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

[Thomas_White]

Thanks and props for your research regarding this issue, Abyssinia. I believe you are on the money regarding the place of conscientious objection in the spirit of Christian teachings!

On September 11, 2013, Pope Francis wrote a letter to the Italian newspaper ‘La Repubblica’ in which he wrote, “Given that–and this is the key point–God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and repentant heart the issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.”

Is then conscientious objection a question of religious freedom at all? Religious freedom in the U.S. at least is the legal right to exercise one’s religious beliefs. To conclude that Pope Francis in his statement to reporters that government officials have a human right to refuse to perform their duty if they have a conscientious objection even applicable to the Kim Davis situation?

 

[graciew]

On September 11, 2013, Pope Francis wrote a letter to the Italian newspaper ‘La Repubblica’ in which he wrote, “Given that–and this is the key point–God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and repentant heart the issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.”

Is then conscientious objection a question of religious freedom at all? Religious freedom in the U.S. at least is the legal right to exercise one’s religious beliefs. To conclude that Pope Francis in his statement to reporters that government officials have a human right to refuse to perform their duty if they have a conscientious objection even applicable to the Kim Davis situation?

I do not know ,Thomas. What I am saying is that a human right applies for all and everywhere. And no clue of what he meant nor I am trying to second guess. Just sharing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

On September 11, 2013, Pope Francis wrote a letter to the Italian newspaper ‘La Repubblica’ in which he wrote, “Given that–and this is the key point–God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and repentant heart the issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.”

Is then conscientious objection a question of religious freedom at all? Religious freedom in the U.S. at least is the legal right to exercise one’s religious beliefs. To conclude that Pope Francis in his statement to reporters that government officials have a human right to refuse to perform their duty if they have a conscientious objection even applicable to the Kim Davis situation?

Of course it would, because the Pope’s words do not entail that a conscientious objection is LIMITED TO non-religious reasons for having that objection. It is possible to have a conscientious objection based upon religious reasons, just as it is possible to have a conscientious objection based upon non-religious reasons. The fact that her religious beliefs led her to have a conscientious objection does not ipso facto disqualify her objection from being a concientious one.

 

[graciew]

Of course it would, because the Pope’s words do not entail that a conscientious objection is LIMITED TO non-religious reasons for having that objection. It is possible to have a conscientious objection based upon religious reasons, just as it is possible to have a conscientious objection based upon non-religious reasons. The fact that her religious beliefs led her to have a conscientious objection does not ipso facto disqualify her objection from being a concientious one.

Cause human rights have to do with human dignity. Is this what you would be thinking of,Peter ?

 

[Thomas_White]

Of course it would, because the Pope’s words do not entail that a conscientious objection is LIMITED TO non-religious reasons for having that objection. It is possible to have a conscientious objection based upon religious reasons, just as it is possible to have a conscientious objection based upon non-religious reasons. The fact that her religious beliefs led her to have a conscientious objection does not ipso facto disqualify her objection from being a concientious one.

Of course it would, because the Pope’s words do not entail that a conscientious objection is LIMITED TO non-religious reasons for having that objection. It is possible to have a conscientious objection based upon religious reasons, just as it is possible to have a conscientious objection based upon non-religious reasons. The fact that her religious beliefs led her to have a conscientious objection does not ipso facto disqualify her objection from being a concientious one.

Of course it is possible since Pope Francis says every person has the human right of conscientious objection. But the question of religion freedom is, in the U.S., a matter of law, and so is Kentucky’s RFRA. The Supreme Court has ruled that SSM is a legal right in the U.S., and it is this legal right and not conscious that is determinative in the Kim Davis situation. As I see it, one should differentiate what both Pope Francis has said and what Catholic teaching provides from any legal or political perspective.

 

[Thomas_White]

Of course it would, because the Pope’s words do not entail that a conscientious objection is LIMITED TO non-religious reasons for having that objection. It is possible to have a conscientious objection based upon religious reasons, just as it is possible to have a conscientious objection based upon non-religious reasons. The fact that her religious beliefs led her to have a conscientious objection does not ipso facto disqualify her objection from being a concientious one.

Of course it is possible since Pope Francis says every person has the human right of conscientious objection. But the question of religion freedom is, in the U.S., a matter of law, and so is Kentucky’s RFRA. The Supreme Court has ruled that SSM is a legal right in the U.S., and it is this legal right and not conscious that is determinative in the Kim Davis situation. As I see it, one should differentiate what both Pope Francis has said and what Catholic teaching provides from any legal or political perspective.

 

[Thomas_White]

I do not know ,Thomas. What I am saying is that a human right applies for all and everywhere. And no clue of what he meant nor I am trying to second guess. Just sharing.

Yes, I agree that conscience is a human right. However, religious freedom is a legal right in the U.S., and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that SSM is legal throughout the U.S. One could argue that this was a mistaken ruling, as many have, but this cannot change the fact it is the U.S. law at this time. As such, I see the Kim Davis situation as a matter of law.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, I agree that conscience is a human right. However, religious freedom is a legal right in the U.S., and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that SSM is legal throughout the U.S. One could argue that this was a mistaken ruling, as many have, but this cannot change the fact it is the U.S. law at this time. As such, I see the Kim Davis situation as a matter of law.

And you do so quite arbitrarily by denying her right of conscience – essentially by arbitrarily redefining it as religious freedom, thereby, disallowing that it could be both.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Cause human rights have to do with human dignity. Is this what you would be thinking of,Peter ?

I am not sure I would limit human rights by agreeing that they derive from human dignity. I would suspect that both human rights and human dignity have and require a common ground.

It isn’t clear what you mean by “human dignity,” either, so I hesitate endorsing your statement without qualification.

 

[graciew]

Yes, I agree that conscience is a human right. However, religious freedom is a legal right in the U.S., and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that SSM is legal throughout the U.S. One could argue that this was a mistaken ruling, as many have, but this cannot change the fact it is the U.S. law at this time. As such, I see the Kim Davis situation as a matter of law.

So.do I. Which does not mean we are right.
Yet friction is the law changed. Maybe my thinking is square …but my oath is a personal one to the law. Not that they have to ask everyone if they agree or not to every bit of law changes.
I could not open Abyssinia’ s link. I d love to read it

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course it is possible since Pope Francis says every person has the human right of conscientious objection. But the question of religion freedom is, in the U.S., a matter of law, and so is Kentucky’s RFRA. The Supreme Court has ruled that SSM is a legal right in the U.S., and it is this legal right and not conscious that is determinative in the Kim Davis situation…

This is only true if you beg the question of precedence. Does conscientious objection take priority over law?

You seem to allow that it does, but then you make the move to cast Kim Davis’ objection as one of “religious freedom,” insisting that law takes precedence over religious freedom.

Where you write “conscious” above, I suspect you meant “conscience.”

By emphasizing the Supreme Court ruling over Kim Davis’ “religious freedom” you are essentially subverting her right of conscientious objection by turning it into a matter of religious freedom – again, quite arbitrarily, by assuming religious freedom rights cannot be, at the same time, matters of conscientious objection.

Essentially, what you are doing is subverting the rights to conscientious objection of all religious believers by claiming religious believers have “religious beliefs” but cannot, at the same time, have conscience rights. Why not?

Why do you want to disallow religion-based beliefs from counting as conscientious objections?

 

[graciew]

I am not sure I would limit human rights by agreeing that they derive from human dignity. I would suspect that both human rights and human dignity have and require a common ground.

It isn’t clear what you mean by “human dignity,” either, so I hesitate endorsing your statement without qualification.

I was asking you …not that I had it figured it out

 

[Thomas_White]

So.do I. Which does not mean we are right.
Yet friction is the law changed. Maybe my thinking is square …but my oath is a personal one to the law. Not that they have to ask everyone if they agree or not to every bit of law changes.
I could not open Abyssinia’ s link. I d love to read it

The link is to a WP article that discusses Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act which provides that a reasonable accommodation must be made when an employee objects to performing a job duty on religious grounds. However, Title VII specifically exempts government employees from this provision, but the state of Kentucky’s new RFRA law (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) requires that government agencies are must acknowledge religious objection in certain applicable cases. Kim Davis, however, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision concerning SSM, refused to issue any marriage licenses, and this was the basis of a federal lawsuit against her on the grounds she violated the U.S. Constitutional right of county residents. I don’t see how she could have possibly prevailed in that lawsuit.

Anyway, it is a legal question and would not seem to concern a person’s right to conscientiously object.

 

[graciew]

The link is to a WP article that discusses Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act which provides that a reasonable accommodation must be made when an employee objects to performing a job duty on religious grounds. However, Title VII specifically exempts government employees from this provision, but the state of Kentucky’s new RFRA law (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) requires that government agencies are must acknowledge religious objection in certain applicable cases. Kim Davis, however, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision concerning SSM, refused to issue any marriage licenses, and this was the basis of a federal lawsuit against her on the grounds she violated the U.S. Constitutional right of county residents. I don’t see how she could have possibly prevailed in that lawsuit.

Anyway, it is a legal question and would not seem to concern a person’s right to conscientiously object.

Thank you.

 

[simple_soul]

This is only true if you beg the question of precedence. Does conscientious objection take priority over law?

You seem to allow that it does, but then you make the move to cast Kim Davis’ objection as one of “religious freedom,” insisting that law takes precedence over religious freedom.

Where you write “conscious” above, I suspect you meant “conscience.”

By emphasizing the Supreme Court ruling over Kim Davis’ “religious freedom” you are essentially subverting her right of conscientious objection by turning it into a matter of religious freedom – again, quite arbitrarily, by assuming religious freedom rights cannot be, at the same time, matters of conscientious objection.

Essentially, what you are doing is subverting the rights to conscientious objection of all religious believers by claiming religious believers have “religious beliefs” but cannot, at the same time, have conscience rights. Why not?

Why do you want to disallow religion-based beliefs from counting as conscientious objections?

That was quite dizzing to read. If this is what Thomas White is doing I wonder if it is because we keep trying to seperate Religion from State.

 

[Thomas_White]

This is only true if you beg the question of precedence. Does conscientious objection take priority over law?

You seem to allow that it does, but then you make the move to cast Kim Davis’ objection as one of “religious freedom,” insisting that law takes precedence over religious freedom.

Where you write “conscious” above, I suspect you meant “conscience.”

By emphasizing the Supreme Court ruling over Kim Davis’ “religious freedom” you are essentially subverting her right of conscientious objection by turning it into a matter of religious freedom – again, quite arbitrarily, by assuming religious freedom rights cannot be, at the same time, matters of conscientious objection.

Essentially, what you are doing is subverting the rights to conscientious objection of all religious believers by claiming religious believers have “religious beliefs” but cannot, at the same time, have conscience rights. Why not?

Why do you want to disallow religion-based beliefs from counting as conscientious objections?

Yes, I meant ‘conscience’ but not even my spell checker always agrees with me.

I am not insisting that the law takes precedence over religious freedom but rather that, in the U.S. at least, religious freedom is a matter of law. Really, I am not arbitrarily subverting anyone’s right to conscientious objection or to anything else. What is determinative is a U.S. Supreme Court decision, and I surely was not consulted.

A person’s assertion of religious freedom certainly could also involve a contientious objection, but these are separate issues. As Pope Paul has explained, an atheist also has a conscience. So, could an atheist claim an exemption under Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act on the basis of his or her religious belief?

 

[graciew]

. What is determinative is a U.S. Supreme Court decision, and I surely was not consulted.

Here is the issue.
Say you do not feel represented by what Kim or X did. You have already elected her.
What if we all go to her with our contientious objection ?
Yet be as it were it is what it is now.

 

[Thomas_White]

Here is the issue.
Say you do not feel represented by what Kim or X did. You have already elected her.
What if we all go to her with our contientious objection ?
Yet be as it were it is what it is now.

Yes, I think so too. Her decision not to issue any marriage licenses to county residents exceeded her authority and constituted a refusal to perform the duties of her elected office as County Clerk. The judge put her in jail and there she remained until she agreed that the Office of County Clerk would issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible county residents and that she would not intervene.

 

[graciew]

Yes, I think so too. Her decision not to issue any marriage licenses to county residents exceeded her authority and constituted a refusal to perform the duties of her elected office as County Clerk. The judge put her in jail and there she remained until she agreed that the Office of County Clerk would issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible county residents and that she would not intervene.

Thomas , there is lentils for dinner. Already cooked. Now some are ill , some have an allergy…what do we do about sauce and dressing ? But dinner is lentils. I may cook some soup for the ill one of course but our home is not a restaurant. Shamefully basic but that is how I see it.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas , there is lentils for dinner. Already cooked. Now some are ill , some have an allergy…what do we do about sauce and dressing ? But dinner is lentils. I may cook some soup for the ill one of course but our home is not a restaurant. Shamefully basic but that is how I see it.

Pray for those ill lentils and maybe sauce and dressing too, I guess. Good luck with it!