Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Cheryl, Alberta Canada on June 10, 2008:

I really believe that these two "humans" planned this deliberately, and WANTED to be caught. Some people just aren't happy unless they're causing problems. They knew that what they were doing would upset the majority of people. I really don't think it had anything to do with their being atheist. Most atheists respect other people's beliefs as long as these beliefs are not being pushed on them.

How would these people feel if others brought their dogs over to their yard to poop on their lawn? There's a place for everything. Would these same people have sex in the grocery store or in other public places? I really have my doubts.

I was raised Roman Catholic. I was also raised to respect others and their beliefs. I was forbidden to say anything negative about any other religion.

I really don't think it's necessary to perform a purification rite on the confessional. I truly believe that, in God's eyes, it's not the confessional that needs purification. This couple needs to grow up and learn to live in peace with others. This was just a childish act done only to create hurt and hatred. If everyone treated others the way that they want to be treated, this world would be a much better place! These people don't deserve the satisfaction of getting angry replies from Catholics or any other Christians.

Posted by Ken, New York on June 10, 2008:

I am neither Christian nor Atheist -- can I post anyway? :-)

I agree with Randy -- even if they considered the church just like "any other place", they chose the place for the thrill of possibly getting caught, and to offend.

I don't say grace before meals, but if I'm at someone's house where they do, I sit quietly (and respectfully) while they say grace -- I don't just start "digging in" when the food arrives. I've attended Sunday mass at church with my wife's family. While I didn't partake of the wafers (I forget the correct term), I wouldn't think to do something like pull out a sandwich and say "I thought it was snack time".

Just because a place doesn't have "special meaning" to you, doesn't mean you should disrespect a place that you know holds "special meaning" to many others.

But, as others have already pointed out, I do have to wonder what "purification rite" needs to be performed. Does a confessional need a "purification rite" before it's used for the first time? (Seriously, I'd like to know. Is a confession in a "purified" confessional booth worth more than, say, in an elevator?)

Posted by David, Arkansas on June 10, 2008:

Perhaps they should put an electric sign over the confessional that says "OCCUPIED." Another good measure would be to sound proof the confessional, after all, who wants everyone within earshot to hear what is being confessed?

---

I dunno: I've seen an awful lot of busybodies that would love to get the gossip! -rc

Posted by Jenny, Tualatin, OR on June 10, 2008:

Let's remember that this is a goth-rock couple we're talking about, not just your garden-variety atheists (who are generally difficult to identify in a crowd). These are people who intentionally draw attention to themselves through their dress, jewelry, and/or makeup. That makes it kinda hard to believe that they just coincidentally thought the plush seats made a perfect private spot for a tender moment. I'm voting with those who think they got an extra thrill from the defiance involved in doing it in a church.

Posted by Tristram, Raymond ME on June 10, 2008:

Jeff, your Church sounds remarkably like the Episcopal one I attend.

As to the people, I think the most offensive thing they did was have sex in a public place. Respecting others' desire not to see you having the time of your life, so to speak, is an important part of getting along. I mean, it might be "just another building to them" but I don't suppose they would be delighted to come home to a couple having sex in their kitchen.

To Denise, there is a sizable population of Moslems in the city near where I live. Last summer some guy rolled a frozen pig's head through their mosque. Would you also argue that person committed no crime because the mosque is "just a building, and the only thing that makes it 'special' is that people want to think it is."? Or, to make the act a little closer to the one at hand, having sex in that mosque? If so, then fine. I think that it is polite to respect things that people hold as special, be it religious or profane, but at least you are consistent. However, if this is really just because of your feelings about Christianity, I ask you to consider if doing something you know a group finds offensive for the sake of antagonizing them is not a hate crime? Even if they were just doing it for the thrill, most likely the guy with the pig's head was also doing it for a thrill, and that was still ruled as a hate crime.

Posted by Mike from Dallas on June 10, 2008:

For all the people who don't believe in any purification process for the enclosure, YOU try sleeping in a bed where some couple has had a joyful romp. On the other hand, it's not Nepal, so we shouldn't need to burn a goat to appease the aircraft engine god.

The tagline is funny in view of the RCC's position on condoms, but even funnier when you consider some poor soul sitting below the balcony at a movie theater and having a used condom drop down the back of his neck. No, it wasn't me, which is why I can laugh at the poor sap that did experience it.

---

I don't think anyone is saying there's no need for a cleanup. They're rolling their eyes over the concept of a "purification rite", which is a very different thing. -rc

Posted by Andy, Mission Viejo, CA on June 11, 2008:

I'll be brief since most has already been said.

As a pragmatic libertarian and atheist it seems to me this should be handled exactly as if the same couple were doing the same thing in a photo booth at a mall. Both are private property, both would be using an enclosure for other that its specified purpose. Hence, it would be a local jurisdictional matter. If local was San Francisco it might receive different treatment than if local was Greenville, SC.

The intent of the couple is irrelevant to my way of thinking, but then to my way of thinking there is no such thing as a hate crime.

Another possible tagline:...had the couple been Catholic it could have been one stop shopping! The act and then the confession all in the same place!

Posted by rewinn, Washington on June 11, 2008:

As a Roman Catholic Atheist (...that is, I went to R.C. Seminary, which eventually turned me into an atheist...) I commend your attempt to have a serious discussion on a subject just begging for humor of the most unsubtle sort!

As to any "need" for purification, we must always distinguish between what God needs and what humans need. Whether or not God exists, Its needs are very different from those of the humans that worship It.

God is everywhere, and therefore very intimately involved with countless acts of sex at every moment. Consider the insects and the squids! So God is not likely to feel bothered by a couple of Goths.

Humans OTOH have different feelings about the places they have sanctified. Even after the location has had a good antiseptic scrubdown, a very human thing to feel would be the negative emotion we associate with desecration. That it might be unreasonable is not the point; religion is not about reason (...sorry, Thomas Aquinas!)

So let the bishop have his ritual, if it makes him and his flock feel better; none are harmed by it (...except of course for the ongoing harm of that religion itself, which your tagline captured perfectly and succinctly, but that's another matter.)

Posted by Matt Charlotte, NC on June 13, 2008:

Ok... Now I know I'll be flamed for this but has anyone thought to consider that the Roman Catholic Church in question could have cooked this up themselves? I mean it's not like the RCC has had its fair share of questionable practices (Cough, Holy Crusades, Cough). I'm just saying that the likelihood of someone planning to be together in a confessional booth along with the congregation as well as the words seems a little far fetched. But I could be wrong... Just my two cents.

---

I don't consider it any too likely. -rc

Posted by Ernest Junee, NSW, Australia on June 13, 2008:

I agree that the couple shouldn't have been using other people's property for private activities not related to the purpose which the property was provided. However, I find the priest's comment that the activity was sacrilegious wrong as it was God who gave us the ability to procreate and they were only carrying out God's wishes in the act. Now, if it was me who found them, I'd have just given the guy a good solid kick in the arse and told them to get out, and laughed myself silly as I chased their half dressed forms out of the building and on to the street.