Do churches have the right to refuse to perform a marriage?

[Christian Liberty]

The problem with jury nullification from the Covenanter position is the oath that is sworn during jury duty, which is considered to be illicit unless the court and corresponding magistrate recognize the true religion. Generally the position is closer to secession than open resistance, though it's not a total secession and there are other areas where Christian prudence makes allowances for activity in a court room, particularly regarding giving testimony or defending oneself in court. Thankfully Pennsylvania allows an affirmation for those who have an objection to the Anglican flavor of how the court administers oaths.

If you're curious, my minister has a large number of sermons and studies on the Westminister Catechisms available for download at the following link, including a lengthy ongoing series on Post-Millennialism.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Jim_Dodson

Yeah, I get it. But I don't see how someone who knows about jury nullification could refuse to do it. We NEED people who know how to do jury nullification to serve on juries and to do what we can to protect the innocent. That said, I might well not get picked anyway due to refusal to go along with any blasphemy that goes on in the courtroom. For instance, I would never pledge the flag or even stand while it was being done.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Uh... you sure you want to go with that response? The post was comparing divorce and priests raping little kids. The "joke" seems apparent to me even if I didn't think it was funny.

Nah, I've lost interest in the subject and have other things to busy myself with. Carry on. ttyl.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Yeah, I get it. But I don't see how someone who knows about jury nullification could refuse to do it. We NEED people who know how to do jury nullification to serve on juries and to do what we can to protect the innocent. That said, I might well not get picked anyway due to refusal to go along with any blasphemy that goes on in the courtroom. For instance, I would never pledge the flag or even stand while it was being done.

That's really the whole sticking point. The fact that the Federal Government has essentially stated that there is no true religion and the courtroom is essentially an empty ritualized theater of now defunct Anglican practices, playing into it in any way that grants it legitimacy is tantamount to committing blasphemy, much like the court parading around that bible and making you do that voodoo shtick with your right and left hand is little different than openly taking the Lord's name in vain.

In theory, I sympathize with people who go the jury nullification route because it can achieve some short-term good on an individual level, but even with this considered, juries can not stand in place of legislatures, which is where the real problem happens to be. And likewise, the whole pledging allegiance to the flag is idolatry, and I actually got into a load of trouble for not standing for it a couple times my junior year of high school, and I was actually an atheist at the time.

Not really. Hate speech is protected. See Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011), involving the Westboro Baptist Church.

A single judicial ruling is not impressive to me, particularly considering that one has to be economically self-sufficient in order to repel attacks from interest groups, or be ruthless enough to procure the funds through guerrilla tactics, which Westboro has become a bit notorious for doing. It's too bad the Westboro guys are goofy, Dispensational Baptists. They'd be a lot more use to this country if they went beyond the symptomatic problems of imperialism, sodomy and abortion and started bringing attention to the corrupt nature of how our government is structured, but they don't teach that sort of stuff at Bob Jones University.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

In theory, I sympathize with people who go the jury nullification route because it can achieve some short-term good on an individual level, but even with this considered, juries can not stand in place of legislatures, which is where the real problem happens to be.

This is a point I have never seen proponents of jury nullification address. It's said we are a nation of laws, not men, and that there should be equal justice under law. But you can't have equal justice if you have a system in which one person's behavior is judged by one jury's view of the law while another defendant gets judged by a different rule that a different jury thinks is right.

A single judicial ruling is not impressive to me

But it's impressive to the other courts that must follow it, and that's what counts.

 

[hells_unicorn]

This is a point I have never seen proponents of jury nullification address. It's said we are a nation of laws, not men, and that there should be equal justice under law. But you can't have equal justice if you have a system in which one person's behavior is judged by one jury's view of the law while another defendant gets judged by a different rule that a different jury thinks is right.

We are not a nation of laws, that bird flew when we abandoned the Articles of Confederation, along with any notion of being a coherent nation for that matter. We are rather an empire of ephemeral statutes (far too numerous for any human being to comprehend I might add), built off of a near infinite regression of innovations by a revolving door of lawyers turned congressmen and senators, and judicial activism is a pervasive issue in full practice on par to my theoretical criticism of jury nullification, which is a far less common mode of hijacking a justice system that has already been hijacked.

The American Judicial System is a joke that ceases being funny the minute the laughing spectator finds himself in the defendant's chair. It tends to find justice by accident and loses it about as quickly.

But it's impressive to the other courts that must follow it, and that's what counts.

Must they follow it? The whole thing about setting precedents is, people tend to set more of them at every chance they get. A precedent was set for permanent slavery by a black Virginian who wanted to retain the services of his negro subordinate indefinitely, and was followed by a series of successive precedents both supporting and opposing the concept, and one could argue that the advent of private prisons has nullified any alleged progress on the so-called victory against slavery.

Judicial precedent is like the leaf of a maple tree, it tends to change with the seasons.

 

[Christian Liberty]

In theory, I sympathize with people who go the jury nullification route because it can achieve some short-term good on an individual level, but even with this considered, juries can not stand in place of legislatures, which is where the real problem happens to be. And likewise, the whole pledging allegiance to the flag is idolatry, and I actually got into a load of trouble for not standing for it a couple times my junior year of high school, and I was actually an atheist at the time.

Do you have to pledge allegiance to be a juror?

 

[hells_unicorn]

Do you have to pledge allegiance to be a juror?

I never got that far the first time I was summoned, which was interestingly enough, about 10 years ago. From what I understand, you do have to take an oath that you will uphold Pennsylvania law, which was a non-starter for me on the case in question since it was a murder case and I told the judge that I didn't believe in the concept of murder without premeditation, nor did I make distinctions between so-called 1st and 2nd degree violations.

I do know that in public schools that idolatrous practice is required in Pennsylvania, as is the case in 45 of the 50 states unless they recently changed that (I know there was a push via Fox News' Bill O'Reilly to make Oklahoma adopt this practice, but I can't remember if it succeeded or not).

 

[Christian Liberty]

I never got that far the first time I was summoned, which was interestingly enough, about 10 years ago. From what I understand, you do have to take an oath that you will uphold Pennsylvania law, which was a non-starter for me on the case in question since it was a murder case and I told the judge that I didn't believe in the concept of murder without premeditation, nor did I make distinctions between so-called 1st and 2nd degree violations.

I do know that in public schools that idolatrous practice is required in Pennsylvania, as is the case in 45 of the 50 states unless they recently changed that (I know there was a push via Fox News' Bill O'Reilly to make Oklahoma adopt this practice, but I can't remember if it succeeded or not).

I'm fairly certain students (per SCOTUS ruling) are allowed to refuse to pledge

 

[hells_unicorn]

I'm fairly certain students (per SCOTUS ruling) are allowed to refuse to pledge

They don't tell you that, and if you push the issue, there is pressure put on you both by the faculty and the student body to get with the program, though naturally they keep it subtle. You'd be surprised how tough it is to be a sub-18 year old trying to stand up to people twice your age with the word "government" orbiting their job title.

I'd like to see that socialist mantra removed from every school in this country, but that'll probably be relegated to similar status as my other dream to walk on the moon without a space suit. lol

 

[fr33]

Uh... you sure you want to go with that response? The post was comparing divorce and priests raping little kids. The "joke" seems apparent to me even if I didn't think it was funny.

It's not funny. "what a joke" as in; this organization wants us to take it seriously. They actively turn away good people that want to join while actively covering up their employees raping kids. Not only did they refuse my sister in law's entrance to the church, I also spent many a weekend saying "lord hear our prayer" for our bishop that was covering for a child raping priest. It is indeed a joke that someone should take the catholic church serious when it comes to morals. Bishop Delaney enabled child molestors. I enjoy linking that because my former church and it's diocese never talked to it's parishioners about it. It needs more page ranking.

Anyways, that is how catholics discriminate against certain marriages. That's their right. Their priorities are completely fucked but they have a right to be ridiculed for that as well.

 

[Sola_Fide]

It's not funny. "what a joke" as in; this organization wants us to take it seriously. They actively turn away good people that want to join while actively covering up their employees raping kids. Not only did they refuse my sister in law's entrance to the church, I also spent many a weekend saying "lord hear our prayer" for our bishop that was covering for a child raping priest. It is indeed a joke that someone should take the catholic church serious when it comes to morals. Bishop Delaney enabled child molestors. I enjoy linking that because my former church and it's diocese never talked to it's parishioners about it. It needs more page ranking.

Anyways, that is how catholics discriminate against certain marriages. That's their right. Their priorities are completely fucked but they have a right to be ridiculed for that as well.

I agree with everything in this post.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Nah, I've lost interest in the subject and have other things to busy myself with. Carry on. ttyl.

What, no hugz?