Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Justin Rocket 2
    Offline

    Justin Rocket 2 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,034
    Likes Received:
    194

    The christian response to kim davis

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Justin Rocket 2, Sep 5, 2015.

    "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," (Matthew 5:43-44)

    This is how we need to respond to Kim Davis*. God knows that I did my share of screaming and raging about this woman. But, we (meaning those of us who are Christian) need to show her what Christianity is really about. She might not have ever seen real Christianity.

    *Kim Davis is the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk who illegally prevented LGBT couples from receiving marriage licenses.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2015
    ManOrAstroMan likes this.
  2. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    :pop:
     
  3. Link the Writer
    Offline

    Link the Writer Flipping Out For A Good Story. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    11,220
    Likes Received:
    4,227
    Location:
    Alabama, USA
    Who?

    Mind filling in for us who she is in case we don't know?
     
  4. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,984
    Likes Received:
    5,503
    She's the Rowan County, Kentucky court clerk who refuses to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and bars her employees from doing so. I believe that she's elected, making it problematic to fire her. She's in jail now until she agrees to issue licenses. (I would assume "or resigns", but I don't actually know.)
     
  5. Justin Rocket 2
    Offline

    Justin Rocket 2 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,034
    Likes Received:
    194
    Kim Davis is the county clerk who illegally prevented Rowan County, Kentucky, from issuing marriage licenses for LGBT couples.
     
  6. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,098
    Likes Received:
    5,311
    Location:
    California, US
    Like the judge, who is also religious, said, she swore an oath (probably on a bible).
     
    Wreybies likes this.
  7. matwoolf
    Offline

    matwoolf Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    2,240
    Location:
    Brighton Heights
    'She's no better than a bigoted baker in Belfast,' said the sheriff.

    'Where?' said the crowd.

    'Belfast, in England,' said the sheriff from under his broadsheet newspaper.

    'Who?' said the crowd. The sheriff became irritated, fiddled with his Stetson.

    'Baker, Belfast, won't bake gay cakes, even though they are delicious,' said the sheriff.
     
  8. Aled James Taylor
    Offline

    Aled James Taylor Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2013
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    462
    Location:
    UK
    Kim Davis claims to be a born-again-Christian. Many people, also professing the Christian faith, agree with her stance. Are none of these people 'true Christians'?

    If you go down the road of judging who is, and who is not, a 'true' or 'real' Christian. You would think along the lines of, 'the only true Christians are those who believe exactly as I do.' Ultimately, you may find that there is (in your opinion) only one true Christian in existence, (you). Christianity as a world religion, wouldn't exist, as it would have only one true member. Islam wouldn't exist either, as there would be no more than one true Muslim.

    Personally I wouldn't judge. I consider anyone who claims to be a Christian, to be part of the Christian faith. That faith has within it a variety of opinions and attitudes, and despite the strength of belief many have, no one can really determine who has the most authentic or the most correct version of the faith.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34155775
     
  9. Justin Rocket 2
    Offline

    Justin Rocket 2 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,034
    Likes Received:
    194
    "Christian" means "Christ-like." The Bible tells us "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1)

    A spirit from God bears the fruits of the spirit. A person doesn't have to agree with me to bear the fruits of the spirit ("But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." (1 Galatians 5:22-23))
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  10. Aled James Taylor
    Offline

    Aled James Taylor Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2013
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    462
    Location:
    UK
    I'm not sure what your're trying to say by this. We're not talking about 'spirits' or 'false prophets'. As for being 'Christ-like', opinions vary. The only person who could truly judge, would be Jesus himself. Suppose (hypothetically) Jesus returns. He may be able to identify the most Christ-like person, and that person may be Jewish. He may consider Christian churches and say, 'What the hell's this? I didn't tell you to do anything like this.' We can only speculate. Jesus said: 'Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.' (Matthew 10:34). I don't perceive any fruits of the spirit in this.

    Kim Davis may be the true Christian, and those who oppose her may the the ones who have miss-perceived the character of Christ (or it could be the other way around). According to your own beliefs, your own beliefs will always seem correct. Having a strong believe on an issue makes you unable to judge impartially, as being biased is inevitable. Jesus didn't mention the issue of homosexuality so we can only speculate as to what His opinion might have been. Such speculation would be tenuous, either way.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2015
    matwoolf likes this.
  11. Wreybies
    Offline

    Wreybies The Ops Pops Operations Manager Staff Contest Administrator Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    18,901
    Likes Received:
    10,090
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Smoke and mirrors. None of this kerfuffle has anything to do with Kim Davis' personal convictions, of which she is a complete hypocrite given her storied past and sullied personal relationship with the institution of marriage. In her elected post she is(was) a representative of the government. She does not get to pick and choose the laws she will or will not uphold. If one has never been such a representative or been bound by the paradigm, then it may be a difficult concept to understand. When I was in the USAF, I would have been jailed - and rightly so - for saying "Fuck the President of the United States of America" while in uniform, something that any civilian may do with impunity. Why? Because that uniform is a paradigm apart from myself that I have sworn to hold first, and myself only second. It's not unlike when the Queen refers to herself with the royal we. She is both herself as an individual and she is also a manifestation of an institution and she knows full well that the institution comes first, always. Such was Kim's oath. I have no interest in shifting Kim Davis' religious views/opinions/convictions/interpretations. That's her own business and none of mine. Her use of public office to impose those views on others, contrary to the law, and contrary to her oath, is very much another matter and not to be confused with her religion or her faith. If she found that her service of two different masters created an internal conundrum, then she needed to choose one and recuse herself from the other, not try to play both sides of the fence. It is the only platform of choice that answers to reason and logic.

    Rachel Evens said it best:

    Screen Shot 2015-09-05 at 10.37.20 AM.png
     
  12. Wreybies
    Offline

    Wreybies The Ops Pops Operations Manager Staff Contest Administrator Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    18,901
    Likes Received:
    10,090
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Precisely. It seems that accountability is so painfully on the wane that people are shocked when actions have consequences. An attorney who picks and choses when to apply attorney/client privilege is not an attorney for very long and may find him/herself sitting right next to Kim, and an MD who takes the hippocratic oath as a suggestion rather than a binding contract may find him/herself in similar straits.
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  13. Lea`Brooks
    Offline

    Lea`Brooks Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,634
    Likes Received:
    1,729
    Location:
    Virginia, United States
    To me, this has nothing to do with her religion. It's her right to not agree with gay marriage. But she took an oath to uphold the law, and she's breaking it. So I don't find religion has anything to do with it. She's breaking the law, and she's not doing her job.

    If a Hindu man takes a job as a cook in a restaurant then refuses to cook beef because it goes against his religious beliefs, watch how quickly he gets fired.

    It's not oppression. It's common sense. If the job goes against your beliefs, don't work there. Saves yourself from having to put yourself in a bad situation, and it saves the people you may potentially be hurting.
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  14. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    From the "you can't make this stuff up" file:

    She gave birth to twins fathered by husband #3 four months after divorcing husband #1. Husband #2 adopted the twins. They divorced and she married husband #3. They divorced and she married husband #4 (which was technically remarrying husband #2).

    And from the file of "are these people for real?":

    Mike Huckabee apparently ignorant of the fact that contempt of court is a conviction, not a charge, is ranting to his campaign donors and book buyers that she's being denied bail. :confuzled:


    Her lawyer sounds like a religious zealot, unable to process: she could have resigned; she could have allowed her staff to issue the certificates (which they are currently doing); it's not her beliefs she being persecuted for, it's her refusal to do the job she was elected and is being paid $80K a year to do (clearly a reason more important than her god beliefs not to give up). He also can't hear the consequence of his position that a Muslim, for example working for the DMV, could refuse to issue licenses to women. That apparently is not a reasonable accommodation while calling the Kentucky legislature into a special session at taxpayer expense to change the marriage license forms to delete the county clerk's name from the form is reasonable.

    Keep in mind the name on the form only says the couple met the legal requirements to marry. The certificate doesn't say Kim Davis personally approves of the marriage. And herein lies the crux of the matter. This particular tack of claiming religious persecution really amounts to forcing other people to follow your religious views. That is not allowed in this country.
     
  15. Wreybies
    Offline

    Wreybies The Ops Pops Operations Manager Staff Contest Administrator Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    18,901
    Likes Received:
    10,090
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    And it's also why, though I realize the OP started this debate with a different track in mind, I cannot argue from that original premiss. I am personally obligated to move one step up in the order condescendi. To argue her religious stance is to give validity to religious thought (any thought from any religion) as a source for governance of The People. To ask Kim to change her Christian views or to consider new ones is to say that such views, whatever they may or may not be, are a valid principle upon which to base one's adherence to oath of public office. To give that ideation oxygen is to invite the very thing we have now: confusion over Personal Views vs. THE LAW OF THE LAND.
     
    GingerCoffee and Simpson17866 like this.
  16. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    It's a classic straw man. Claiming one's religious views are being persecuted when the real issue is claiming the right to impose one's religious views on others.
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  17. Cave Troll
    Offline

    Cave Troll Bite the bullet, do your own thing. Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    2,416
    Location:
    Where cushions are comfy, and straps hold firm.
    Bumper Sticker Wisdom: God must have loved stupid people, because he made so many.

    I think that is really insane that people wield their religion like a weapon when something goes against their beliefs. Perhaps they skip over the Golden Rule part in the bible. Though it seems people pick and choose which parts are relevant to what they really wish to believe.

    I for one feel that it is just fine to let who ever marry who they want. Just cause it is not my cup of tea doesn't mean I should tell anyone that they are wrong to want to be bonded for life through a ceremony. Or as my mother use to say: "They deserve to be just as miserable as straight people." (No she is not homophobic)
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  18. Void
    Offline

    Void Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2014
    Messages:
    303
    Likes Received:
    229
    I wish this was how it worked, but to be honest, I'm not so sure that would hold up legally in some places. It seems increasingly common that people can contest basic rules like this using anti-discrimination laws, particularly where religion is involved. Recently in America there was a mild controversy when a woman was prohibited from wearing a hijab while on the job as a police woman because they had a blanket restriction on other headwear, and I've heard of people being allowed to refuse to cook pork or beef for religious reasons.
     
  19. Wreybies
    Offline

    Wreybies The Ops Pops Operations Manager Staff Contest Administrator Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    18,901
    Likes Received:
    10,090
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    In Davis' case I think the kind of thing you mention is not so easy to argue. She's an elected official of the government. She's not just a private citizen. She is beholden to, and swore to, a different, stricter, more encompassing set of rules and laws than what the average Joe and Jane is subject to.

    In a side note, it's particularly agregious that her attorney is comparing her to MLK. MLK fought for the rights of a marginalized group of people. Davis is fighting for the right to marginalize a group of people. Uh... Not the same.
     
    Simpson17866 and GingerCoffee like this.
  20. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,984
    Likes Received:
    5,503
    But I don't think the question is whether the religious or other beliefs violate a blanket rule that may happen to exist, but whether accommodating those beliefs and making exceptions to that rule make it essentially impossible to do the job--whether it's a fundamental conflict with the job. I think that's where "reasonable accommodation" comes in.

    It seems to me that a realigiously-beef-opposed cook at a buffet restaurant with dozens of dishes and several cooks might reasonably avoid ever being the one who cooks the pot roast. But the one and only one meat cook at a small steakhouse isn't going to be able to.

    Even though there was a blanket rule against headwear, someone wearing something on their head wouldn't be unable to do the job. So a reasonable accommodation would be to make exceptions to that rule, very specific forms of headwear that still follow the discipline of the uniform. I looked up "police woman hijab" and the photographs that I saw were of women that looked completely appropriate and professional as police officers.

    Now, if a police officer argued that they needed to wear one of the more face-obscuring forms of headgear, I suspect that that would be seen as a fundamental bar to performing the job.
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  21. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    That attorney's a piece of work. Saw him last night on Chris Hayes. No discussion, just a dogmatic speech.
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  22. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    And Governor Jindal bends in the wind.

    Huff-Po
    Some more examples:
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  23. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    The legal group behind Davis' stand are from the Liberty Counsel which is closely tied to Jerry Falwell's "Liberty University". It is their position:
    Meet The Hate Group Trying To Turn Kim Davis Into The Anti-Gay Rosa Parks
    Jerry Falwell was one of the founders of the movement to impose his version of Christianity on the US government. His group promoted rewriting American history claiming the Founding Fathers intended the US to be a Christian country. His group's goal was to involve Evangelical Christians in politics whereas congregations had been playing a more reserved role in elections.

    Besides supporting candidates for the Congress and President, they've been working to fill the federal courts from the bottom up with Evangelical justices, elect anti-evolution theory members to school boards, and now they're on a mission to reverse the gains in marriage equality.
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  24. Justin Rocket 2
    Offline

    Justin Rocket 2 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,034
    Likes Received:
    194
    I'd like for you to explain how you reached this incorrect assumption given as how you know nothing about me.
     
  25. Wreybies
    Offline

    Wreybies The Ops Pops Operations Manager Staff Contest Administrator Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    18,901
    Likes Received:
    10,090
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Context of the rest of his post makes it clear he's referring to the impersonal "every You", no the personal singular you.
     
    Aaron DC and Aled James Taylor like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page