Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Becky, Montrose, CO on June 9, 2008:

I don't know that the story makes atheists look bad... Of course the participants look bad, as does their lame excuse. It's not as though atheists are organized and recruiting members, and therefore don't really have an image to uphold in the public eye.

Wait, do we?

---

I dunno: do you?! :-) -rc

Posted by Tom in Boulder on June 9, 2008:

As an atheist, I have to say I am not happy with this couple. I wouldn't bomb a church, mosque or any other religious structure, persecute a religious person, deface a religious icon, burn a religious book, or in any other way harass religious people.

I simply stick to criticizing religion for its silly beliefs and the bad effects those beliefs have in the world.

But I do love the tagline .... :c)

Posted by Denise, California on June 9, 2008:

Sorry, but the only thing they did wrong was have sex in public. It's just a building, and the only thing that makes it "special" is that people want to think it is.

So yeah, having sex in a church is just like having it in any other place... any other public place. It was rather juvenile for a thirty-something couple to do, and especially rude to do so during Mass. They need to be fined for disturbing the peace, or some similar violation.

It is the reactions of the officials that are more disturbing, though. Once again the concept of sex as a dirty, befouling act is reinforced. So while they decry this foul act their idolatry in the form of reverence for a thing of gilt and velvet and wood strikes ironically at the heart of Christian beliefs. It's a cubicle with pretty decorations inside a building further lavished with gilding and carvings. The space and its trappings are not in and of themselves "holy". The Holy Spirit - if you believe in It - resides within the soul of mankind, not within the trappings of religion.

So what purification besides a good dose of Lysol is really needed here?

One of my favorite quotes by Robert Heinlein sums up nicely all the other hoopla surrounding this case: "Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing...."

Posted by Phil, California on June 9, 2008:

"Just another building" -- endowed by its adherents with special properties and ceremonies, such that they give it special significance to them.

An analogy: As the Android Sisters said, "Money? It's just bits of paper, blessed by the Government, that's all."

Would I come piss on your favorite icon (football hero, singer, banker, etc.)? No, but that's just me, not needing to piss off an establishment... We already have plenty enough hate in this world to go around. How about coming up with something to make it better for everybody?

Posted by Jeff in Chino Hills, CA on June 9, 2008:

I am a Christian, but not Roman Catholic. So I'm left with trying to draw a comparison, not imagine the actual incident. So let's say a couple was thus engaged behind a screen in the back of the sanctuary (the room where services are held) during a service. Would I be offended? Yes. More than if they were, let's say, making a disturbance by talking too loud? I would have to say yes. So why is that? I think it's two distinct things: 1) disturbing a meeting by distracting others from the purpose of the meeting; 2) performing a private act in a public place.

As far as the latter is concerned, I would be less offended if the private act they performed were, say, blowing their nose in their hand; more offended if the private act they performed were, say, defecating. Why is one more offensive than the other? I'm not sure, actually, but it is (to me). I don't think it has to do specifically with the church's attitude towards sex (mine doesn't seem to be hung up about it, at least), but rather the common reaction to a private act performed in public.

Posted by Sam in Atlanta on June 9, 2008:

I see the story from both sides. I am not in any way religious myself, although I don't call myself atheist either.

But I don't buy the bit from Denise about it being sex in "just another building". While I am not religious, I fully respect people's religious views as long as they don't attempt to force them on me. As such, if I am in a church (for whatever reason, like working an event), I always respect their beliefs and moral structure. I will go out of my way to make sure I am acting as would be expected by a religious group.

It's about respect for those you are around. You are in their building, whether you like to see it as a public building or not. I'm all for sex in fun places, but I hardly believe this couple just stumbled upon a church confessional when they had the urge. I thoroughly believe the act was planned pretty much to be disrespectful. I don't care what the situation is, a church would always be out of the question for me.

Posted by Bob, Niwot CO on June 9, 2008:

I would have to disagree with Denise. Although the church generally welcomes the public inside, it is not a "public place". The building was built and paid for by an organization for their purposes. The owners and those entrusted with the care of this church have every right to decide what is appropriate and what is not appropriate inside. The point being: It is special to the people that own it, and that is what counts. Religion aside, just based on property rights the church leaders have every right to be outraged.

Posted by Denise, California on June 9, 2008:

In response to the three people who posted after me:

I agree wholeheartedly that what these two did was wrong, plain and simple, because the laws of most cities, states, and countries prohibit sex in public places. They also have laws about trespassing to prohibit them popping into someone's private property for a bit of fun. Either way, these two were wrong.

The part of the story that I was annoyed by was the religious rant the Bishop added to it. The twits tried to tweak the congregation one last time with their little atheist comment. Considering what they were caught doing, I'd say that their reasoning skills are already suspect, but the good God-fearing folk got up in arms about the "desecration" of their church, rather than taking a moment to consider that they were probably being baited.

That building has no "special properties" (it's a building, it just sits there being a building) and it has no special significance save what the people give it.

So just as we look askance at people who hoard money, or obsessively collect sports memorabilia, or believe that Elvis is living in Tahiti, or that big-eyed aliens abducted them after mutilating their cattle, insisting that these buildings are any different than any other building in the city is ludicrous.

"They had sex in a church" has no more impact on me than if you substituted White House, locker room, library, Mosque, Temple, or sacred grove. And it shouldn't to anyone else, either. As mentioned by Phil in CA, we have plenty of hate in the world, so why should anyone feel they need to incite more over a couple of idiots?

It is called a church, but church can be held in an open field or on top of a mountain. The building means nothing to the actual worship of God. Churches should be nothing more than a convenient place for God's worshipers to gather, but they are too often sources of pride (a sin) which they brag about (I go to St Michaels with the huge stained glass windows. Where do you go to church?) and spend money that would be better spent in charitable works.

But as missionaries have proved for centuries, you do not need grand cathedrals or golden crosses to receive the Holy Spirit. A comfortable place to sit and contemplate or listen to someone preach is all you really need. If you must, two sticks and a bit of string give you a cross upon which to focus our prayers.

Everything else is hubris.

Posted by Randolph, Johannesburg on June 10, 2008:

An awesome tagline, which took me a couple of seconds to get. Thanks for the story and the laugh-out-loud post script.

As a self-respecting atheist, I think the couple should find less offensive ways of getting their rocks off.

Posted by Trish, Victoria, BC on June 10, 2008:

I'm Christian and I found the tag line absolutely hysterical! I'd love to know what the purification rite would be. What are they going to do with the confessional...burn it? Certainly the couple deliberately showed disrespect for the church, but they were arrested and the court will deal with them. The Bishop can stop his tantrum.