quote:The battle has nothing to do with Hindu theology or ritual. Instead, it is about who should run the temple, and whether the messy business of democracy has any place in a house of worship.
On one side are six members who say the temple is run too autocratically. They are demanding the right to vote for the board of trustees. In August, a state appeals court sided with the six members, ordering elections to be held for the first time.
On the other side are the temple's trustees, who call the court's ruling an outrageous invasion. They say the lawsuit is just a power play by disaffected members who would like to run the temple themselves. .... When it comes to elections, both sides are adamant. Dr. Uma Mysorekar, the temple's president, says forcing an election among hundreds or thousands of members could turn a sacred space into a circus. "We want a system that prevails based on dedication and commitment, not based on popularity," Dr. Mysorekar said. The current system, in which the temple's unpaid 11-member board manages the temple's affairs and votes on its own members when their terms come up, is democratic enough, she says.
The plaintiffs say they are stunned that the temple is spending money to fight democracy, while American soldiers are dying to promote it in Iraq. They concede that Indian temples do not hold elections, but say they want to change that.
I think this is outrageous - the courts are interfering far beyond their power. You aren't supposed to mess with the way a religion is run.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Hmmmm..
I wonder how LDS would react if the court stepped in and said they had to elect their next president by worldwide "popular" vote in the church...
FG
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree, kat. I'm not sure if I have an opinion on the issue itself; but the courts have no right to get involved.
The fact that members of the temple went to a secular authority to get their way makes their case that much less valid in my eyes. If you feel that changes need to be made within your religion, do it from within. Forcing it from outside strikes me as a good way to cause a schism.
[ December 05, 2003, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That was my first thought. If this stands, what's keeping that from happening?
Dang, I wonder if the fact that the current head - the one they can't stand - is female has anything to do with it.
quote:They also admit to having a personal grudge against Dr. Mysorekar, whom they accuse of forcing out dissenting board members over the years to maintain her control over the temple.
One thing seems clear: holding elections in such a hostile climate could be very unpleasant. The plaintiffs are already planning a campaign to oust the temple's current board. One of their lawyers, in a letter to the court-appointed referee, demanded that they be allowed to set up a table before the election "at a prominent spot in the Temple" to disseminate their views. If that is not done, he wrote, the election will be a "Saddam Hussein-type farce."
That unflattering comparison is aimed at Dr. Mysorekar, who has been the temple's president for nine years. A small, poised woman of 55, she has given up most of her private practice as a gynecologist to volunteer her time at the temple, and has donated over $1 million of her own money to its projects. She can be found there at all times of day, arranging lectures, shepherding guests, dusting tables. Even her enemies applaud her dedication.
[ December 05, 2003, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I didn't want to do the signup deal, so I'll base my remarks on your quote. I think where the religion already has a precedent of voting on things, if someone's right to participate in that voting process were intefered with, I could see the government getting involved.
In the LDS church, everything is done by revelation and inspiration, though we do vote to sustain leaders called over us. If someone votes against, the leaders are supposed to resolve it. If they don't, is your only choice really to just stop attending church?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The document, discovered by a lawyer for the plaintiffs, is a copy of the temple's original bylaws, filed with the federal government when the temple was founded in 1970 and apparently lost soon thereafter.
The 1970 bylaws say the members have voting rights. And though the temple trustees wrote new, more restrictive rules soon afterward, they never followed the proper procedure in amending the old bylaws, because they were not aware of them.
That failure was the basis of the legal ruling requiring the temple to reinstate the 1970 bylaws and hold elections. The temple's board appealed the ruling to the state's highest court, without success.
Aw, crud.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Yeah, right, like the Catholics are going to elect the Pope.
And I know that techincally the Pope is elected, but that is by the College of Cardinals, who are appointed by the Pope. I mean a general world wide popular election.
msquared
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hmm. That does put a slightly different spin on things.
But I still think this is likely to get very ugly.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, if we allow this, as Americans, I think we open up a can of worms that we really don't want to let loose. If a court can order elections in a church, does that not imply that all church/state barriers are in jeopardy?
And whether such barriers are in the constitution or not, I very much like the fact that we have them in place.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Not only did the courts rule that the had to hold elections in the church, they also ruled that they have to use the KJV of the New Testament, and all the church leaders have to drive Chrysler cars.
That'll teach 'em!
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Hmmm, from what I gather this is an issue that I believe should be within the courts' jurisdiction to get involved with, as it is procedural rather than substantive. Who should properly decide whether the (procedural) bylaws of an organisation -- even a religious organisation -- have been followed, if not the courts?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The alternative is making church contracts unenforceable -- ie no mortgages, no gas&electric, no water, etc -- which also precludes meaningful longterm monetary committments/pledges by members.
This particular case is more like the Congress passing a law saying that only Congressmen can vote.
[ December 05, 2003, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Someone has to ask.
All in favor of God raise your right hand. (counts)
All opposed raise your lightening rods.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The extent of voting in the LDS church is similar to the principle of Judicial review. The supreme courts of the states and the Federal Supremem Court are not supposed to make law, though they can decide whether a law that has been made does or does not agree with the constitution. But in the LDS church, this only applies to the calling of persons to a role in the church, and not to church policy.
Edit: Maybe we can get a bunch of religious leaders together to criticize the way the courts do their jobs. Of course, a lot of people think that is already happening.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)