state), have the right to pick and choose when, where, and with whom they work, so they have nothing to worry about. Like all self employed people, they are free to choose when they do and do not work, and who they work for.

 

Dude! Now you are getting it, you find it so foreign to your understanding that you can't relate to it and it gives you a bad feeling. That is exactly how I feel about any religion! I am curious as to what difference you see in the belief system of the scientologist and for example christianity, what makes the latter more plausible to you?

 

I really can't believe all this intellectual dishonesty in saying that forcing someone to quit or do the duty they were signed for is somekind of a constitutional breach. Most religions are not very fond of killing, if I held such a belief and signed up for the military and then to my shock and horror found out that the military kills people be given the right not to shoot or kill anyone because of my religious beliefs? There's also the death penalty, let's say the death penalty was reintroduced in some state where it has been banned so far. Would the judge be entitled to refuse from giving out death penalties and still expect to keep his job? Then there's ofcourse divorce, divorce is seen as unacceptable to most Christian faiths, would the judge have the right to refuse from handling any divorce cases as well? After all they are in a similar way breaching my constitutional rights and freedom of religion. Gnarf, your inteprentation of the constitution is twisted like a corkscrew and not even the conservative US supreme court is anywhere close in agreeing with you.

Also, how on earth is giving a marriage licence to a gay couple any more sin than legitimizing an atheist marriage? Both are in fact legitimizing a religiously illegitimate marriage? In fact what the heck is someone with deep religious beliefs even doing in such a position? Surely their dream job must not have been legalizing marriages for heathens?

 

The merits and pitfalls of various electoral systems notwhitstanding, both you and our hypothetical homophobic christian judge are free to vote for a different candidate, different party, boycott the elections or run for office yourselves the next time round. Until then, I would suggest you both should follow the law.

 

On this we agree -- the fear I have is that a zealot will try to force a strange version of "reasonable" down our throats. I worry that some people might start "asking questions" as for the sole purpose of making a political point

I would say that moving the cases to another docket is not a violation of the law. I worry that someone might try to twist it into a violation of the law, however.

Here in Edmonton over the past few years some dorks have taken pig carcasses and left them on the doorways to mosques. HUGE outcry. Rightfully so, in my book. That's maybe not a hate crime in some books, but it is ignorant and such behaviour has no place in a supposedly tolerant society. The same is true of this kid's behaviour. Being deliberately offensive and disruptive is not automatically a good thing. Common courtesy and mutual respect is what we should expect from all citizens, religious and non-religious alike.

joaqin, no one could budge you from your premises even with a bulldozer. That's OK. Other people operate on different premises that lead them to different conclusions. The belief in a higher power of any sort does not mean the people who so believe are idiots or irrational -- lots of geniuses in all religions and in non-religious belief systems as well.

 

Because what they do after they are married is non of my business. If they make it my business that I know that they are screwing around, then I will disapprove of their adultery...

If they aren't meant to be sacred, then the Government should call it something else. Seperation of Church and State has to be the biggest lie in modern society...

Sorry, not buying it.

It's not legal until it's notarized. And yes, notarizing a same sex marriage DOES legitimize the union, which is against his beliefs.

Alcohol and gambling do not constitute blasphemy. By notarizing a same sex union, he is attaching his name to a document directly contradictory to revelation. This is not sustaining the Prophet, and thus may be a greivous sin.

The employer should do what he can to accommodate his employee's religious beliefs or else he is discriminating against him--especially if the business changes. I'm sure that in the example you sited, there are other jobs that this employee can do that are not a violation of his beliefs.

Murder is the second worst sin under Mormonism, which means that...

When that couple is homosexual, it is a direct defiance of Priesthood authority, which falls under blasphemy. Dangerously close to the worst sin.

Once again, you are advocating the discrimination against certain religious beliefs by saying that they can no longer be judges. How can you defend such obviously backward thinking? Even the Catholic Church abandoned that centuries ago...

I have heard to the contrary. I have not been provided a link to this however. I have a chance to look into this...

First: An intelligent creator. I find the idea that this worls and all within could be created through random chance to be extremely far fetched. Science is showing us that much of this world is actually organized. The idea of a creator makes sense.

Second: A reason for the Creator to care about us. This Creator is portrayed as a Father of our souls. This makes Religion relevent to me.

Third: A set of rules for our benefit. Continuing from the first two, we have a parent saying "my planet, my laws". Further, these rules are for our benefit, phisically, emotionally and psychologically.

Fourth: The atonement of Jesus Christ provides a "mulligan" if you will. A means by which our screw ups can be forgotten if we try to do our best (which includes striving not to commit that sin again). It also makes it possible to make things right with God and get on with out lives.

Fifth: An organizational system to care for those in need. This one is faith specific, but the Church is organized and there are people assigned to watch over the members. As the reports get back to the local authroity, then action can be taken to help.

Actually, some countries have that. It's called consciencious objection. In the Mormon faith, the soldier is instructed to do his duty, and the blood is on the hands of those that caused the war, not the soldier.

As a necessary check on the Death penalty, the discretion of the Judge is taken into account. If the Judge doesn't think the death penalty is warranted, then he simply doesn't assign it.

He should have that option. I'm sure that they can find other jobs for this judge...

If the couple is heterosexual, and they are becoming legally and lawfully married, they are doing something righteous, regardless of whether they care or not.

A judge has more to do than just legitimize marriages. It is likely that other aspects of the job are what drew them to the position, and those other duties as a reason for fighting to keep the job.

A refusal to solemnize a gay marriage is not homophobia. It is merely refusing to legitimize a carnal sin. To call it homophobia is just as hateful as you accuse us of being.

 

ho·mo·pho·bi·a Audio Help /ˌhoʊməˈfoʊbiə/ P [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh]
–noun

unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

The antipathy in this case is not based on reason, but on a higher authority. Therefore, unreasoning.

But I think my point was that the hypothetical judge should follow the law, regardless of his personal feelings.