Bull Slaughter Produces Verbal Cuts

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Slaughter produces verbal cuts

May 22, 2001

By GORDON DILLOW Orange County Register

For days now the angry calls and faxes have poured into the small Christian school nestled in Carbon Canyon:

"Shame on you Christians." "Christians don't respect God's earth and God's animals." "We're going to shut you down." "You should ... kill the pastor."

And so on, and so on, a torrent of rage and invective and even some vague threats. It's the sort of thing that, if it were directed at a minority religion or group, probably would prompt a hate-crime investigation.

And it was all because the folks at the Christian school did what millions of other Americans do every day, at least indirectly: They turned a steer named T-Bone into actual T-bones - and burgers and roasts, too.

You know the story. As part of an agricultural class, Carbon Canyon Christian School in Brea hired a butcher to humanely kill, eviscerate and butcher a 1,000-pound steer that had been raised on the church's 50-acre rural property for exactly that purpose. With their parents' permission, some of the kids at the small K-12 school watched the slaughtering process as an educational exercise - sort of like dissecting frogs in biology class, except bigger, and they'll get to eat the meat.

Of course, the slaughter of a steer isn't unusual. There are more than 5 million beef cattle and calves in California, and the ultimate destiny of virtually all of them is to be turned into food for humans. According to surveys, almost 90 percent of Americans consume beef on a regular basis - and despite what some of them might like to think, all those steaks and roasts and burgers didn't come into the world already encased in shrink-wrapped plastic containers.

Nevertheless, the idea that young people might actually watch one of those millions of cattle being turned into beef angered a lot of people. Ever since the story broke, pastor and school Principal Dave Kincer and other officials at the Christian school have been deluged with the sort of hate mail mentioned above.

"A lot of it was quite extreme," says Kincer, who is genuinely astonished by the harsh reaction. "Somebody wants to save the steer but kill the pastor?"

He can't quite figure out the moral logic in that one.

Kincer isn't sure if they'll ever conduct another steer-slaughtering lesson at the school; he'll have to discuss it with the church board. Meanwhile, some Brea city officials have said they plan to investigate whether the slaughter violated city zoning ordinances - which to me indicates that the guys at City Hall may have a little too much time on their hands.

Sooner or later, I suppose, the whole thing will blow over. The phones and fax machines at Carbon Canyon Christian School will stop spewing out angry messages, and the school can get back to normal.

But in the meantime, I hope people who object to the killing of animals for food will try to keep things in perspective.

And not suggest that the way to save a steer is to kill a pastor.

Gordon Dillow may be reached at (714) 796-7953 or by e-mail at

gldillow@aol.com.

-- curious (throwing@this.out there), May 23, 2001

Answers

curious,

I would say that much, if not all, of the answer to why this is happening is... California.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 23, 2001.

I agree J, the same people who couldn't find their ass from a hole in the ground.... amazing that these eco terrorist can find value in animal life but think human life is so dirt cheap... BTW, I wonder if all the meat is spoken for already as I am having a cook out this up coming holiday and would LOVE to get a hold of those beef ribs, yummy!!

-- cali=idiots_R_us (california_kooks@sucks.com), May 23, 2001.

Rohrig v. Carbon Canyon Church, Inc., Case No. 01CC13335 JUDGE SELNA, DEPT. C 26-CIVIL PANEL Petitioner George Rohrig ("Pastor Rohrig") seeks to be reinstated as a director and member of the Carbon Canyon Church, Inc. ("Church") and to be allowed to exercise the rights of a director to review the books and records of the Church as part of his investigation of alleged wrong doing on the part of the current Pastor, respondent David Kincer ("Pastor Kincer"). The Church and Pastor Kincer demur to the petition, and have also filed a substantive opposition to the petition. The demurrer is overruled, and the petition is denied on the ground that no meaningful relief can be granted in light of the First Amendment protections to which the Church is entitled I. Background. The Church represents an amalgam of two earlier churches. Faith Assembly Church of Silver Acres, Inc. was established in 1957, and Pastor Rohrig was the founding pastor. Several years later Pastor Kincer left Faith Assembly on an amicable basis to found his own church: The Vine Cluster, Inc. In late 1998, the two churches united using the name Carbon Canyon Church. Unfortunately, no formal merger was ever consummated, and it is unclear which prior institution's bylaws govern. Pastor Kincer led the Church; Pastor Rohrig was acknowledged as pastor emeritus and served on the board of the Church in that capacity. In mid 2001, Pastor Rohrig brought to the attention of the board charges that Pastor Kincer had engaged in self-dealing and financial mismanagement and irregularities (e.g., the Gratuity Fund and the Beat the Bank Fund). He asked for an audit and investigation. He was subsequently sent written notice by the board that he had been removed from the Church as both director and member. (Petition, Ex. C.) The parties dispute which bylaws control, but the relevant substance is the same under both. The pastor emeritus is a board member until such time as he might resign. (Compare, Petition, Ex. A, First Assembly Bylaws, Section 1 with, Answer to Petition, Ex. 1, Carbon Canyon Church Bylaws, Article VI, Section 1.) There is no dispute that Pastor Rohrig is pastor emeritus. The Court does not believe that membership so long as the pastor emeritus desires to serve precludes removal on other grounds. (1) A director may be removed if he no longer qualifies as a member under the First Assembly bylaws or as a director under the Carbon Canyon Church bylaws. (Compare, Petition, Ex. A, First Assembly Bylaws, Section I and Section III(c), with Answer to Petition, Ex. 1, Carbon Canyon Church Bylaws, Article IV, Sections 4 and 5and Article VI, Section 3.) In both cases, the standard a faith based: 1 Timothy, Chapter 3. (Petition, Ex. A, First Assembly Bylaws, Section I; Answer to Petition, Ex. 1, Carbon Canyon Church Bylaws, Article VI, Section 3.) The First Assembly bylaws also speak of a failure to follow the teachings of the church. (Petition, Ex. A, First Assembly Bylaws, III (c)(1) and (2). Pastor Rohrig was removed in an undated notice under the provisions of Article IV, Section 5 and Article VI, Section 6 of the Carbon Canyon bylaws. II. First Amendment Defense The Church and Pastor Kincer demur to the Petition and substantively oppose it on the grounds that this is a purely ecclesiastical dispute in which the courts are barred from intruding under well-established First Amendment doctrine. Serbian Eastern Orthodox Dioceses for the United States and Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 713-16 (1976); Higgins v. Maher, 210 Cal. App. 3d 1168, 1173-74(1989). The basic First Amendment protection is not overridden by arbitrary actions or even a lack of due process in meeting out expulsion on ecclesiastical grounds. Facially, the Notice sent to Pastor Rohrig is based exclusively on ecclesiastical grounds. The Court is in no position to judge his qualifications or lack of qualifications as a member or director. However, there is more to the dispute. (2) Pastor Rohrig's charges of self-dealing and mismanagement are serious allegations and they are not entirely rebutted by the showing which the Church and Pastor Kincer have made. There is no dispute that a director would have the right to conduct his own investigation of such allegations, including a review of the corporation's books and records. Moreover, as a director, Pastor Rohrig is potentially liable as a fiduciary for any misconduct which took place during his tenure. It would clearly violate public policy to permit a director to be dismissed for the legitimate exercise of his right and duty to protect the corporation from wrong doing. See Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal. 3d 167, 178 (1980). Thus, the Court is faced with the dilemma of according full First Amendment protection to the Church while allowing Pastor Rohrig to discharge his duties as a director, including protecting himself from a claim of misfeasance or malfeasance for allowing the alleged practices to continue. The Court believes that Pastor Rohrig has established that he was dismissed as a member and director, at least in part, because he was a "whistle blower." However, the Court does not believe that it has the power to reinstate Pastor Rohrig as a director or member given the faith-based tests for these positions. Nor does the Court believe that it has the power to reinstate Pastor Rohrig for a limited period as a provisional director solely to enable him to examine the books and records of the Church in accordance with Section 9513 of the Corporations Code. A director's right of inspection is designed to aid him in the management of the corporation's business. Here, regardless of what Pastor Rohrig's investigation might turn up, he has been disqualified on ecclesiastical grounds from pursuing the results as a director. While Pastor Rohrig might face liability for acts during his tenure (3), he would have a right to take discovery in any such action. As Pastor Rohrig's own authorities suggest, he is not without a remedy. (Rohrig Supplemental Points and Authorities, p. 4.) As a former member of the Church, he has standing to mount a derivative suit. Corporations Code, Sections 5710(b), 9142(a)(1). Moreover, to the extent he believes that the trust purposes of the Church are not being honored, he would be absolutely privileged in bringing his claims to any governmental entity with supervisorial power over charitable trusts. (4) Civil Code, Section 47(b). Conclusion. The writ of mandate is denied. _________________________ 1. In the Court's view, this provision simply eliminates the need for election and reelection, but does not deprive the board of its ability to govern itself through the removal of board members, including a pastor or pastor emeritus. 2. Given that Pastor Rohrig was dismissed of religious reasons, the Court does not believe that the provisions of the Corporations Code for removal without cause are applicable here. Corporations Code, Section 9222. Moreover, religious corporations may provide generally for removal in their bylaws. Id., Section 9220(a).



-- greg larkin (greglarkin@aol.com), January 23, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ