Pope met with Kentucky clerk Kim Davis during his US trip, according to her lawyers

  • Thread starter Thread starter ServusHumilis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
nationalreview.com/article/424861/pope-francis-kim-davis-meeting-religious-freedom
The reports are true. The Left’s favorite pope met with the Left’s most-hated county clerk. The world’s most powerful and influential religious leader met with Rowan County clerk Kim Davis, reportedly thanking her for her courage and telling her to “stay strong.” In so doing he rebuked two narratives that have sadly taken hold amongst many orthodox Christians. First, that Kim Davis was fundamentally out of line when she defied a lawless judiciary and refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses. And second, that Davis herself — a rural Kentuckian with a checkered past — is the wrong messenger at the wrong time. It’s been quite remarkable to see so many even on the right tell Davis to resign or comply with the utterly fabricated, extra-constitutional dictates of the Supreme Court. Yet does anyone actually believe that “resign or comply” is a public servant’s only option in the face of lawless behavior from a higher authority? Or did too many on the right reflexively adopt the Left’s talking points — the same Left that is only too eager to see Christians either salute and follow orders or get out of the path of the sexual revolution? Are there not circumstances where the “lesser magistrate” should instead choose to resist the lawless acts of his superiors?
Click to expand...
Protestant Christian tradition certainly says yes. Catholic tradition certainly says yes. American tradition says yes. Just ask the public officials who ignored the Supreme Court’s odious Dred Scott decision. Resign or comply with Japanese internment? Resign or comply with abortion-on-demand? Even in the marriage debate itself, the Left celebrated numerous public officials who disregarded their legal duties and resisted what they believed to be lawless bans on same-sex marriage. Since “resign or comply” is unsustainable as an absolutist moral framework, the more meaningful debate is whether the principles at stake in Davis’s case are important enough to resist to the point of civil disobedience. Let’s have that argument instead of simply declaring, “Do your job.” But if protesting judicial supremacy and defending rights of conscience aren’t worth a small act of defiance that didn’t actually deprive a single American of a marriage license, then we hold those values cheaply indeed. Pope Francis, however, has sent a powerful message — religious freedom is worth going to prison to defend.
Click to expand...
Great article - don’t miss it. Link to the rest above.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I agree a person has a right to object, but the right way for Mrs. Davis to object would have been to quit her job. Just say, this is no longer the place for me and leave. That’s the way a brave person of integrity would have done it.
Click to expand...
That’s not what ‘conscientious objection’ means. Are you saying that pharmacies that refuse to stock abortion drugs and hospitals refusing to do abortions should get out of the medical business? Conscientious objection gives people the right to act on their consciences while retaining their jobs.
 
LongingSoul said:
That’s not what ‘conscientious objection’ means. Are you saying that pharmacies that refuse to stock abortion drugs and hospitals refusing to do abortions should get out of the medical business? Conscientious objection gives people the right to act on their consciences while retaining their jobs.
Click to expand...
We are on the same page, but to fine tune, conscientious objection means that it is morally permissible to defy an unjust law (as same-sex “marriage” is) and take the consequences such as being jailed or fired. The idea being that the powers that be will realize they are being jackasses and losing popular support by persecuting the righteous. There is absolutely nothing in conscientious objection requiring anyone to voluntarily resign as a part of it… That’s nonsense.

I’ve been arguing that what is coming is a modern version of the English Test Acts. Basically back then if a Catholic wanted an official position higher than Town Dog Catcher, they had to go to an official and publicly deny transubstantiation. We are living right now in a quasi-theocracy that insists “we have no god but Caesar.” (It’s the great lie inherent in Liberalism: it makes discriminatory judgements about the Good while pretending to be neutral) In the modern version, corporations will act as proxy arms of the State and ghettoize Catholics.
 
LongingSoul said:
That’s not what ‘conscientious objection’ means. Are you saying that pharmacies that refuse to stock abortion drugs and hospitals refusing to do abortions should get out of the medical business? Conscientious objection gives people the right to act on their consciences while retaining their jobs.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point. Kim Davis could not DO the job she SWORE UNDER OATH to do, and she is telling OTHERS how to think, which she has no right to do, and she is ALTERING certain marriage licenses so as to make certain marriages invalid, which she has no right to do. Kim Davis has a job in which she SWORE to UPHOLD the LAW. If she can’t do that the only thing worth any integrity at all is to quit. What good is swearing under oath to do your job if you don’t do it?

Pharmacists do not swear under oath to do their job. They can ask another pharmacist to fill the prescription if they feel they have to. And, I presume they don’t tell the other pharmacists what to believe and alter the drugs, etc.
 
Thorolfr said:
I agree with the last sentence: “Pope Francis, however, has sent a powerful message — religious freedom is worth going to prison to defend.”

So if Kim or others want to go to prison to defend their right to be conscientious objectors, it’s fine with me. 🤷
Click to expand...
It’s obvious she can’t do the job she swore under oath to do. She is also telling others what to believe and altering marriage licenses without permission of the state. So, if she wants to go to prison for that, it’s fine with me. I would not be against that at all.
 
Thorolfr;13322923":
So if Kim or others want to go to prison to defend their right to be conscientious objectors, it’s fine with me. 🤷
Click to expand...
That’s exactly the point. Every jailing shows the true colors of the homosexual advocates as goose-stepping brownshirts.

 
Thorolfr said:
LOL…So I’m a “heretic” huh :

I thought I told you “the end”. But since u want more, no u are not a formal heretic since only Catholics can be deemed that. However u are a follower of a heretical church, a provocateur, and if a sexually active gay man (which u already said that u were gay) then one who is living in mortal sin. Again I say, the end and stay out of Catholic business.
Click to expand...
 
Colorad007 said:
No, in fact the irony is that somebody with such a broken history has emerged as one of the country’s boldest advocates for the institution of marriage. Besides, divorce tatters marriage, you might say, but it doesn’t redefine it.

The difference is evident in the outright falsity of your post. Nobody is trying to prevent you from marrying. What they are trying to do is keep you from commandeering the very definition of marriage by finding a member of the same sex and attempting to give yourselves the absurd label of “marriage.”
Click to expand...
It appears to me Kim Davis is an advocate for the institution of marriage but only on her own terms. The fact she has been divorced and remarried several times is not a violation of the sanctity of marriage according to her moral conscience (and possibly also her religion, although I am not sure of this), so this is not an issue for her. However, for another clerk it may be an issue so that they would not consent to sign a marriage license for a couple whom they would consider to have violated their marriage oath. Thus one might ask should there be any limits to one’s personal conscience and faith with respect to its interference in performing one’s legal duty as a public official?
 
meltzerboy said:
It appears to me Kim Davis is an advocate for the institution of marriage but only on her terms. The fact she has been divorced and remarried several times is not a violation of the sanctity of marriage according to her moral conscience (and possibly also her religion, although I am not sure of this), so this is not an issue for her. However, for another clerk it may be so even to the point that they would not consent to sign a marriage license for a couple whom they would consider to have violated their marriage oath. Thus one might ask should there be any limits to one’s personal conscience and faith with respect to its interference in performing one’s legal duty as a public official?
Click to expand...
Sure - let us make the standard “reasonable.” We’ve accommodated conscientious war objectors in the Vietnam War - somehow we figured it out.
 
LongingSoul said:
That’s not what ‘conscientious objection’ means. Are you saying that pharmacies that refuse to stock abortion drugs and hospitals refusing to do abortions should get out of the medical business? Conscientious objection gives people the right to act on their consciences while retaining their jobs.
Click to expand...
Someone who does not understand this should not be teaching theology. 🤷
 
Lily_Bernans said:
You are missing the point. Kim Davis could not DO the job she SWORE UNDER OATH to do, and she is telling OTHERS how to think, which she has no right to do, and she is ALTERING certain marriage licenses so as to make certain marriages invalid, which she has no right to do. Kim Davis has a job in which she SWORE to UPHOLD the LAW. If she can’t do that the only thing worth any integrity at all is to quit. What good is swearing under oath to do your job if you don’t do it?

Pharmacists do not swear under oath to do their job. They can ask another pharmacist to fill the prescription if they feel they have to. And, I presume they don’t tell the other pharmacists what to believe and alter the drugs, etc.
Click to expand...
Conscientious objectors often have taken oaths, the military foremost among them. The President took an oath to uphold and enforce the laws of the nation, but we see how much weight that carries. He picks and chooses the laws he chooses to enforce. As was pointed out, we have had people refusing what they perceived were unjust laws throughout the nation’s history. Look at our wonderful sanctuary cities.

What is it about this one lowely clerk that gets people so fired up, while the same actions of prominent world leaders don’t get more than a “meh…”??

And please stop saying the Pope was used. By whom? He wasn’t set up (the way Priests have often been by homosexual activists at Mass). He’s not an idiot, and he has never seemed to care whether people use his words or actions to twist something to their own ends. That’s been one of the most discussed aspects of his Pontificate.
meltzerboy said:
It appears to me Kim Davis is an advocate for the institution of marriage but only on her own terms. The fact she has been divorced and remarried several times is not a violation of the sanctity of marriage according to her moral conscience (and possibly also her religion, although I am not sure of this), so this is not an issue for her. However, for another clerk it may be an issue so that they would not consent to sign a marriage license for a couple whom they would consider to have violated their marriage oath. Thus one might ask should there be any limits to one’s personal conscience and faith with respect to its interference in performing one’s legal duty as a public official?
Click to expand...
And MLK was reported to have had mistresses. Does that render the other things he stood for irrelevant? Why is it such a common trend, typically from the left, to tear down anyone who attempts to espouse anything of a moral bent? That would tend to rule out every person who has ever sinned. If that is your standard, so be it, but I;d suggest from every espousing a belief on anything ever again, since you and I have both fallen in the past.
 
meltzerboy said:
It appears to me Kim Davis is an advocate for the institution of marriage but only on her terms. The fact she has been divorced and remarried several times is not a violation of the sanctity of marriage according to her moral conscience (and possibly also her religion, although I am not sure of this), so this is not an issue for her. However, for another clerk it may be so even to the point that they would not consent to sign a marriage license for a couple whom they would consider to have violated their marriage oath. Thus one might ask should there be any limits to one’s personal conscience and faith with respect to its interference in performing one’s legal duty as a public official?
Click to expand...
I think your post is calm and well-reasoned and shows the absolute necessity of a public official doing the work he or she has sworn an oath to do. Some of the clerks may have an objection to issuing a marriage license to a legally and validly divorced person. Under the reasoning of some posters here, they should be able to exercise that. If we allowed all this conscientious objection in public office, government would soon be anarchy.

I had a private PR firm. If I turned someone down, they could just go to another PR firm. It wasn’t like I was the only game in town. However, government is a different ball game altogether.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top