Posted on 03/03/2008 11:08:00 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at eastvalleytribune.com ...
Mormon church members should work the polls in Mormon churches. Problem solved.
Yes, it has been many years since I attended a girls sporting event in an LDS Ward House. We were required to wear pants.
In fact we were required to wear skirts or dresses when doing the civic service of cleaning the chapel.
As I said, Mormons do a great deal of eating and drinking inside their buildings, and many Mormons partake of these forbidden substances.
It seems a bit sanctimonious to me.
I don’t think there should be religious restrictions placed upon poll workers. It is unseemly.
But then again I think we know the real reason that Mormons wish for their facilites to be used by the public, don’t we?
Public service.
Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is why I stated that the polling place should be moved.
It’s easy - if the government doesn’t like the deal being offered by the facility’s owners - for whatever reason - don’t take it. Go somewhere else.
But as we’ve seen on this thread, some folks are not objecting to the restriction per se, but rather because it’s religiously-motivated. That’s religious bigotry.
The focus of the election authorities should be on the circumstances of the offer, not what motivates the offer. The focus should be on actual restrictions that are part of the offer, not on what motivates them.
If, as in the case of my polling place, which is a firehouse, folks may not eat or drink, and that’s acceptable, then it’s acceptable. If we move down the road to the LDS facility, and they allow food and beverages generally, but not caffeinated or alcoholic beverages, then that should be even MORE acceptable, since it's less restrictive. Even though the motivation is religious. The offer should be evaluated on the face of it, not in light of the fact that the motivation for the restriction is religious.
sitetest
Who is the idiot in charge of polling place locations that would ever create that situation?
Just move the polling place.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That would be the ideal solution. Makes sense.
Is there not a difference between submission and respect?
Careful, you are making sense here.
I’ve commented to LDS folks before that they shouldn’t get their panties in a wad if folks disagree with them theologically.
Whether or not what I’ve said meets your standards, I don’t know, and don’t much care. I don’t go thread-diving to satisfy the whims of my critics. I’ll leave it to you to peruse through my comments over the past 10+ years.
“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?”
I don’t view it as a personal attack to note when someone is engaging in religious bigotry.
“It sure appears to me that you are attempting to ‘squash’ MY opportunity to state my opinions while holding your own out as superior.”
Nah. I haven’t tried to tell you to stop posting, or anything like this. I’ve just pointed out that you seem to think it’s wrong for people to act in the public square out of their religious motivations.
And that’s pretty much standard, orthodox liberal religious hatred.
sitetest
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I have been wondering is aliens had abduced our OMM...
If you allow churches to set dietary and dress codes for precinct workers or voters, then you have to allow Mosques the same priviledge.
The solution is to have the secretary of state determine what restrictions are going to be placed in polling facilities and if the churches and mosques and synagogues can't live with it, then they should not volunteer their facilities.
If the secretary of state rules that Coffee and Cokes will not be permitted in any polling facility, then that would be acceptable. However, if it is determined that the secretary of state is only doing this for religious reasons, then I suspect it might run afoul of the Constitution.
if
abducted
“personally, I disagree with honor killings and I disagree with restricting non-participants from drinking legal beverages..”
First rule of holes: When one finds oneself in a hole, stop digging.
By equating these two things, by insisting that they belong together in the same comparison, you paint yourself very poorly.
The rest of your post babbles into incoherence and redundancy.
sitetest
The restriction in this case IS religiously motivated. The polling place should be moved or the restriction lifted. It’s a simple as that.
You cannot place religious restrictions upon voters or poll workers. This type of restriction could very well be extended to type of attire, speech, actions or any other criteria. If the Church cannot abide by the actions of the public, then it should not offer its building to be used. If they are offering it as a public service, then they should respect the public.....otherwise don’t offer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.