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

[simple_soul]

Since when would it be the right thing to do to permit ourselves to BE FORCED to live under laws which are not only opposed to God’s laws but which are determinably opposed to natural law.

I’m not sure but maybe ever since Jesus chose to suffer and die under the law after He told Peter to put away his sword?

 

[Darryl1958]

Since when would it be the right thing to do to permit ourselves to BE FORCED to live under laws which are not only opposed to God’s laws but which are determinably opposed to natural law.

Children are being taught in schools to ignore their own biology and replace that with what is best described as a tenuous ideology. How is that sane? Or moral? Or defensible?

Don’t kid yourself, this compliance is being FORCED upon us.

The Milgram experiment into authoritarianism becomes a lot easier to grasp once it is understood how much compliance to authoritarianism has been imposed upon us from the earliest of ages.

Telling children to sit in neat rows does not become less authoritarian by instructing the children to sit in a circle, or groups. Those with authority tell us what to think, and we invariably comply.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The only thing she is refusing to do is personally issue licences. The licences that are issued are issued under her authority. If she wished to stop the issuing licences under her authority she has to resign. But she seemingly likes the government salary

No, and your passive voice gives away your error. These license are not being issued under her authority. They are being issued in contravention of her authority and under the power of the court. In fact, to clarify that, she has ordered that her signature not be attached and, instead, the license that others issue from the office that she was elected to state that it is by authority of the court.

Whether or not she “likes the government salary” is an irrelevant ad hominem characteristic of the hatred of this woman.

Here is the military coup analogy:

Suppose the army occupied the white house and demanded that the president order the extermination of the amish or resign so that a puppet could be installed who would give the order. The president refuses both to give the order or to resign. The order is then made on the authority of the army occupied white house. Nobody would be so foolish to later blame the president for the order simply because he did not resign because resigning would not have stopped the order.

One might argue that she could do more but she has done more than her share already. It’s time for others to follow her lead.

 

[JimmyG88]

That would be you reading your presumptions into her motives. You do understand the word “prejudice” comes from the idea of “pre-judging,” yes? That is, where we judge a person by what we suppose are their motives rather than what truly are.

Check your warrant.

“God has appointed two kinds of government in the world, which are distinct in their nature, and ought never to be confounded together; one of which is called civil, the other ecclesiastical government.”
~Founding Father Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, 1773

 

[sallybutler]

Since when would it be the right thing to do to permit ourselves to BE FORCED to live under laws which are not only opposed to God’s laws but which are determinably opposed to natural law.

Children are being taught in schools to ignore their own biology and replace that with what is best described as a tenuous ideology. How is that sane? Or moral? Or defensible?

Don’t kid yourself, this compliance is being FORCED upon us.

How exactly are you being forced? You have the ability to move to a country that has laws you agree with. You do not have to marry someone of the same sex. You can home school your children. You can work to get a Constitutional amendment passed if you live in the U.S.

One almost always has options. Some options may not be what one prefers, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

How exactly are you being forced? You have the ability to move to a country that has laws you agree with. You do not have to marry someone of the same sex. You can home school your children. You can work to get a Constitutional amendment passed if you live in the U.S.

One almost always has options. Some options may not be what one prefers, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

If you can redefine marriage you can redefine “force” to include inaction.

 

[sallybutler]

If you can redefine marriage you can redefine “force” to include inaction.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I have no idea what that means.

For eons marriage has signified the union of a man and woman but in NewSpeak it means the union of two people regardless of gender.

Similarly, for most of human history force required, at a minimum, some sort of action or threat of action, e.g. the muzzle of a gun. But in NewSpeak it includes folding your arms and standing absolutely still. In this way Kim Davis is “forcing” her religion on homosexual couples.

But one thing “force” cannot possibly mean in NewSpeak is the threat of jail by liberal judges.

 

[sallybutler]

For eons marriage has signified the union of a man and woman but in NewSpeak it means the union of two people regardless of gender.

Similarly, for most of human history force required, at a minimum, some sort of action or threat of action, e.g. the muzzle of a gun. But in NewSpeak it includes folding your arms and standing absolutely still. In this way Kim Davis is “forcing” her religion on homosexual couples.

But one thing “force” cannot possibly mean in NewSpeak is the threat of jail by liberal judges.

How does that relate to Peter Plato statement of being forced?

 

[Mongo]

You weren’t quoting me. I never said those things.

Here’s the oath she swore, word-for-word:

lgbtqnation.com/2015/09/read-the-oath-of-office-taken-by-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis/

Like the judge, I believe oaths sworn to BEFORE GOD mean things.

“…will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.” She is showing quite a bit of partiality. Of course someone firm in her convictions could always resign.

And she is doing her duties as they were when she took her oath. It sounds like you think this is like a credit card contract, in which the creditor can change the terms at any time without the consent of the borrower. She took her oath when the law said one thing, then a few judges decided it was wrong, so now her oath has been changed.

 

[Thomas_White]

The Milgram experiment into authoritarianism becomes a lot easier to grasp once it is understood how much compliance to authoritarianism has been imposed upon us from the earliest of ages.

Telling children to sit in neat rows does not become less authoritarian by instructing the children to sit in a circle, or groups. Those with authority tell us what to think, and we invariably comply.

The Milgram experiment into authoritarianism becomes a lot easier to grasp once it is understood how much compliance to authoritarianism has been imposed upon us from the earliest of ages.

In follow up interviews sometime after the experiment, and also in interviews following later attempts to replicate the study, a common response of the test subjects was that they never thought college professors would actually have them torture a person and that they were aware all along it was only an experiment.

The thinking here was “data in, data out” while ignoring the mediating factor of the human brain.

 

[Thomas_White]

The Milgram experiment into authoritarianism becomes a lot easier to grasp once it is understood how much compliance to authoritarianism has been imposed upon us from the earliest of ages.

In follow up interviews sometime after the experiment, and also in interviews following later attempts to replicate the study, a common response of the test subjects has been that they never thought college professors would actually have them torture a person and that they were aware all along it was only an experiment.

The thinking of the experimenters about the test subjects was “data in, data out” while ignoring the mediating factor of the human brain.

 

[JimmyG88]

From time to time in democracy or in any large democratic organisation the electorate vote for a change in the law or a change in the rules. If you are work for or are appointed by a government or a subsidiary part of government that happens a lot. Your choices are to uphold the law or to leave the organisation to protest the change.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

From time to time in democracy or in any large democratic organisation the electorate vote for a change in the law or a change in the rules. If you are work for or are appointed by a government or a subsidiary part of government that happens a lot. Your choices are to uphold the law or to leave the organisation to protest the change.

The above paragraph nicely encapsulates much that is wrong with the homosexual agenda.

Sorry, no. Those are not the only alternatives. She has demonstrated only one of many other choices.

Nor should any person of good conceince accept the notion that the electorate voted for this particular change or that it can willy nilly redefine words or overturn natural law.

 

[JimmyG88]

The above paragraph nicely encapsulates much that is wrong with the homosexual agenda.

Sorry, no. Those are not the only alternatives. She has demonstrated only one of many other choices.

Nor should any person of good conceince accept the notion that the electorate voted for this particular change or that it can willy nilly redefine words or overturn natural law.

I do need to correct you. I don’t have an homosexual agenda. As a servant of the state one has to accept that the job changes that is the nature of civil service any public servant will tell you that the job they start isn’t the one it morphs into. That is the nature of government employment. I genuinely believed that the separation of church and state was a principle that Americans valued. Clearly I’m mistaken

 

[Thomas_White]

As I understand it she has neither authorized the distribution of “SSM” license nor obstructed the judicial coup against her office. The court has chosen not to require her authority, only not to interferre with it’s own takevoer of her office.

What you see as a “judicial coup” is actually the enforcement of a Supreme Court decision. The sworn duties of her elective office require her authority for the issuance of marriage licenses in the county. If she is to remain in her office, she must as a matter of law perform the duties of her office or resign. This is hardly a “takeover” of her office.

As you say, she cannot delegate the authority of her elected office. But any court that can invent “SSM” can invent its own authority to issues such licenses. And she has, in fact, instructed that any licenses issued be issued on the authority of the court and not her authority.

Pretty clever, I think.

The court is not “inventing” anything and is only enforcing a Supreme Court decision. It does not require Kim Davis to ignore her conscience, and it is necessary to see why this is irrelevant. Her sole legal option is to resign (which could be a matter of conscience) or return to jail. That is the reality.

In the same sense that an elected official cannot obstruct a military coup, yes. A wise official stands aside and let’s the military have its way but does not lend his authority to it.

Exactly, but she is having it both ways by not stepping aside and also permitting the issuing of marriage licenses to SSM couples per her authority. Pointing out that this is a legal issue is not to agree with SSM or to disagree with a contientious objection to it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I do need to correct you. I don’t have an homosexual agenda.

Are you familiar with the term “capo”?

As a servant of the state one has to accept that the job changes that is the nature of civil service any public servant will tell you that the job they start isn’t the one it morphs into. That is the nature of government employment.

For the life of me I can’t imagine why anyone of intelligence would persist in a counter-factual that has already been disproven by Kim Davis. Clearly there are more options than you are ready to allow.

I genuinely believed that the separation of church and state was a principle that Americans valued. Clearly I’m mistaken

Yes, you are mistaken.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What you see as a “judicial coup” is actually the enforcement of a Supreme Court decision. The sworn duties of her elective office require her authority for the issuance of marriage licenses in the county. If she is to remain in her office, she must as a matter of law perform the duties of her office or resign. This is hardly a “takeover” of her office.

No, they don’t. As I pointed out to Lily the notion that one is honor bound to follow orders no matter their nature was thoroughly refuted at the Nurenburg Trials.

Yes, I am calling the “MSM” decision a judicial coup. See, Kim Davis is not the only “worker” with a “job”. The SC justices also are sworn to a particularl duty which they shirked, hence the injustice that Kim Davis seeks to avoid.

Unjust law is not law.

The court is not “inventing” anything and is only enforcing a Supreme Court decision. It does not require Kim Davis to ignore her conscience, and it is necessary to see why this is irrelevant. Her sole legal option is to resign (which could be a matter of conscience) or return to jail. That is the reality.

The inventors are the five SC justices. That others elect to be their instruments is beside the point.

In fact, she has many legal options and she selected one among them.

Exactly, but she is having it both ways by not stepping aside and also permitting the issuing of marriage licenses to SSM couples per her authority. Pointing out that this is a legal issue is not to agree with SSM or to disagree with a contientious objection to it.

I do not mean by “step aside” to resign.

Here is the military coup analogy that nobody seems able to answer:

Suppose the army occupied the white house and demanded that the president order the extermination of the amish or resign so that a puppet could be installed who would give the order. The president refuses both to give the order or to resign. The order is then made on the authority of the army occupied white house. Nobody would be so foolish to later blame the president for the order simply because he did not resign because resigning would not have stopped the order.

 

[JimmyG88]

Are you familiar with the term “capo”?

For the life of me I can’t imagine why anyone of intelligence would persist in a counter-factual that has already been disproven by Kim Davis. Clearly there are more options than you are ready to allow.

Yes, you are mistaken.

In order:

No
Can’t you
Really

 

[Darryl1958]

I genuinely believed that the separation of church and state was a principle that Americans valued. Clearly I’m mistaken

The title of this thread is that the Church is NOT endorsing Kim Davis.
She is acting on behalf of her own conscience, and not on the authority of the Church.

Americans do value separation of church and state, I think. I think Americans do not want the government to be run by any church.
But what Americans also value is that individuals be afforded the freedom to not be separated from their own consciences.