posted
"Even a huge scandal with several Catholic priests abusing boys didn't manage to start anything approximating a religious war."
I beg to differ. Those scandals, no matter how horrible the reality of the crimes are, have been used for a secret religious war for a long time. Perhaps no blood is drawn, but there are battle lines none the less.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think I have more than hinted at the direction this could go; religious war. Mormons trying to apologize for the stupidity of a few with many others using them as an example of how secretly evil Mormons are. The missionaries just become proxy for the larger battles.
Oh good grief.
We as latter day saints choose to send out immature young men to represent our religion. That is our choice and we have to be willing to accept the consequences on those occasions when our missionaries act like the immature young men they are and do stupid, offensive and criminal things. If those consequences mean we have to issue public apologies that some people won't believe -- it hardly warrants the whining and complaining you've been doing.
This isn't a religious war and its not about to become one. No one has yet publicly claimed that this represents views of the church as a whole, sued the church or asked for sanctions against the church. No one has suggested that this represents a flaw inherent in the Mormon belief system or has left the church over it. And quite frankly, I think its pretty far fetched to believe thats going to happen.
I'm certain that those who already have negative views about the Mormons aren't going to suddenly adopt a positive view because the church apologized for the behavior of their missionaries. I'm confident that those who are looking for one more reason to dislike the Mormons will find it here. That doesn't make this a religious war
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, Out of curiousity, I would consider violent crimes in a different category than property crimes but I'm not sure why? Is there any legal precedence for that? Can you think of any cases where you or other prosecutors would prosecute theft or vandalism of private property if the victim did not request it?
I don't think it's an official category, but domestic violence, murder, and assaults that render the victim incapable of consent are the only crime I'm aware of that are prosecuted absent the victim's consent as a matter of course.
I can imagine property crimes being prosecuted in the face of victims objections in situations where violence is possible. For example, imagine a protection racket breaking windows of shopkeepers who won't pay up. But, even there, there's a violent backdrop even though it's not an element of the crime.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think far more harm would come to these young men if they -didn't- face the full secular and spiritual consequences of what they've done.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dags, is the distinction between crimes against persons and crimes against property only a matter of police divisions, not law?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Puffy, but at the same time it is incidents like this that set back missionary work in an area somewhere on the order of decades. People in Taiwan know about the missionary vandalism of the Buddhist statue in Thailand, and that happened something like 20 years ago in another country.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup, it sets back church efforts a long way but its not like we have anyone to blame but ourselves (and the stupid missionaries).
We choose as a church to send out immature young men as missionaries knowing that once in a while they will behave in a manner that embarrasses the church. When you look at the way typical 19 & 20 year old guys behave, I think we are very lucky (divinely blessed?) that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often.
As I said before I think its very important for all missionaries to understand that as long as they are full time missionaries, they are representatives of their church and their God, 24 hours a day 7 days a week. When they do something shameful, they shame not only themselves but the church and God they represent.
Its really unfair for Church members to complain that the media is unfair and people are unfair if the whole church is damaged because of the actions of a few bad apples. The Church has called those young men to be our representatives to the world. We bare responsibility. Rather than complain, we just need to dig in and try harder to do a better job of following Jesus Christ.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh, I knew this exaggerated "war" rhetoric sounded vaguely familiar:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: It is clear there is a war in the United States, and it is between atheists and theists. Considering what I am reading, bullets and bombs might have to come into play someday.
quote:However, the vote and the LDS Church actions and the legal charges and finally the public scrutiny has tipped the scale for me toward the missionaries.
...
quote:I know what I am about to say is going to boil some blood, but this has become a religious war by proxy.
quote:My take is predictable: young people of any religion can be knuckleheads.
To be fair, older people of any religiong can often be knuckleheads too - sometimes to an even greater degree.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dags, is the distinction between crimes against persons and crimes against property only a matter of police divisions, not law?
The distinction is often encoded into the chapter headings of the criminal code, but in general those headings have no legal effect.
There are quite a few provisions that make a distinction between violent and non-violent crimes, such as gun laws, but that distinction often doesn't track the chapter headings in the code.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, if you're so excited about the chance to shoot people not of your religion, I suggest working off the aggression in another way. Maybe join a kick-boxing class.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dags, is the distinction between crimes against persons and crimes against property only a matter of police divisions, not law?
The distinction is often encoded into the chapter headings of the criminal code, but in general those headings have no legal effect.
I had no idea. I find that rather disturbing, although I realize the distinction can be blurry at times.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO, crimes against persons should automatically be viewed as deserving of harsher penalties -- not to mention get more police/DA/etc. time and resources -- than those against property.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:IMO, crimes against persons should automatically be viewed as deserving of harsher penalties -- not to mention get more police/DA/etc. time and resources -- than those against property.
That's pretty much reflected in the law, but it's done by assigning specific punishments to specific crimes, rather than on a categorical basis. And they definitely get more police/DA resources.
A good example is larceny v. robbery. Larceny is a crime against property - it means taking something that doesn't belong to you. Robbery is a crime against the person - it's an assault for the purpose of committing larceny. Robbery generally has much stiffer penalties. It's also more likely to be part of career criminal legislation than larceny.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:IMO, crimes against persons should automatically be viewed as deserving of harsher penalties -- not to mention get more police/DA/etc. time and resources -- than those against property.
That's pretty much reflected in the law, but it's done by assigning specific punishments to specific crimes, rather than on a categorical basis. And they definitely get more police/DA resources.
A good example is larceny v. robbery. Larceny is a crime against property - it means taking something that doesn't belong to you. Robbery is a crime against the person - it's an assault for the purpose of committing larceny. Robbery generally has much stiffer penalties. It's also more likely to be part of career criminal legislation than larceny.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Occasional, if you're so excited about the chance to shoot people not of your religion, I suggest working off the aggression in another way. Maybe join a kick-boxing class.
I haven't told you lately, but I love you! Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
