Mormon, Catholic doctrines can collide (No coffee, tea in polling place?)

East Valley Tribune ^ | March 1, 2008 | Lawn Griffiths

[greyfoxx39]

Religious and cultural traditions collide in odd ways.

• Is it right to tell election poll workers, assigned to Mormon church meeting houses, to not bring coffee, sodas or anything else caffeinated to refresh themselves during their long day tending to voters?

-SNIP-

First, let’s look at the polling place duties and sipping Maxwell House in the meeting house.

Longtime Tempe poll worker Mary Ann Hemmingson has signed up to work the polls for the March 11 election. She’ll spend her 14- or 15-hour day in a church, but no longer one that belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“I never sign up to work at a Mormon church because the board workers there are not allowed to have any caffeine on the premises,” she said. “That means no coffee in the morning and no Diet Coke in the afternoon. ... You don’t want to see what I look like without my daily dose of caffeine. It’s not a pretty picture.”

“The Word of Wisdom” portion of the Doctrine and Covenants, put forth in 1833 by church founder and prophet Joseph Smith, says that “hot drinks are not for the body or belly.” Add to that what H. Burke Peterson, first counselor in the Presiding Bishopric, said in 1975: “We know that cola drinks contain the drug caffeine. We know caffeine is not wholesome nor prudent for the use of our bodies. It is only sound judgment to conclude that cola drinks and any others that contain caffeine or other harmful ingredients should not be used.”

Advising followers to restrict what they take into their bodies is one thing, but applying that mandate to those people who perform a public job inside their buildings in a one-day stint seems to be taking things too Far.

[Old Mountain man]

I meant no offense. Again, I apologize.

[colorcountry]

And in my own judgment, the restrictions appear reasonable to me, as well.

Do we still agree?

Election officials seemed to be able to handle it in this instance, and if everyone is in agreement and no one is disenfranchised, then there doesn't seem to be a huge problem.

Most State DO have a problem finding poll workers and so I think it would perhaps be much more appropriate to house the polling location where poll workers are not so limited in their dietary preferences or personal behaviors as long as those behaviors are condoned by the society which they serve (us).

Poll workers don't need added personal restrictions when they choose to serve the public. We should be very appreciative of their service, just as we appreciate the service of jury members. Could you imagine placing such restrictions on members of a jury?

[Tennessee Nana]

I’m not sure that by “my rules” that makes them religious bigots. If your assertions are true (and I have no idea or care whether or not they are), and folks object merely to the explication of the truth, that’s not necessarily bigotry, just hiding from reality.

It also doesn’t appear to be inherently insulting or offensive. It might be frustrating, it might be aggravating, but not insulting.

On the other hand comparing restrictions on caffeine to honor killings is so over the top offensive, that one wonders about those who can’t see it.
___________________________________________________

And yet you posted the following...

To: greyfoxx39

Dear greyfoxx39,
So, it’s acceptable if the owners of the polling place restrict your behavior for five minutes for reasons that are not religious? If, for example, they have a general rule of not having food or beverage in the facility for whatever reason - safety concerns; the carpets are new, they don’t want them sullied; they’re concerned that dropped morsels and drops will attract vermin; whatever - that’s okay, as long as those reasons aren’t religious?

Now you’re reaching into the minds and hearts of those whose facilities it is and telling them that they may only require restrictions for strictly secular reasons. Thus, you don’t really have a problem with the “no coffee” rule. You have a problem with its religious motivation.

I think that makes you a religious bigot.

Good luck with that.

sitetest

234 posted on 03/04/2008 8:56:16 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Old Mountain man]

I can imagine!

LOL!

[sitetest]

Dear greyfoxx39,

“Except if they are LDS religious reasons. I would have the same objection to restrictions for religious reasons by ANY religion,...”

Then excuse me. You may be more of an equal-opportunity religious bigot than merely an anti-LDS religious bigot. It can all be so confusing.

Honestly, you and folks like you remind me of the ACLUites who stroke out if, God forbid, there might be a creche or a menorah on some small speck of public property.

“You state ‘There’s plenty of Mormon-hatred around this place.’, and there’s plenty of ‘you can’t criticize ANYTHING MORMON OR YOU’RE A BIGOTED HATER’ around this place too.”

I agree with both premises you state.

I think that there is a lot of Mormon-hatred around FR, and it’s ugly. I also think that a lot of LDS get their panties in a wad when folks merely point out the differences between the LDS religion and Christianity, or when folks even politely and courteously criticize the LDS religion.

But you don’t seem like a Mormon running around like a chicken with its head cut off screaming about anti-Mormon bigotry, so it didn’t seem appropriate to offer criticism to you on that basis.

“Freedom of speech here lately is subject to the arbitrary mormon filter in exactly the same way that the muslim filter is being imposed on our culture. That should be satisfactory to you.”

Au contraire.

My view is that the antidote to both the attempts to squash theological discussion that calls into question LDS claims and teachings AND the anti-Mormon hatred is to nail them both, openly and honestly.

sitetest

[Old Mountain man]

“It?”

Wow, talk about going personal . . .

[sitetest]

Dear colorcountry,

“Election officials seemed to be able to handle it in this instance, and if everyone is in agreement and no one is disenfranchised, then there doesn’t seem to be a huge problem.”

Ah, then this is really much ado about nothing. No one’s rights were infringed, nothing unreasonable was done. Glad to hear it.

“We should be very appreciative of their service, just as we appreciate the service of jury members. Could you imagine placing such restrictions on members of a jury?”

First, poll workers are volunteers, jurors are often required to serve under pain of law. What you may require of a volunteer differs radically from what you may require of someone pressed into service.

But frankly, around here, jurors are forbidden from smoking during the trial and during deliberations. They may have to go many hours without a smoke break.

My view is pretty much, oh well, suck it up.

sitetest

[Elsie]

I meant no offense. Again, I apologize.

I see you got the memo too! ;^)

[Elsie]

This thread is more fun!

[sitetest]

Dear Tennessee Nana,

In that greyfoxx39 has admitted that he views as illegitimate restrictions based on religious motivations, EVEN IF THEY ARE THE SAME RESTRICTIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE OTHER MOTIVATIONS, my post stands as written.

Thanks for pointing that out.

sitetest

[Old Mountain man]

Actually, the truth is that I meant no offense. And I mean none now.

[Old Mountain man]

It’s sort of funny if you think about it. I mean, Free Republic people arguing against property rights is sort of humorous, don’t you think?

[colorcountry]

If we go down the road of “oh well, it worked in this instance,” we may find ourselves in an interesting position.

Let me posit this scenario since I am very familiar with what is acceptable in a Mormon Ward House.

Women cannot wear shorts in a Mormon Ward House. Nor are low-cut or sleeveless dresses or tops acceptable. What if they allowed those dress restrictions upon voters or poll workers? Would that be acceptable to you?

What if voters were made to genuflect upon entering a Catholic voting location?

[Old Mountain man]

In the case you mention, perhaps it would be best for the government to get another polling place. What’s the problem here?

[greyfoxx39]

My view is that the antidote to both the attempts to squash theological discussion that calls into question LDS claims and teachings AND the anti-Mormon hatred is to nail them both, openly and honestly.

Care to provide a link to a post wherein you have personally attacked someone for their bigotry against non-mormons, in the way you have attacked me? Have you intervened in a situation where there were attacks against those posting documented, factual theological points against mormonism? Link?

it didn’t seem appropriate to offer criticism to you on that basis.

Oh, I see..you find it "appropriate" to criticize me personally, instead of responding to the points in my post? Do you have some kind of "get out of jail free" card regarding forum rules on personal attacks?

It sure appears to me that you are attempting to "squash" MY opportunity to state my opinions while holding your own out as superior.

[Elsie]

[greyfoxx39]

Mark the date and time down! Quick!

[pby]

It’s sort of funny if you think about it. I mean, Free Republic people arguing against property rights is sort of humorous, don’t you think?

I agree with you, OMm...It is kinda funny.

Whoever made the decision to use the Mormon facility, and thereby creating this issue for the poll workers (I don't consider it an issue for the voters because they can vote within a few minutes) and for the Mormons...made the wrong decision and should reconsider moving the polling place.

It is the Mormon's facility and their rules...I believe that it is reasonable to abide by the rules...if not feasible, then find a new polling place.

Does this issue have any political or theological implications?

[Tennessee Nana]

In that greyfoxx39 has admitted that he views as illegitimate restrictions based on religious motivations, EVEN IF THEY ARE THE SAME RESTRICTIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE OTHER MOTIVATIONS, my post stands as written.
____________________________________________

As mine does also...

What’s good for one religion is good for another...

Since you feel you cannot qualify the instances...

personally, I disagree with honor killings and I disagree with restricting non-participants from drinking legal beverages..

While it may be considered irreligious for the day, to restrict coffee and tea to the poll workers due to rules of conduct is regretable..

The building is just that ...a building...

Although it may have been used for religious purposes the other days of the year, that particular day it was used for secular activities..

Most polling places do not allow ANY food or drink on the premisses for the voters...

But the poll workers ...who are all VOLUNTEERS.. should be afforded what comforts they might deemed necessary...

(Drawing a line at alcoholic beverages of course)

A kitchen or a snack corner set up for that purpose is only reasonable...

And to allow the VOLUNTEERS to drink their choice of beverage is not unreasonable...

As someone pointed out, the building is probably “exorcized” later anyway ...

[Old Mountain man]

I can’t see why in the world it would have any. We, as I am certain you do, try to keep our meeting houses as we believe The Lord would have them. We also believe in public service, so that I’m sure is why our leaders make the buildings available for this sort of service.