Picketting of Religious Structures

[Flappycat]

I don't think picketting any religious structure is right, whether it is a UU building, a LDS temple, a Catholic Catherdral, etc. etc. etc. Yes, it'll keep happening because people have their free will and it's allowed under the contitution. I just wish that they could do it in a more polite manner, I've seen polite, calm, nice protests out there.

What would you think of someone picketing a non-religious funeral? The wrong in it is that the picketers were behaving abusively toward a group of people at what was for them a very sensitive and important time. It was callus, and it was rude. Why necessarily a religious structure? In the end, isn't it always wrong to take opportunities to try to wreck people's occassions of import, particularly when abuse or abusive language is involved?

 

[Bishka]

What would you think of someone picketing a non-religious funeral? The wrong in it is that the picketers were behaving abusively toward a group of people at what was for them a very sensitive and important time. It was callus, and it was rude. Why necessarily a religious structure? In the end, isn't it always wrong to take opportunities to try to wreck people's occassions of import, particularly when abuse or abusive language is involved?

I never said anything about non-religious at all, I think that is wrong too. Yes, it is wrong, but I think religious structures for me, is a big one. I hate it when people go outside or near something that I hold sacred to my heart and yell, swear, etc. around it.

 

[Flappycat]

I don't believe in Quid Pro Quo.

I do, but I'm a capitalistic ogre who eats people for breakfast.

 

[nutshell]

I do, but I'm a capitalistic ogre who eats people for breakfast.

mmmmm.....tasty!

(FYI: I'm a capitalistic ogre too )

 

[Flappycat]

I never said anything about non-religious at all, I think that is wrong too. Yes, it is wrong, but I think religious structures for me, is a big one. I hate it when people go outside or near something that I hold sacred to my heart and yell, swear, etc. around it.

The thing is, there was no intention in the act other than to make people miserable during an event that they intended to hold in their memories as one of the highlights of their year. That's what really gets my goat.

 

[jonny]

I know exactly who you are. You are a disgraceful person. If I ever think about this again, I will know you as a disgraceful and rather cowardly person who uses the frubal system for "anonymous" abuse. We're all using aliases here. Well, that will be your alias. I know exactly who you are.

I hope you don't think it was me, because it wasn't. I wouldn't say those things and don't believe its true.

 

[jonny]

Picketing funerals is disgusting. Anyone who would think to do such a think it disgusting. I think you'll find that the same groups and types of people who are picketing at the LDS conferences are also spreading hate at funerals.

I realize that there are some first ammendment issues here, but what about the right to not be harassed? What protection does our constitution really offer if we can't worship or mourn in peace?

 

[lilithu]

What would you think of someone picketing a non-religious funeral? The wrong in it is that the picketers were behaving abusively toward a group of people at what was for them a very sensitive and important time. It was callus, and it was rude.

Are you thinking of Matthew Shepard? It was very hard to see those people picketting at the funeral, telling his grieving mother that he was in hell, and to not hate them. I actually thought of that when I saw the pics in the OP. I imagine that these are the same or similar type people at both protests.

Why necessarily a religious structure? In the end, isn't it always wrong to take opportunities to try to wreck people's occassions of import, particularly when abuse or abusive language is involved?

She didn't say it was necessarily a religious structure. She was talking about what was near and dear to her and you are making it into a political/social statement.

 

[Flappycat]

Lilithu, thank you, but I've been paying attention. Your interjections are not necessary.

 

[Flappycat]

I realize that there are some first ammendment issues here, but what about the right to not be harassed? What protection does our constitution really offer if we can't worship or mourn in peace?

Well, there is a difference between something being legal and something being right. There always has been. However, a solution that I can think of would be to allow non-profit organizations to pay the local police department to enforce an annual, one-day restraint against such actions as picketing in a particular area, something similar to a police escort at funerals. What do you think?

 

[jonny]

Well, there is a difference between something being legal and something being right. There always has been. However, a solution that I can think of would be to allow non-profit organizations to pay the local police department to enforce an annual, one-day restraint against such actions as picketing in a particular area, something similar to a police escort at funerals. What do you think?

I think it's the perfect solution, and probably would work at funerals and things, but it won't work in Salt Lake. The ACLU has everyone so scared that the police are arresting the people attending the services. The two I know of who were arrested were tried grabbing away some of our most sacred clothing to keep it from being thrown on the ground, mocked, stomped on, and used as toilet paper as they walked pass.

The police are there, not to protect those being harassed, but to protect the rights of the protestor's freedom of speech. I think it's all mixed up.

What you mentioned is exactly what the LDS church proposed: Separate preachers and conference goers, keep demonstrators in a confined area, restrict the noise level even more, and require permits for protests.

The response of the protestors was:

I seriously caution Salt Lake City to go no further with lies and rumors and governmental discrimination in favoring one religion over another, simply because their particular religion loses in the public forum. Losing in the legal forum as well will only add to the loss.

The city enacted "No Standing Zones" on the streets and sidewalks so that members could at least walk down the sidewalks without being blocked by the protestors, but they had to do it as a "public safety" issue. They also tried to enact protest zones because the city feared that the protests were getting so provacative that members attending conference might try to assault the protestors. Again, trying to protect the protestor, not the harassed.

The chief of police stated, "Our job here is to provide protection of the protesters and the conferees from themselves, if you will."

 

[jonny]

From an outsider's point of view, the theological differences that Mormons have with other Christians are small. So much hatred in reaction to such small differences. If only they could generate such righteous indignation at the corporate execs and politicians who are robbing the poor, sick, and aged. Think of how much good they could do with that energy! What does it mean to be Christian anyway?

Too bad the UUs in Salt Lake don't think like this. They were the ones who the ACLU was representing in all the lawsuits to allow protestors on LDS church property.

 

[Flappycat]

The city enacted "No Standing Zones" on the streets and sidewalks so that members could at least walk down the sidewalks without being blocked by the protestors, but they had to do it as a "public safety" issue. They also tried to enact protest zones because the city feared that the protests were getting so provacative that members attending conference might try to assault the protestors. Again, trying to protect the protestor, not the harassed.

The chief of police stated, "Our job here is to provide protection of the protesters and the conferees from themselves, if you will."

Well, they're right. The purpose of a secular government is to maintain relative peace and order. They will go so far as to do what's necessary to prevent a riot, but their hands are pretty tied in this case because another part of their purpose is to protect individual liberties, which, unfortunately, also applies to complete jerks. This is why I think that instating a paid service for any non-profit organization, limited to one day per year, which extends police protection from any harrassing activities would be a good alternative. It would count as a public safety measure because annual events do have potential for turning hot, particularly if many participants have travelled a long way and are stressed-out enough as it is, and the government could gain revenue if this were a paid service. There would be no violation of liberties in it because the picketers are free to their antics on any other day of the year; the restriction would have a perfectly secular motivation on the part of the government, including the possibility of gaining revenue.

 

[jonny]

I have a feeling that the protestors are going to fight pretty hard to be there on these particular days. When else do they get an audience of tens of thousands of Mormons?

Other than that, I think you're idea is good. Does anyone know if there are any laws that would prohibit it?

 

[Smoke]

I don't think picketting any religious structure is right, whether it is a UU building, a LDS temple, a Catholic Catherdral, etc. etc. etc.

I have never picketed any LDS event, or any other event. But as long as the LDS Church continues to lobby against our having full equal rights under the law, I will consider it very appropriate for people to picket any and all LDS events they choose to picket. In fact, I would consider it perfectly appropriate to picket the homes of Gordon Hinckley, Thomas Monson, and James Faust, or any LDS wedding at all. I think it is the height of hypocrisy for people to demand the right to live their lives as they choose without being exposed to the unwelcome opinions of others, when they they belong to an organization that makes a concerted effort to impose its own unwelcome opinions on the lives of others.

 

[jonny]

I have never picketed any LDS event, or any other event. But as long as the LDS Church continues to lobby against our having full equal rights under the law, I will consider it very appropriate for people to picket any and all LDS events they choose to picket. In fact, I would consider it perfectly appropriate to picket the homes of Gordon Hinckley, Thomas Monson, and James Faust, or any LDS wedding at all. I think it is the height of hypocrisy for people to demand the right to live their lives as they choose without being exposed to the unwelcome opinions of others, when they they belong to an organization that makes a concerted effort to impose its own unwelcome opinions on the lives of others.

Dude, the Mormon church is not organizing protests against homosexuals. The protestors at LDS conference are the same people who you would find protesting at Gay Pride Day. They put us all in the same boat. In fact, they exact same people DO protest at Gay Pride Day.

 

[Smoke]

Dude, the Mormon church is not organizing protests against homosexuals.

No, it's lobbying Congress to make sure its religious view is imposed on me with the force of law. As long as the Mormon Church continues to do all it can to interfere with my life and my rights, I can't help but consider it a legitimate target of protest.

The protestors at LDS conference are the same people who you would find protesting at Gay Pride Day. They put us all in the same boat. In fact, they exact same people DO protest at Gay Pride Day.

Many of them are exactly the same people. And the way you feel about them, and the way I feel about them, is much like the way I feel about the leadership of your church. Only imagine they were successful at abridging your civil rights instead of just picketing. When all is said and done, I'd rather have the pickets.

 

[Bishka]

No, it's lobbying Congress to make sure its religious view is imposed on me with the force of law.

Since when? Have the leaders of the Church specifically gone to congress and asked them to impose this view? No, has the Church as a whole done this, no.

 

[Bishka]

Only imagine they were successful at abridging your civil rights instead of just picketing. When all is said and done, I'd rather have the pickets.

So you think it's okay to take something sacred to us and treat it like toilet paper without anyone intervening?

 

[Popeyesays]

"So you think it's okay to take something sacred to us and treat it like toilet paper without anyone intervening?"

Well, in this country a flag can be burned and it is considered an act of freedom of speech. The baptismal garment in question was not the property of a particular Mormon was it? The individual did not reveal his toochis to actually wipe his nether regions with the garment.

There is no doubt the act is in bad taste, personally embarassing to the performer, and thimble-witted in the extreme. But the baptismal garment was not stolen property, it was probably bought from an LDS source in the long run, just like they sell the garment for legitimate use. And once the garment is in the possession of an individual they are free to do with it whatever they wish to do. It is personal property.

If the garment had been stolen or illegally obtained from some particular LDS member they could file civil proceedings under Utah law and gain some compensation I am sure. But if it was new to the purpose, there is not a legal beef in the world with what was done.

Grafitti could be considered vandalism, this is just some truly bizarre "performance art". The best thing you can do is get over it, it will be obvious that they perpetrators are MORONS, not the lack of a second "M" in the word. All in all it is favorable to public opinon when it is clear who is the victim and why.

Regards,
Scott