US: Taking a cracker hostage is a mortal sin.

Remove all ads!

Aside from the fact that I explicitly conceded polygamy (and only to be nice), you completely miss the point. Polygamy was illegal in each and every one of our original 13 colonies, it was illegal in each and every state of the new union created by our revolution; polygamy has been illegal in the United States since well before Joseph Smith was even a twinkle in his father's eye. There's a reason that Mormons originally practiced polygamy in secret, not going public with it until they administered their own government in an out of reach territory. When they began the practice, polygamy had already been illegal for hundreds of years.

Try looking.

 

Well, obviously. If a minister started using quotations from some book to attack and condemn part of who you are, wouldn't you feel the same? Said ministers are stirring up irrational hatred of a minority based on the prejudices of a group of men that lived hundreds of years ago.

Really? What do they want then? You aren't seriously suggesting that they will try something like banning heterosexual marriage, are you?

 

That's not what he's saying at all. What he is saying is that a person who disagrees with gay marriage runs the risk these days of being forced from his job should he fail to act against his conscience. Some extreme gay rights groups, instead of going to one of the many people who will gladly conduct their gay marriage, would rather go out and find someone who disagrees with the practice and then have the guy fired for not kow-towing to their demand to be married. These extremists (and I acknowledge right up front they are a minority in the gay community) are not really interested in getting married. They are interested in using the law to force compliance from people who dare to believe differently than they do. It's not cool when anyone does that, no matter what their orientation.

Now I can see a bit of the logic when the marriage commissioner is employed by the state (though I still don't see why a gay couple can't just find a commissioner who shares their views -- I know there's a lot out there -- in fact I attended a gay wedding once) but what is worriesome is the idea that a religious minister may be forced to perform a marriage against his faith or lose his licence to perform marriages. Some may call me paranoid but I don't think that scenario is as "out there" as some people would like to believe.

 

when the said group tries to make the church accept them & change their beliefs to accept them then i have a problem with the said group(be it homosexuals or whoever). Christians have the right to believe whoever they want is going to hell just as muslims have the right to believe all non-muslims are going to hell.
(rant)
If you wish to be different from the community than you have to accept the fact that some members are going to treat you differently.
If you happen to be part of a group that my religion thinks is unclean(or whatever) than i shouldn't be forced to deal with you because of some stupid PC BS. (end rant)
Oh and decados referring to a religions holy text as "some book" just completely negates anything you have to say on the matter. They believe it is the literal word of God even if you don't.
Try to defend the guy all you want but in the third article it was stated that he was upset that religious groups were holding church services on public campus, so he went there with the intent of causing a scene.
He can deny it all he wants but when you are upset with a group, you don't go to that groups meetings.
There are a lot of people on this board that decree any form of discrimination unless it concerns christians then it is open season.
Look in the mirror people. oh BTW i'm not a christian but i see the hypocrisy expressed here. Just as i would never insult(intentionally) those who follow the left-hand paths, i have to extend the same courtesy to those who follow the right-hand paths.

 

I can understand the person who grabbed him to stop him leaving with it. I'd be furious if anyone even *touched* my consecrated tools without my consent.

I am dubious at this boys motives, however. If he had a friend who wanted to know about catholicism then why didn't the friend go along as well? Why not TALK to people who attended service or the priest who ran it?

Why feel the need to bring up how much funding goes into the religious events on campus?

I do not see enough information on the boys views (with good reason) to decide whether or not this is a hate crime or an act of pure idiocy. However with the deception employed to simply obtain a wafer surely implies he intended it perhaps as more of a dare or perhaps to antagonise someone on a personal basis. If so he definitly lacks subtlety

 

I am a Catholic. There seems to be some misconceptions going on here. The Eucharist being referred to here is that wafer that is used during the sacrament of Communion. As I understand it, Communion is not a Catholic-specific sacrament. All Christians have Communion. Also, while the wafer may indeed be made of the same ingredients found in the common cracker, it is clearly insulting to refer to it as just a cracker.

That having been said, calling this a hate crime is going a little too far. I think stealing a Eurcharist - while clearly disrespectful - is a far cry from going into a mosque and ripping out pages of the Koran or spray painting a swashtika inside a synogogue. On the other hand, it was still a foolhardy action. To think that no one would be upset is absurd. This is an important religous event to Catholics - a sacrament in fact - they are not going to have a sense of humor about something like that.

 

I see that a lot of people here think that he did it on purpose. I don't really have any reason to believe that thats what he did. Here is how I think it happened:
1) Student goes with friend to mass.
2) Student stands in line for a Eucharist.
3) Student accepts it and wants to walk away with it.
4) Priest grabs student, student quickly puts Eucharist in mouth.
5) Student walks over to friend and takes Eucharist from the mouth.
6) Priest sees it happen and grabs student again, this time it gets more aggressive.
7) Student does a runner with the Eucharist.
Doesn't seem any reason to call the kid an *sshole..

But becoming insulted is not a just passive action. There is always something happening at the receiving end that is connecting the dots and becoming mad and angry because of the insult. How about shrugging it of your shoulders, or as someone used to say a long time ago: "Turn the other cheek." So what if he thinks that Christians are evil and that they're like donkeys, it's just some silly book he is quoting it from (this time I'm using the Quran as an example, but there are a lot of other books that are quite silly and people see as holy. How does that make a silly book any less sillier?) Wasn't believing in something a choice? It seems a contradiction in terms to me, but isn't that the accepted opinion? If you choose a religion that forces you to become insulted and forces you to act. Well then, it seems to me that the problem is with you and not the one who does the (unintended) insult!

Who's "they"? The official stance of the Roman Catholic Church and most of the Protestant churches is that its NOT the literal word of God.

So he never went?

 

@LKD: That makes some more sense.

How far does that go? If I believe anyone with black skin is unclean, am I justified in ignoring them? If so, can I then refuse to serve them if I was, for example, a waiter? What you said is on the edge of a very slippery slope.

I'm not convinced. Most of this 'anti-Xian discrimination' appears to be little more than paranoia.

Well that's my points soundly defeated! I forgot that not following a religion meant that I was also forbidden from commenting on it.

 

There is a difference between commenting and demeaning.

 

And they have every right to feel the way they feel and to exclude you from their social circle. This does not mean they have the right to assault you. But they have the same right to association or non-association as you do. It is incumbent on all citizens to respect that right in others.

This only applies to personal association, however. In a public business, I do not have the right to refuse service to someone based on his race, religion, or several other factors. But in my private life, (and religions are private institutions not covered by government social engineering and PC nonsense) I don't have any responsibility to tolerate conduct of which I do not approve. I sure as hell do not have to modify my rites, beliefs or practices just because someone doesn't agree with them. He's free to go out and find a religion that is more in line with his views, or even to start his own religion without any fear of Government (or my) interference with his beliefs.* That's what makes Western Democracies great!

*Unless those beliefs, rites or practices are a violation of law, such as polygamy at the present time or a rite that involves killing members of another faith!

 

Not at all slippery, if you wish not to associate with a particular group, don't. If you wish to take a job where you will have to interact with members of said group be prepared to treat them like you treat anyone else.
Now as far as if you own the business, i personally feel you should be able to decide who you wish to do business with without the government trying to tell you otherwise. The government has no right to try to make us like everybody. Certain groups are allowed to get away with it & others aren't. Take any large cities "chinatown" - a town section where asians choose to live & work around others just like them. Now if a group of whites wanted to make an "aryantown" everybody & their brother would be up in arms.

 

@Blackthorne TA:
That might be the way that it went as well, but I'll just stick to Hanlon's Razor:

@Gnarfflinger

I agree with you at some point there. State has no business in religion (the other way around too!) In my opinion, a minister has all rights to refuse to marry a couple in church. If, however, he acts as a representative for the state, then he should not be allowed to refuse. Here in the Netherlands, we have two types of marriage, for the church and for the state. The church is not forced to marry gay couples and the state is not allowed to refuse them.

 

Uhh, martaug, I don't think that, oh, let's take the Chinese for example, are the ones who coined the term "Chinatown". They do not advocate it's use, though they may use it for the sake of convenience once it enters the lexicon of a city. However, if you go to Chinatown, they still will serve you, I believe. I've never heard of a Chinese restaurant owner refusing service to a Caucasian.

That said, there are also areas of the city that may not be called "Aryantown" but they basically are -- you look at some subdivisions or even some small towns and you'd have to go a long way to find anything but WASPS. That may be some de-facto racial profiling but I see it as like attracts like -- it doesn't necessarily imply racism or bigotry unless it is coupled with unsavory behaviours like planting burning crosses or such.

As for a business refusing service to certain groups of people, if such is a personal decision then I agree with you to a point. I'm going to make up a group of people so as to be suitably PC for this discussion.

I am a white Canadian of English descent. I own a small cafe, where I sell sandwiches, coffee and other fast foods. Over the past 30 years, many Hoovians have moved into my community. (They were fleeing the depredations of the Grinch ) I don't like them. Who cares what my reasons are?

IMHO, I should not have to serve them in my restaurant. My restaurant is not a government owned institution -- though it is open to the public, it is a privately owned business and I feel I should be able to choose who I will and will not serve. The invisible hand of the marketplace will eventually punish me, though, because Bill Hoka, the guy who runs the cafe down the street from me, gladly serves the Hoovians and thus his profits will likely be better than mine (assuming all other things are equal between us). In the long run, he will be able to use those profits to increase the value of his store, maybe getting better signage and hiring a skilled chef. I may even go out of business for my decision.

This is not the case presently. I must serve the Hoovians. If I don't, I am guilty of discrimination under Canadian law. I could be fined and possibly lose my business licence. I understand the rationale behind the law, as if Bill Hoka, and I, and all the other restauranteurs in town (independantly or collectively) choose not to serve the Hoovians then the Hoovians are gonna go hungry (and it'd be worse if the Grocery stores also choose not to serve Hoovians). Nevertheless, if it is MY private company I should be able to do what I wish with it.

As for religions, well, the faith I practice states that we accept and love everyone. If someone came into our services and went up to the Sacrament table and started grabbing handfuls of bread from the Sacrament trays, I can guarantee that he would be asked / forced to stop. Were he hungry, we have a procedure for helping him get the food he needs, but if he persisted in disrupting the service by not being respectful of our rites, he would be asked to leave. Maybe a dork might make a death threat but most members of my congregation would simply chalk it up as an amusing experience. But I fail to see why we should let people trample on our rites in the name of being "open-minded" or whatever you want to call it.

 

Slight problem LKD. None of this stuff happens. There have been employees fired by their employers for refusing to work with gay people, but that's something quite different. It isn't an issue of conscience, since it isn't a sin to have a homosexual as a coworker. It also isn't specific to gay rights issues, since employees who think they can tell their employers who they can and cannot hire tend not to keep their jobs.

Now I know you're just making **** up. Please provide an example of a Justice of the Peace getting fired for refusing to marry a gay couple.

 

Sorry, not making it up at all -- it's something that is very likely in Canada's present social climate -- it might be different in the US, but here the political correctness line is much stronger.

I wasn't talking about people who refuse to work with homosexuals, I was talking about people who do not want to be the officiator at a ceremony their religion forbids. I know you think I'm a nutter, Drew, but this stuff is not that paranoid where I live. I'll check the records. It may have already happened, but if it hasn't, IMHO it's only a matter of time.

 

A matter of perspective, obviously. However, even if I was demeaning towards that religion, it is ridiculous to suggest that my tone invalidates any arguments made.

 

I disagree. Tone will almost always trump reason. Just look at this entire thread. The title of thread alone was "trolling" for an argument.

Suppose for a moment that you did a scientific paper proving that the English are better then the Italians. You could have all of the evidence in the world, but if you titled your paper "Guineas are stupid" it will invalidate your argument with almost everyone and that includes the English.

 

Proof positive that you just pulled this out of your ass. The vast majority of JOP's are self-employed, clergy, or both. Self employed people and clergy don't get fired for adhering to their own religious beliefs, LKD.

I don't think you are a nutter, by the way. I just think that you are divorcing yourself from logic and reason. There is no gay conspiracy. There is no secular humanist conspiracy. In the interest of fairness, I'll also point out that there's no vast right wing conspiracy, either. You've built your entire argument around this idea that gay rights activists are actively trying to force Christians to act in a manner prohibited by their faiths, but unless "refusal to tolerate people who see the world differently than you do" is a tenet of that faith, this simply isn't true. Since gay marriage was legalized, how many religious institutions have been forced to marry homosexuals against their will? Don't bother looking it up; I already did. None.

Your argument that if it hasn't happened yet, it's only a matter of time is classic slippery slope fallacy. It has no basis in logic, reason, or reality.