Monday, February 12, 2007

whack-a-troll day

next...

"goombah said...
Comparing a monument sitting in a public space (since removed) to forcing an individual to act against his religious convictions is nonsense. Surely someone of your self-proclaimed wit and intelligence can find better examples to get your panties in a twist over. Give it a try."

look goombah (and thank you for not being annonymous), the marriage commissioner's religious convictions are irrelevent. such convictions are their own business. that commissioner simply does not have the right to inflict those beliefs on other people's lives. full stop. period. you're offering a legal service. you do not get to choose your customers. you are not representing yourself, you are representing the dominion of canada.

the job title is civil marriage commissioner. by definition, one who performs marriage ceremonies with no religious context. the marriage, a contractual agreement between two consenting persons, that are legally free to marry, is notarized by this minor state functionary. since when does some soft assed bureaucrat's supernatural stance trump the legal rights of two citizens?

one of the popular gambits of the trollosphere(tm) is the civility jive. please, someone explain to me just how this commissioner or his supporters canmake any claim to civility. imagine. on your wedding day, you gather those closest to you, family, friends and loved ones. you plan a quiet, private civil ceremony followed by a fabulous meal, drinks and dancing. you anticipate sharing old memories and forging new ones. people have travelled to join your celebrations. it is a big day, even if it doesn't have a religious component.

so there you are, nervous, excited, it all seems to be happening so fast. you take a breath and someone decides to throw a wrench in your works. you're held up at the counter, functionaries huddle and buzz. someone tells you there's been a delay, you ask why. they tell you, the commissioner refuses to perform your ceremony because he disapproves of your lifestyle. he disapprovse of you.

he also disapproves of your intended, the one you love. by extension and through cavalier disregard, he disapproves of and offends your family and friends. the kick off to the biggest day of your life ruined by some sanctimonious twerp. this has less than nothing to do with religious convictions and everything to do with bigotry. will the commissioner join two multiple divorcees? you bet your praying beads he will, despite that being adultery, if you want to get all fundamental on it. he'll do his job in the face of one of god's laws that actually made it into the commandments, with a shalt not and everything. just which biblical admonitions do you get to enforce? how do you know which ones don't apply to you? like, judge not...

speaking of commandments, that "public place" wasn't just a public place. it was the house of justice, the seat of civil arbitration under the laws of the people and the laws of the land. certainly, ancient laws influenced modern jurisprudence but one could argue that any number of documents were more vital to the shape of the law than ten common sense rules for a nascent cult to survive. look up british common law sometime, magna carta and all that.

a massive monument of one religious law tells the public that justice isn't blind. that justice isn't impartial. that your hope for a fair trial might be lessened by dint of faith. it all comes down to the desire to impose one's individual personal law upon others. this is not about following one's religious convictions, this is about establishing primacy of faith. this is inverse to civility. these small incursions and self proclaimed magical rights are no less that small usurpations of state by church.

would it still be a forced act against religious conviction, if a pagan dentist refused to fix your toothache late on a friday afternoon, because of the prominent cross around your neck? you, who's church hunted, killed and tried to eradicate her spiritual forebears. would her right to religious conviction trump your right to impartial care? because after all, there's more than one dentist. her deep faith in her gods and goddesses is no less significant than your belief in your god. and son. and etherial partner. right? after all, if you get a bye for your belief, shouldn't everybody get to play? moslems believe with great conviction. what laws and rules can they ignore out of respect for their faith? too inflammatory? what with the campaign to brand every moslem a heartless killer. let's try a more benign faith. what rules of sexual modesty is a tantric devotee allowed to skip? how many brides will the offshoot mormon elder be allowed before someone tut-tuts.

or is it only your deeply held belief that counts?

9 comments:

aweb said...

This issue is just another in a long line of issues where one side sees it as up for debate. It's been said before, about many topics, but sometimes one side is just wrong. End of debate.

I assume it's the strong religious component of that side which has twisted minds to think that everything is up for interpretation (bible studies anyone?). Or maybe it's something else, but the inability to let anything go, ever, and just accept that they were/are wrong, is staggering.

Oh, and I'm enjoying the contrasting styles of CC and pretty shaved ape. Although capital letters would be nice sometimes.

thwap said...

Oh very good, very good indeed!

I liked the part about how they'd probably marry divorcees and about the significance of the civil law and the office that the ceremony is being carried out in.

Jordan Alcock said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
goombah said...

"Or maybe it's something else, but the inability to let anything go, ever, and just accept that they were/are wrong, is staggering."

And religious people are the intolerant and close-minded ones?

Jordan Alcock said...

Hmmm, i don't think I've ever seen anything written on here of any value until I read this post. And, I must say that I agree that a civil marriage commissioner has two options: perform the ceremony against his religious values, or quit and get a new job.

Religious disagreement is reserved for church ceremonies - churches have, and should have every right to deny any person marriage sanctioned by the church.

But when we're talking about state-run marriage, they are obliged to keep religion out of it.

as for you aweb - Your suggestion is ridiculous. Any issue is fair-game and up for debate. Its free speech and democracy - and the problem with people like you is that instead of arguing with fact, you decide to hold your hands over your ears and say its not there. And if you really feel like talking about sides being wrong, then you better be letting go of kyoto lest you break that pretty glass house of yours.

goombah said...

One question to CC and the Ape: Am I considered a troll simply because I read your blog and offered a dissenting opinion?

If you restrict your readership only to baglickers, how ever will you manage to whip yourselves into a hissy fit over alternate views?

David said...

Goombah wrote:

"And religious people are the intolerant and close-minded ones?"

It's like he's putting a ball on a stick for six-year-olds to hit with a bat, thinking it's a challenge.

And, for the record, I have never licked CC's bag. But, he has hoofed me in the nuts at least once. Bastard.

pretty shaved ape said...

goombah i used the term troll because the tone and tenor of your entrance suggested it. you didn't offer a dissenting opinion. you scoffed and dismissed.

the examples cc gave in the original post made perfect sense in the context of the christian faith entitlement phenomenon. he did not say these were the same things, but they were propped up using the same stick. belief trumps law.

you framed your words to just skirt the bounds of prevarication. you diminished the monument issue by placing it in a generic "public space". when the issue in that instance was that the monument was in a court of law.

you follow by maligning cc's wit and intelligence while offering none of your own as a counter example.

you then try to dismiss the whole business with the "panties in a twist" garbage.

i called you a troll because that is what you is. you did not come to engage in discussion. you did not come to convince or to be convinced. you showed up pissed on the lawn and now you're sniffy because, like any recalcitrant pup, you've had your nose rubbed in it.

"If you restrict your readership only to baglickers, how ever will you manage to whip yourselves into a hissy fit over alternate views?"

there is no doubt in my mind that the readership of this site will be more than happy to slap me around the ear if they think i'm saying something stupid. as for how we'll manage without petulant dimwits parading through the comments, well, we'll get by. it isn't like there's a shortage of stupidity in the world to discuss, though it has been generous of you to provide home delivery.

goombah, you will think what you think and believe what you want. if you want to be something other than a troll, offer argumnets, try to validate your stance. otherwise, you're backing a lie out of stubborn ignorance and retrograde bigotry.

as for your thoughts on intolerance. yes, in this case, this subset of christians are intolerant. in refusing to perform the duties of the job based on personal judgement of others, in denying legal services of the government to citizens, you and your gang are intolerant.

you are the banjo. we are the orchestra.

Ti-Guy said...

Hmmm, i don't think I've ever seen anything written on here of any value..

...and your obnoxious, obvious and overlong contribution changes that how, All Cock?