Topic: Is the Church Above The Law? Church Double Standards

[rusty]

How US churches exploit tax exemption to promote faith-based politics
With the IRS turning a blind eye, the Christian right is getting its political advertising subsidised by American taxpayers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/20/us-churches-tax-exemption-faithbased-politics

[rusty]

Jesus wept … oh, it's bad plumbing. Indian rationalist targets 'miracles'
Sanal Edamaruku faces jail for revealing 'tears' trickling down a Mumbai church statue came from clogged drainage pipes

When water started trickling down a statue of Jesus Christ at a Catholic church in Mumbai earlier this year, locals were quick to declare a miracle. Some began collecting the holy water and the Church of Our Lady of Velankanni began to promote it as a site of pilgrimage.

So when Sanal Edamaruku arrived and established that this was not holy water so much as holey plumbing, the backlash was severe. The renowned rationalist was accused of blasphemy, charged with offences that carry a three-year prison sentence and eventually, after receiving death threats, had to seek exile in Finland.

Now he is calling for European governments to press Delhi into dropping the case. And on the first leg of a tour around EU capitals on Friday, he warned that India was sacrificing freedom of expression for outdated, colonial-era rules about blasphemy.

"There is a huge contradiction in the content of the Indian constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and the blasphemy law from 1860 under then colonial rule," Edamaruku told the Guardian in an interview in Dublin.

"This blasphemy law can affect anyone in India – even a girl recently who wrote on Facebook against closing down a city because of the death of a famous local politician. She was prosecuted under the blasphemy law and another girl who 'liked' her comment on Facebook was also arrested and then charged with blasphemy."

Edamaruku, who has the support of rationalists and atheists such as Richard Dawkins, is well known in India for debunking religious myths, and was already unpopular among Indian Catholics for publicly criticising Mother Teresa's legacy in Kolkata.

When the state "miracle" was pronounced, he went to Mumbai and found that the dripping water was due to clogged drainage pipes behind the wall where it stood. His revelation provoked death threats from religious zealots and ultimately charges of blasphemy under the Indian penal code in the Mumbai high court.

"India cannot criticise Pakistan for arresting young girls for blaspheming against Islam while it arrests and locks up its own citizens for breaking our country's blasphemy laws," he said. "It is an absurd law but also extremely dangerous because it gives fanatics, whether they are Hindus, Catholics or Muslims, a licence to be offended. It also allows people who are in dispute with you to make up false accusations of blasphemy."

Edamaruku said his exposure of the weeping statue was also a contribution to public health in Mumbai as some believers were drinking the water hoping it could cure ailments. "This was sewage water seeping through a wall due to faulty plumbing," he said. "It posed a health risk to people who were fooled into believing it was a miracle."

He has been living in Finland since the summer. He was in Europe on a lecture tour in July when his partner rang to say the police had arrived at his flat. "I felt really upset because under the blasphemy law you cannot get bail until the court case begins. I would be in jail now if I had been at my apartment in Delhi," he said.

He has spurned an offer from a senior Indian Catholic bishop to apologise for the exposure of the "miracle".

"The Catholic archbishop of Bombay, Oswald, Cardinal Gracias, has said that if I apologise for the 'offence' I have caused he will see to it that the charges are dropped. This shows that he has influence in the situation but he will not use it unless I apologise, which I will not do as I have done nothing wrong," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/23/india-blasphemy-jesus-tears?fb=optOut

[rusty]

Fugitive Pinoy priest in pornography scandal surrenders, repatriated to US
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/285896/pinoyabroad/crime/fugitive-pinoy-priest-in-pornography-scandal-surrenders-repatriated-to-us

[hitman531ph]

Hirap sa simbahan, pinapakialaman ang pamahalaan tulad ni Damaso at Salvi.

[rexFi]

Hmm.. been reviewing my Patristics, and came upon the story of Emperor Constantine I. Because of the  Athanasius of Alexandria part.

I think he was the best in doing the vice-versa of this thread "Politics/Law into the Church".

[dpogs]

Hmm.. been reviewing my Patristics, and came upon the story of Emperor Constantine I. Because of the  Athanasius of Alexandria part.

I think he was the best in doing the vice-versa of this thread "Politics/Law into the Church".

i believe dyan nagsimula ang relihiyong Roman Catholics... dahil kay Constantine na irn... befor Constantine there is no such Roman Catholics...

[sharkey360]

The logic of them pro-lifers.



Pro-life should go beyond protecting the unborn. It should also include improving the quality of life and helping people survive.

Does the church have more than enough money to feed the countless hungry children?

[Klaus Weasley]

Life begins at conception....unless millions of dollars are on line!

HAH! What hypocrites.

[Frankthetank]

Hmm.. been reviewing my Patristics, and came upon the story of Emperor Constantine I. Because of the  Athanasius of Alexandria part.

I think he was the best in doing the vice-versa of this thread "Politics/Law into the Church".

Up to now, it is still a debate if the conversion of Constantine (early 300ad) is really sincere... or he just used religion to unify his fragmented kingdom. It is possible that his conversion is politically motivated.

Bishop Athanasius is also the one who ordered to destroy all heretic books circulating around christian communities. When the bible was canonized there are still books that was not included on the canon used by early christians. To solidify the Catholic church he ordered them destroyed, anyone caught will be punished.

[RU9]

Priest Is Planning to Defy the Vatican’s Orders to Stay Quiet

DUBLIN — A well-known Irish Catholic priest plans to defy Vatican authorities on Sunday by breaking his silence about what he says is a campaign against him by the church over his advocacy of more open discussion on church teachings.

The Rev. Tony Flannery, 66, who was suspended by the Vatican last year, said he was told by the Vatican that he would be allowed to return to ministry only if he agreed to write, sign and publish a statement agreeing, among other things, that women should never be ordained as priests and that he would adhere to church orthodoxy on matters like contraception and homosexuality.

“How can I put my name to such a document when it goes against everything I believe in,” he said in an interview on Wednesday. “If I signed this, it would be a betrayal not only of myself but of my fellow priests and lay Catholics who want change. I refuse to be terrified into submission.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/world/europe/priest-is-planning-to-defy-vaticans-orders-to-stay-quiet.html

[rusty]

Anger as US records show Catholic sex abuse cover-up

LOS ANGELES  - Victims of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic clerics voiced anger Tuesday after newly-released records showed church leaders discussing how to cover up priests’ alleged crimes in California in the 1980s.

Prosecutors also said they wanted to study the previously confidential records, including exchanges involving then Los Angeles Archbishop Roger Mahony about how to prevent police hearing about alleged abuse cases.

Excerpts from the documents were published Monday by The Los Angeles Times, including exchanges between Mahony and a top aide talking about how to conceal pedophile priests from law enforcement.

The records include secret memos between Mahony and Monsignor Thomas Curry, his top aide on sex abuse cases, about how to prevent police from probing three priests who had admitted to the church that they had abused young boys.

Specifically Curry suggested stopping suspected priests from seeing psychiatric therapists who might alert authorities about alleged abuse, or keeping them outside of California to avoid police investigations, the Times reported.

One such was Monsignor Peter Garcia, who admitted abusing children in mostly Spanish-speaking parishes for decades. He was sent to a New Mexico treatment center for pedophile clergy, and Mahony ordered that he stay outside California.

“I believe that if Monsignor Garcia were to reappear here within the archdiocese we might very well have some type of legal action filed in both the criminal and civil sectors,” Mahony wrote in July 1986.

“There are numerous — maybe twenty — adolescents or young adults that Peter was involved with in a first degree felony manner,” wrote Curry in May 1987.

Reacting Tuesday, Joelle Casteix of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP, said: “We were shocked and disgusted to see these documents.”

Mahony “personally managed the careers of predator priests,” she said outside the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in downtown Los Angeles.

“He and other high-ranking (LA clergy) including now-Bishop Curry worked diligently to ensure that men who hurt children, who abused children and who destroyed communities were never going to see a day behind bars.”

A spokeswoman for the LA District Attorney’s office said prosecutors “will review and evaluate all documents as they become available to us,” the Times said.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/345593/anger-as-us-records-show-catholic-sex-abuse-cover-up

[krets pulpol]

Celdran found guilty of 'offending religious feelings'

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/01/28/13/celdran-found-guilty-offending-religious-feelings

[Klaus Weasley]

Celdran found guilty of 'offending religious feelings'

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/01/28/13/celdran-found-guilty-offending-religious-feelings

This is ridiculous! I think it demands a seperate thread.

[dpogs]

Section Four. — Crimes against religious worship

Art. 132. Interruption of religious worship. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion.
If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.chanrobles virtual law library

Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

[Klaus Weasley]

Section Four. — Crimes against religious worship

Art. 132. Interruption of religious worship. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion.
If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.chanrobles virtual law library

Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

Such things should be either repealed or not enforced at all, most especially the second one. It is a violation of the freedom of expression.

[bumblebee]

I disagree. He could have expressed his freedom some place else.

[Klaus Weasley]

I disagree. He could have expressed his freedom some place else.

Perhaps he was out of place disrupting the mass but "offending religious sensibilities" is OUTRAGEOUS. In a society with freedom of speech, we have no right NOT to be offended. If something someone says offends you, you fight back with YOUR freedom of expression. You do not send them to jail. That's tyranny.

[Mr. Hankey]

Enforcing the word of the law is not tyranny.

Move to get the law repealed, sure. But until it is, you are obligated to follow it, or you risk suffering the clearly written sanctions.

You don't get to choose which laws you wish to follow.

[bumblebee]

Perhaps he was out of place disrupting the mass but "offending religious sensibilities" is OUTRAGEOUS. In a society with freedom of speech, we have no right NOT to be offended. If something someone says offends you, you fight back with YOUR freedom of expression. You do not send them to jail. That's tyranny.

He IS out of place. There's no "perhaps" here. He can offend religious sensibilities all he want. That's his right.  But do it some place else.

[barrister]

Perhaps he was out of place disrupting the mass but "offending religious sensibilities" is OUTRAGEOUS. In a society with freedom of speech, we have no right NOT to be offended. If something someone says offends you, you fight back with YOUR freedom of expression. You do not send them to jail. That's tyranny.

Why would that be outrageous?
 
We're free to criticize and offend the religious feelings of the Catholic Church in other places.  But we are not free to do that while disrupting an ongoing Mass inside a Cathedral.
 
Obviously, the dumbass was not aware of Art. 133 of the Revised Penal Code when he pulled off his cheap stunt.  If he did, he would have done it elsewhere.  Next time, he should consult a lawyer before he tries to be cute. 
 

[Verbl Kint]

What are his chances at the Court of Appeals?

[barrister]

What are his chances at the Court of Appeals?

Very slim.
 

We don't have much jurisprudence on the matter, since prosecution under Art. 133 is pretty unusual.

The only defense I can think of is that his acts may be offensive to the feelings of the faithful, but cannot be considered "notoriously offensive," which is a strict requirement of the provision.
 
In 1939, SC Justice Jose P. Laurel once wrote in a dissenting opinion:
 
"...I believe that an act, in order to be considered as notoriously offensive to the religious feelings, must be one directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule; the offender, for instance, mocks, scoffs at or attempts to damage an object of religious veneration; it must be abusive, insulting and obnoxious (Viada, Comentarios al Codigo Penal, 707, 708; vide also Pacheco, Codigo Penal, p. 359)."
 
Following J. Laurel's view, Celdran's act was directed against abusive members of the clergy, not specifically against Catholic dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule; hence not "notoriously offensive."
 
But still, malabo pa rin ang acquittal.
 

[Prometheus75]

From a strictly layman's POV, isn't "offending religious feelings" a tad too general/subjective? I've always had the idea/impression of laws as very confined and specific that when you do violate one, wala ka na talagang kawala from the corresponding sanction.

Parang 'yung post nga ni atty. sa itaas: it's open to argument on what act or behavior constitutes offensive, or when it qualifies as notorious.

[barrister]

Lahat naman ng laws puwede mong sabihin na general or subjective.

But that is not how laws are interpreted.

There must be a basis for the interpretation, such as jurisprudence and commentaries of respected legal authors.  Spanish jurisprudence can also be used as basis, since our Revised Penal Code was based on the Spanish Penal Code.

But you can't just say it's not offensive or not notorious in your personal opinion.  You must point out the legal basis to support your view.

[Flash]

What is really involved here is freedom of religion. Nobody should be allowed to use his "freedom of expression" to mock somebody else in his place of worship or during the celebration of a solemn ceremony. You can do whatever you want in the parking lot but not inside. I don't think the law is outdated at all. It is meant to preserve order and protect people who are peacefully practicing their faith. Imagine if every church parish/mosque/temple had a Celdran shouting in the middle of the mass.

[Klaus Weasley]

"...I believe that an act, in order to be considered as notoriously offensive to the religious feelings, must be one directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule; the offender, for instance, mocks, scoffs at or attempts to damage an object of religious veneration; it must be abusive, insulting and obnoxious (Viada, Comentarios al Codigo Penal, 707, 708; vide also Pacheco, Codigo Penal, p. 359)."

*This* portion of the law IS in fact outdated and a violation of freedom of expression. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression should not be freedom of speech that's harmless and inoffensive. It is in fact OFFENSIVE speech that should be protected. People should be free to mock and ridicule religion. If you're offended, you can fight back by using YOUR freedom of expression, not by throwing people in jail.

[leomarley]

IMO, just like the libel clause in the Cybercrime Law, the penalty in "offending religious feelings" should not be criminalized. we really need to revise the Revised Penal Code.

[Verbl Kint]

Very slim.
 

We don't have much jurisprudence on the matter, since prosecution under Art. 133 is pretty unusual.

The only defense I can think of is that his acts may be offensive to the feelings of the faithful, but cannot be considered "notoriously offensive," which is a strict requirement of the provision.
 
In 1939, SC Justice Jose P. Laurel once wrote in a dissenting opinion:
 
"...I believe that an act, in order to be considered as notoriously offensive to the religious feelings, must be one directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule; the offender, for instance, mocks, scoffs at or attempts to damage an object of religious veneration; it must be abusive, insulting and obnoxious (Viada, Comentarios al Codigo Penal, 707, 708; vide also Pacheco, Codigo Penal, p. 359)."
 
Following J. Laurel's view, Celdran's act was directed against abusive members of the clergy, not specifically against Catholic dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule; hence not "notoriously offensive."
 
But still, malabo pa rin ang acquittal.
 

Thank you, counselor.

[sharkey360]

[Mr. Hankey]

Jesus taught us better English than that meme.