Pope's meeting with Kim Davis not an endorsement, Vatican says

[Lily_Bernans]

Exactly, Rosa Parks blatantly disobeyed a law in her area, she REFUSED to give in and just get up and sit somewhere else, people hated her for it, she could have moved seats, she would have avoided the consequences, but SHE DIDNT, she REFUSED…and now she is celebrated.

I think what Kim Davis did is GREAT, I hope she inspires many more in whatever job they have, to take similar stands if faced with it.

There is a HUGE difference between the two women. First, Rosa Parks was not failing to uphold an oath she took. Rosa Parks was asking for no special accommodation for herself only as Kim Davis is doing. Rosa Parks didn’t care where anyone sat on the bus as long as she could sit where she wanted to as well. Kim Davis attempted to coerce the other clerks in the Rowan County office in which she works to withhold marriage licenses to SS couples as well.

Rosa Parks was dignified and did not lie. Kim Davis did lie about having a private audience with the pope. At least the Vatican says she did, and when faced with choosing between the Vatican and Davis, I will choose the Vatican every time. The Vatican has stated it quite plainly and unequivocally: Pope Francis did NOT “meet” with Kim Davis. He didn’t even know who she was. She was just another person at a meet-and-greet who MIGHT have shaken the pope’s hand. There are no photos of the two of them together, so we don’t even know if she did that. A meet-and-greet is very informal, even more so than a receiving line.

Big difference. Rosa Parks is a heroine, who changed history. Kim Davis is a hypocrite, who seems to have been forgotten everywhere but on this board.

And I am not a liberal. I am an ultra-conservative who comes from an ancient family of Catholics that contains many priests and religious and two archbishops (the archbishops were in the past).

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Exactly, Rosa Parks blatantly disobeyed a law in her area, she REFUSED to give in and just get up and sit somewhere else, people hated her for it, she could have moved seats, she would have avoided the consequences, but SHE DIDNT, she REFUSED…and now she is celebrated.

I think what Kim Davis did is GREAT, I hope she inspires many more in whatever job they have, to take similar stands if faced with it.

Kim Davis is no Rosa Parks. Parks fought for EQUALITY for ALL. Kim Davis wants to maintain social exclusion. Civil disobedience is a way of dramatizing injustice or a lack of civil rights. Davis does not fit that mold. She’s like former Alabama governor George Wallace (both elected officials sworn to uphold the law) who stood at the doors of the University of Alabama in an attempt to block any African-Americans’ entrance. Davis is USING her religion, or what she claims are her religious beliefs, to promote discrimination against a minority group. Rosa Parks wanted equality for ALL.

HUGE difference. A difference that makes Rosa Parks a heroine and Kim Davis a bigot, and no, I do not believe in SSM, but it is the law. And please don’t reference God’s law. Jesus gave us a commandment: “Love one another as I have loved you.” Jesus excluded NO ONE from that love, and it seems, neither does Pope Francis (he clearly loves Mr. Grassi as a longtime dear friend).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Kim Davis is no Rosa Parks. Parks fought for EQUALITY for ALL. Kim Davis wants to maintain social exclusion. Civil disobedience is a way of dramatizing injustice or a lack of civil rights. Davis does not fit that mold. She’s like former Alabama governor George Wallace (both elected officials sworn to uphold the law) who stood at the doors of the University of Alabama in an attempt to block any African-Americans’ entrance. Davis is USING her religion, or what she claims are her religious beliefs, to promote discrimination against a minority group. Rosa Parks wanted equality for ALL.

HUGE difference. A difference that makes Rosa Parks a heroine and Kim Davis a bigot, and no, I do not believe in SSM, but it is the law. And please don’t reference God’s law. Jesus gave us a commandment: “Love one another as I have loved you.” Jesus excluded NO ONE from that love, and it seems, neither does Pope Francis (he clearly loves Mr. Grassi as a longtime dear friend).

So now you finally show your true colors: “Kim Davis a bigot”. Mystery solved.

Kim Davis is not a “Rosa Parks” for marriage equality, of course, she is a Rosa Parks for traditional marriage, i.e. the form of marriage that Jesus advocated.

What sort of “theology” did you study?

And I am not a liberal. I am an ultra-conservative who comes from an ancient family of Catholics that contains many priests and religious and two archbishops (the archbishops were in the past).

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[Thomas_White]

Kim Davis is no Rosa Parks. Parks fought for EQUALITY for ALL. Kim Davis wants to maintain social exclusion. Civil disobedience is a way of dramatizing injustice or a lack of civil rights. Davis does not fit that mold. She’s like former Alabama governor George Wallace (both elected officials sworn to uphold the law) who stood at the doors of the University of Alabama in an attempt to block any African-Americans’ entrance. Davis is USING her religion, or what she claims are her religious beliefs, to promote discrimination against a minority group.

Yes, and those who have dramatized injustice in the U.S., from Thoreau to MLK, have done so while accepting the consequences for it. Both Thoreau and MLK were jailed for civil disobedience. Let us first see Kim Davis in fact resort to civil disobedience as a matter of conscience and return to jail as the certain result should she not resign.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Yes, and those who have dramatized injustice in the U.S., from Thoreau to MLK, have done so while accepting the consequences for it. Both Thoreau and MLK were jailed for civil disobedience. Let us first see Kim Davis in fact resort to civil disobedience as a matter of conscience and return to jail as the certain result should she not resign.

True. Kim Davis is not really practicing civil disobedience, which always attempts to right exclusionary laws. Mrs. Davis is practicing bigotry herself. She is bigoted against SS couples. I don’t believe in SSM, and I’ve seen posts in which you said you did not, but I also think it’s fair to say that if we could not do our job, we would resign. I know I would, and I’ve seen posts of yours that indicate you would, too, although I am not attempting to speak for you. You speak very well for yourself.

My point is that Davis is no Rosa Parks in any area. Parks fought for the INCLUSION of all to sit in any bus seat they chose. Mrs. Davis wants a particular group EXCLUDED from a right that is legally theirs - for now - and she doesn’t seem to mind working in the office that gives them that right. She does not have the courage to give up her job. Or the conviction of her stated belief.

I do not believe in SSM, I wish Kim Davis the best in life, I just can’t agree with how she’s gone about this or comparisons of her to Rosa Parks. Parks, MLK, and Thoreau were all heroes who wanted no one excluded.

 

[Thomas_White]

True. Kim Davis is not really practicing civil disobedience, which always attempts to right exclusionary laws. Mrs. Davis is practicing bigotry herself. She is bigoted against SS couples. I don’t believe in SSM, and I’ve seen posts in which you said you did not, but I also think it’s fair to say that if we could not do our job, we would resign. I know I would, and I’ve seen posts of yours that indicate you would, too, although I am not attempting to speak for you. You speak very well for yourself.

My point is that Davis is no Rosa Parks in any area. Parks fought for the INCLUSION of all to sit in any bus seat they chose. Mrs. Davis wants a particular group EXCLUDED from a right that is legally theirs - for now - and she doesn’t seem to mind working in the office that gives them that right. She does not have the courage to give up her job. Or the conviction of her stated belief.

I do not believe in SSM, I wish Kim Davis the best in list, I just can’t agree with how she’s gone about this or comparisons of her to Rosa Parks. Parks, MLK, and Thoreau were all heroes who wanted no one excluded.

Yes, this is also how I see it. The only mystery seems to be why this is not obvious to one and all, and I would,say that too involves politics or just not grasping what is occurring.

 

[Brendan_64]

Mrs. Davis wants a particular group EXCLUDED from a right that is legally theirs

Does man have any rights unless those rights are granted through a legitimate exercise of authority? Where does the authority for any law lie? With man or with God?

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Kim Davis is no Rosa Parks. Parks fought for EQUALITY for ALL. Kim Davis wants to maintain social exclusion. Civil disobedience is a way of dramatizing injustice or a lack of civil rights. Davis does not fit that mold. She’s like former Alabama governor George Wallace (both elected officials sworn to uphold the law) who stood at the doors of the University of Alabama in an attempt to block any African-Americans’ entrance. Davis is USING her religion, or what she claims are her religious beliefs, to promote discrimination against a minority group. Rosa Parks wanted equality for ALL.

HUGE difference. A difference that makes Rosa Parks a heroine and Kim Davis a bigot, and no, I do not believe in SSM, but it is the law. And please don’t reference God’s law. Jesus gave us a commandment: “Love one another as I have loved you.” Jesus excluded NO ONE from that love, and it seems, neither does Pope Francis (he clearly loves Mr. Grassi as a longtime dear friend).

Why does one clerk in Kentucky draw such ire for failing to uphold an oath when judges and the President do it all the time? Do you want a liust of how many laws have NOT been faithfully executed by the Chief Executive?

The lashing out at her is over the top, and there is something else behind it. To say she is a hypocrite because she was previously married is silly. That basically disqualifies you, me, and everyone else in history from forming any moral opinion ever since at one point in the past, we fell short.

If that is your standard, why are you posting your thoughts, and why is any of us, since we know for a fact we have led less than ideal lives? Who are we to offer our beliefs?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Kim Davis did lie about having a private audience with the pope. At least the Vatican says she did, and when faced with choosing between the Vatican and Davis, I will choose the Vatican every time.

Sounds like you will choose your interpretation of what the Vatican actually said “every time.”

The Vatican has stated it quite plainly and unequivocally: Pope Francis did NOT “meet” with Kim Davis. He didn’t even know who she was.

You are going to have to post precisely what the Vatican did say, because what you claim the “Vatican said” doesn’t resemble what I’ve read that they actually did say.

You seem to have a rather idiosyncratic take on what “Neither confirm nor deny” means.

She was just another person at a meet-and-greet who MIGHT have shaken the pope’s hand. There are no photos of the two of them together, so we don’t even know if she did that. A meet-and-greet is very informal, even more so than a receiving line.

Big difference. Rosa Parks is a heroine, who changed history. Kim Davis is a hypocrite, who seems to have been forgotten everywhere but on this board.

And clearly “forgotten” by you.

And I am not a liberal. I am an ultra-conservative who comes from an ancient family of Catholics that contains many priests and religious and two archbishops (the archbishops were in the past).

Your pedigree appears impeccable, but your unwillingness to let the truth of what happened between the Pope and Kim Davis speak for itself is puzzling.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why does one clerk in Kentucky draw such ire for failing to uphold an oath when judges and the President do it all the time? Do you want a liust of how many laws have NOT been faithfully executed by the Chief Executive?

The lashing out at her is over the top, and there is something else behind it. To say she is a hypocrite because she was previously married is silly. That basically disqualifies you, me, and everyone else in history from forming any moral opinion ever since at one point in the past, we fell short.

If that is your standard, why are you posting your thoughts, and why is any of us, since we know for a fact we have led less than ideal lives? Who are we to offer our beliefs?

Yup, I concur.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, this is also how I see it. The only mystery seems to be why this is not obvious to one and all, and I would,say that too involves politics or just not grasping what is occurring.

No, the bigger mystery is why it “is not obvious to one and all” that “politics” cuts BOTH ways, which means the way you “see it” isn’t as “obvious” as you think it is, except that “politics” may be limiting your scope in much the same way as you claim it does to others.

 

[Thomas_White]

No, the bigger mystery is why it “is not obvious to one and all” that “politics” cuts BOTH ways, which means the way you “see it” isn’t as “obvious” as you think it is, except that “politics” may be limiting your scope in much the same way as you claim it does to others.

No, the bigger mystery is why it “is not obvious to one and all” that “politics” cuts BOTH ways, which means the way you “see it” isn’t as “obvious” as you think it is, except that “politics” may be limiting your scope in much the same way as you claim it does to others.

What, specifically, is it that you believe Kim Davis is now doing as County Clerk that is a contientious objection in view of the fact SSM licenses are being issued pursuant to her authority?

 

[CaptFun]

ACLU wants Kim Davis’ 'scalp to hang on the wall’

foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/22/kim-davis-called-me-hitler.html

“God did not give us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love
and of a sound mind,” she said, quoting Second Timothy 1:7.

But it was the following verse that gave her courage.

“Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of
me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according
to the power of God…”

If zeal for what one believes in counts for points, “the Vatican” may be down a run or two to the ACLU after this first inning.

I don’t know what kind of diplomatic consideration is getting preference over backing up an obvious ally (under assault) in the culture wars – in “walking back” the meeting between Davis and the Pope – but I’d be surprised if the ACLU did likewise and walked ITS public stance back.

If “the Vatican” - or whatever spokespeople do these after the fact clarifications - catch a bit of heat for THIS stance … will it (they) then announced that this clarification of the Kim Davis matter “is not a condemnation”?

I may be missing something … but maybe the muddied waters are to blame for my lack of perception somewhat.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What, specifically, is it that you believe Kim Davis is now doing as County Clerk that is a contientious objection in view of the fact SSM licenses are being issued pursuant to her authority?

You’ll have to clarify whether you mean contentious objection or conscientious objection because you have a little of both in there.

 

[Thomas_White]

ACLU wants Kim Davis’ 'scalp to hang on the wall’

foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/22/kim-davis-called-me-hitler.html

If zeal for what one believes in counts for points, “the Vatican” may be down a run or two to the ACLU after this first inning.

I don’t know what kind of diplomatic consideration is getting preference over backing up an obvious ally (under assault) in the culture wars – in “walking back” the meeting between Davis and the Pope – but I’d be surprised if the ACLU did likewise and walked ITS public stance back.

If “the Vatican” - or whatever spokespeople do these after the fact clarifications - catch a bit of heat for THIS stance … will it (they) then announced that this clarification of the Kim Davis matter “is not a condemnation”?

I may be missing something … but maybe the muddied waters are to blame for my lack of perception somewhat.

It’s a very large headline but nary a word in the article that explains the ACLU’s complaint.

 

[Thomas_White]

You’ll have to clarify whether you mean contentious objection or conscientious objection because you have a little of both in there.

conscientious…a spell checker thing…

 

[Lily_Bernans]

It’s a very large headline but nary a word in the article that explains the ACLU’s complaint.

I agree. I think the writer of the article is suffering from a lack of perception. There’s not a word in it about the problem the ACLU has with Davis or of them wanting her scalp, so to speak. What does come through loud and clear is the article writers lack of respect for the Vatican and the Catholic Church. I notice he puts “the Vatican” in quotes every time he writes about it as if it is a figment of someone’s imagination.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What, specifically, is it that you believe Kim Davis is now doing as County Clerk that is a contientious [conscientious] objection in view of the fact SSM licenses are being issued pursuant to her authority?

At the very worst, what Kim Davis has done is press the “pause” button with regard to “a free people’s suicide.” Personally, it doesn’t matter who she is or what she has done but her action at the moment is one that ought to give the entire American nation pause to consider what the SCOTUS ruling actually does with regard to where it (and all modern western nations with it) are headed.

It is as if the “crowd” is simply following a herd instinct triggered by someone without much regard for the good of the herd and Kim is standing her ground in the middle of the chaos shouting, “Wait a minute, let’s not be in such a hurry to be led when we haven’t really considered where this will end up!”

It is a response on her part to the “rush” to get this thing through the courts and part of society without due diligence and thoughtful debate on the part of those in position to act responsibly – SCOTUS for one, the American government for another.

 

[Thomas_White]

At the very worst, what Kim Davis has done is press the “pause” button with regard to “a free people’s suicide.” Personally, it doesn’t matter who she is or what she has done but her action at the moment is one that ought to give the entire American nation pause to consider what the SCOTUS ruling actually does with regard to where it (and all modern western nations with it) are headed.

At the very worst, you think? Of course it matters who she is and what she had done unless one supposes a person can also delegate legal culpability. Unfortunately, it appears what she is doing at the moment is only perceived by some as a conscientious objection. This was the question: What, specifically, is this conscientious objection?

Peter_Plato:

It is as if the “crowd” is simply following a herd instinct triggered by someone without much regard for the good of the herd and Kim is standing her ground in the middle of the chaos shouting, “Wait a minute, let’s not be in such a hurry to be led when we haven’t really considered where this will end up!”

It is a response on her part to the “rush” to get this thing through the courts and part of society without due diligence and thoughtful debate on the part of those in position to act responsibly – SCOTUS for one, the American government for another.

So why then doesn’t she address the legal issue by refusing to permit her subordinates to issue SSM licenses under her authority as the County Clerk?

 

[Peter_Plato]

At the very worst, you think? Of course it matters who she is and what she had done unless one supposes a person can also delegate legal culpability. Unfortunately, it appears what she is doing at the moment is only perceived by some as a conscientious objection. This was the question: What, specifically, is this conscientious objection?

Yup, that is the question that everyone, not just some, ought to be seriously considering. And whether enough individuals seriously consider the answer to that question will determine where the United States ends up. Will it be a free people’s suicide?

So why then doesn’t she address the legal issue by refusing to permit her subordinates to issue SSM licenses under her authority as the County Clerk?

She at least knows her limits. She can only do what she can do. She can press the “pause” button, but not the “rewind.” That is up to the rest of the “free people.” Will they recognize what it means to be a “free people” or will they confuse that with being a “licentious people?”

At the very least, will they permit discussion of what that means or will the discussion amount to: “Shut up!”