Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Kelly, Ashland, PA on June 14, 2008:

I remember years ago finding a condom in the back row of our church. (I don't know how it got there.) I was shocked, scandalized and hurt. I can't speak for the bishop but as for myself, there is nothing more painful than to witness such a hateful attack on the one you love more than life. But if the bishop truly wanted to take control of the situation, he could have given them absolution on the spot. After all, it was Jesus who said, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."

---

Great point, Kelly. -rc

Posted by Bergman, Seattle on June 14, 2008:

As I view the matter of atheists, the problem is there are two types. There are those who genuinely are atheist, in the literal meaning of the word. I have no problems with them. The other type are those who have made atheism their religion, as odd as that may sound, and are as obnoxious about it as the most fundamentalist christian (or muslim, or jew, or hindu, for that matter). I'd say the two idiots in that confessional are the latter type -- not only do they not believe in any god, they feel a need to desecrate and attack any religion they encounter other than their own, just like many radical fundamentalists do.

Posted by Jonathan Racine, Wisconsin on June 14, 2008:

While I am not now or ever have been a Roman Catholic, your tagline bothers me. It brings in a theological dispute that is totally unrelated to the story, and it's only funny to those who disagree with with the RC position on birth control.

I think it was Pope John XXIII (please correct me if you know the RCC better than I do) who said that if we disconnect the act of sex from procreation then it will slide into simply another recreational activity, and any sexual practice will become acceptable (those are not the exact words, obviously). It seems to me that those words from half a century ago were in some way prophetic, for that is the world we live in now. Popular entertainment explores the world of formerly obscure sexual practices, and while many of us feel a vague sense of revulsion at some of the more outlandish expressions, we are hard put to explain why this sort of thing should be rejected by civilized society.

While the presence of six billion humans on a small planet may indicate the need for some form of population control, it is also true that the widespread acceptance of "recreational sex" and casual "hook-ups" cheapens and devalues the glue that holds all those humans together. The basic unit of civilized society has ALWAYS been the family, both nuclear and extended. We all know how strained family relations can be, showing the need for a strong adhesive to hold them together. When physical intimacy is experienced in a context that also includes intimacy of mind, will, and emotions it seals the tightest bond that humans may ever experience. Outside of that context sex may be pleasurable and "fun," but it fails to fulfill the deepest longing of the human heart. Just like recreational use of drugs leads to a high followed by the deepest low, driving the user to stronger and stronger drug experiences, this "law of diminishing returns" applies to sex as well. A hook-up may provide temporary relief from sexual tension, but when it doesn't meet the deep emotional need for true intimacy, the "user" mistakenly believes that he just needs a stronger fix, and goes out looking for one.

Outsiders focus there criticism of Catholicism on the prohibition against birth-control. In doing so they fail to see the positive side: that the prohibition is intended to protect the highest and best life a human being can have.

The Puritans are another group much maligned for their alleged disapproval of sex, so much so that the word "puritanical" has become an unanswerable condemnation of any restraint on sexual appetite. In fact, the Puritans were quite in favor of enjoying sex, as long as it was in the right context: marriage. There is even one recorded case of a wife taking her husband to the authorities on the complaint that he wasn't having sex with her. For a more accurate view of the Puritans see the book Worldly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were by Professor Leland Ryken. You'll discover that the Puritans were not "puritanical"! They seemed to follow the cue from St Paul's letter to the Corinthians, in which he says that husbands and wives should not withhold sex from each other. Paul knew the strength of human urges, and he urges us all to satisfy them in the right way, one that leads to the greatest happiness and lasting fulfillment.

So please don't make fun of people who are trying to increase human happiness by showing us all the higher path.

---

It's fine to not like the tagline, but don't mistake your dislike for your religious convictions: plenty of Christian readers, RCC and otherwise, quite enjoyed it -- which you would know if you had read their comments before posting yours. One has to presume Catholics agree with the church, since they'd leave if they didn't -- yet so far 100 percent of those who have expressed an opinion have enjoyed the tagline, so so much for your premise. -rc

Posted by Lynne, Portland, Oregon on June 14, 2008:

When I was fifteen, I gave the rabbi a blow job in Temple. I consented with great pleasure and we didn't get caught. It was one of my better adventures, actually, and it was fun.

I've always been a proponent of public sex -- the risk of getting caught spices up the action. At my advanced age following years of celibacy it's getting hard to remember these things, but I do seem to recall that the desire to have sex doesn't always coincide with being in one's own home.

Obviously this couple planned an adventure so as to amp the Spice Factor and had no intentions of getting caught. I don't understand why anyone should be horrified -- they're hardly the first couple to have sex, even consenting sex, in a church.

Of course adventure would have been much better if they hadn't gotten caught but then Randy would have had one less story for True and probably have substituted yet another predictable Zero Tolerance story, so maybe I'm glad they did get caught.

(For the record, I am now an atheist. I was baptized Roman Catholic in my twenties but it obviously didn't take -- I now consider myself a secular Jew. And I would never roll a pig's head through a mosque or even a temple -- where's the fun in that?)

Posted by Brien, San Diego on June 14, 2008:

Ok calling on Captain Obvious - Yes a church is different than other buildings, like a bathroom in the public park, the library and the courthouse.

You can't file a suit over a cross on public land in the park restroom or check out the Communist Manefesto from the Courthouse. We have all placed more than emotional ties to those buildings so by default the argument that a building is just a building is defunct.

Someone else who claimed that religion is not reason is also misguided. Just because the brand of religion you got annoyed with didn't teach correct understanding and learning of scripture does not mean ALL religion is non reasoning.

I agree the tagline was irreverently comical over the significant irony of the comments by the priest but again no excuse for the Goth grope and grind.

Posted by Deborah Newbury, New York on June 14, 2008:

As an atheist, I find the actions of the couple reprehensible. Atheism does not excuse rude and thoughtless behavior.

Posted by Serginho, Sao Paulo, Brasil on June 14, 2008:

Sorry, Brien--religion is not reason. It is faith. It is an attempt to explain what we have not been able to establish via scientific proof.

But when scientific proof establishes that a formerly held religious belief is not factual, reason dictates that religion must yield.

Otherwise we would still believe that the earth is flat, that the sun is pulled across the sky in a horse-drawn chariot, that the sky itself is a plastic bubble with water above it, with windows that God opens up from time to time to produce rain, and women have more ribs than men.

All of which we know not to be true.

Posted by Merritt in Houston on June 14, 2008:

I was Roman Catholic until my mid-twenties and have now been an atheist for over forty years. When I first read the story I did not believe the couple to be atheists as this would be inappropriate behavior and contrary to a rational respect for the beliefs of others. My initial thought was that they were just looking for a special thrill by having sex in a "forbidden" place (like the "mile high" club) and that the atheist story was just a hasty excuse when they were caught.

As an atheist I had to develop a moral code to conduct myself and for my family. This code is based significantly upon logic and reason and tolerance of what others choose to believe or do. I have no interest in forcing my beliefs upon others and I don't want theirs forced upon me. I have Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, etc. friends and in general, we live and let live in harmony.

However, I was once in the position of filing a separation of church and state lawsuit against a public school in the "Bible Belt" that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. There were regular threats against me and my child and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and many of the local Christian churches circulated petitions with my name in them and denouncing my attempt to keep the public schools from becoming parochial schools. The Jewish community did not follow suit and basically supported the concept of non-secular public schools. It saddens me to note that the fundamentalist (evangelical) Christians which are significant in numbers in this area tend to be less tolerant than the other religions and sects and continue to push for (and practice) prayer and bible studies in the public schools.

Most of the atheists that I know are rational, logical and highly principled individuals and would consider the behavior exhibited by this couple as unacceptable and inconsistent with our atheist philosophy. (Certainly, I have non-atheist friends with many of the same characteristics). I do live in an upscale and well-educated community so this may be a factor.

This discussion may have drifted from the original issue but the point is that I believe both atheists and non-atheists with any sense of good manners and consideration for others would not condone the depicted act. However, these inappropriate acts are commonplace in a world of six billion people. They provide fodder for some discussion and debate but are not worthy of any vitriolic behavior.

Posted by Fred, Australia on June 14, 2008:

Haha, we could go fishing with this story; it is so full of bait which has been taken. First the Goths who wanted to create a stir by baiting the Bishop (I notice it is another Australian who shares my idea that a swift kick in their exposed nether regions would have fixed them), then the article was written to induce outrage...or laughter (very similar), and look at all this serious talk about the story.

My paraphrase "2 d-head goths wanted to create a stir by having sex in a church, which they managed to do. God has been asked for comment, but hasn't seen the issue as big enough to comment on."

BTW, I am a strong Conservative Christian and I think the whole affair ludicrous....including the tag..

Posted by rewinn, Washington on June 15, 2008:

Brien - there's a difference between reason and reasoning.

You can exercise the process of reasoning on any premises; for example, Douglas Hofstadter wrote a delightful essay on "What if PI were 3?" and demonstrated that circles are hexagons (given that premise). It's marvelous reasoning even if, on the evidence, contrary to fact and therefore to reason. Likewise, you can (Aquinas-like) make long chains of reasoning based on the premise that something had to create the universe, and that thing we call God; but that chain of reasoning hangs on a premise than can be neither proven nor disproven.

Reason, on the other hand, is not a process but a premise itself: that the basis for belief should be be reasoning from provable facts. Revealed religions reject that premise. For example, it is a fundamental tenant of Christianity that scripture is revealed truth. This is not a provable fact; if you don't believe it, you're not a Christian; if you do believe it, you don't need proof. From this belief, you can use reasoning to come to such conclusions as "correct understanding and learning of scripture" take you, ... but first you have to make the leap of faith to accept Scripture. And that is directly contradictory to Reason.

I should have noted that it may be possible to have a religion based not on faith nor revelation; some say that Buddhism and Unitarian/Universalism are process-oriented rather than belief-oriented religions. I accept that correction if so.