Religious Persecution Begins in America

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zoltan_Cobalt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No. This is a elected government official refusing to do her duty. If Kim Davis said she wasn’t going to issue marriage certificates to Catholics because of her religion would you say that was ok? Just because she issues a certificate for any reason doesn’t mean she approves of the actions of the people that receive it. IMHO.
 
I am very loath to cry persecution over the loss of legal privilege when in other nations, those who name our LORD are losing their heads.

When persecution comes, we will not need to ask, it will be obvious.

Great footer though ZC!

ICXC NIKA
 
WKW_69 said:
No. This is a elected government official refusing to do her duty. If Kim Davis said she wasn’t going to issue marriage certificates to Catholics because of her religion would you say that was ok? Just because she issues a certificate for any reason doesn’t mean she approves of the actions of the people that receive it. IMHO.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

This is not religious persecution, but somebody not doing their job. I don’t agree with the gay marriage ruling, but its the law. Besides, when was the last time an elected Catholic official refused to give a marriage license to a divorced person?
 
WKW_69 said:
No. This is a elected government official refusing to do her duty. If Kim Davis said she wasn’t going to issue marriage certificates to Catholics because of her religion would you say that was ok? Just because she issues a certificate for any reason doesn’t mean she approves of the actions of the people that receive it. IMHO.
Click to expand...
Her duty as a Christian comes first. Perhaps she was elected because of her faith. The problem is that too few other clerks in her position have done the same thing. If enough did it there’d be nothing that could be done about it. I know six out of ten “Catholics” in the US are pro “gay marriage” dispute the fact that they cannot be both truly Catholic and pro “gay marriage.” Relativism at its worst.
 
If she was so outrages, the correct approach would have been to get into a different line of work.

It’s hard to make someone with 4 marriages to be the champion of the sacrament, although perhaps she was just unlucky.
 
GEddie said:
I am very loath to cry persecution over the loss of legal privilege when in other nations, those who name our LORD are losing their heads.

When persecution comes, we will not need to ask, it will be obvious.

Great footer though ZC!

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
👍
 
I understand this has little to do with the clerk but I would like to know why, since abortion is the law of the land, we don’t force doctors to perform abortions but they (the secularists) will force a poor baker out of business for not baking a cake for a gay wedding. btw, I don’t want to see doctors forced into performing abortions. The answer has to be because it would violate religious or ethical principles. Why can’t the same be applied here? :confused:
 
“So why the furor? Because her refusal poses a symbolic threat to “marriage equality” and its claim to realize the high ideals of justice. One word of dissent, one act of conscience, disturbs the serene confidence of progressives that they have a monopoly on all that is right and good.”
Kim Davis’s Conscientious Decision
 
Neofight said:
If she was so outrages, the correct approach would have been to get into a different line of work.

It’s hard to make someone with 4 marriages to be the champion of the sacrament, although perhaps she was just unlucky.
Click to expand...
On one hand, I can see your argument.

However, since we all sin and fall short of perfection should any of us speak up? Do you have to be perfect in order to stand up for the truth of the sacraments or should you stay silent? Would St. Augustine be qualified to be a champion of the sacrament of Marriage? I’m not being snarky, I’m just asking sincere questions.

Also, is the answer as simple as finding another line of work? I’ve heard the same argument from people who are upset when Christian nurses won’t participate in abortions at hospitals, that they should find another line of work. Should bakers who won’t provide cakes for homosexual weddings find another line of work as well? As Christians, do we think the answer is to hide our lamps under bushels which is what Jesus said not to do in Mark 4:21?
 
WKW_69 said:
No. This is a elected government official refusing to do her duty. If Kim Davis said she wasn’t going to issue marriage certificates to Catholics because of her religion would you say that was ok? Just because she issues a certificate for any reason doesn’t mean she approves of the actions of the people that receive it. IMHO.
Click to expand...
I agree somewhat. However, I believe that this is possibly an example of religious persecution because other elected officials do not goto jail for failing to uphold the law with respect to sanctuary cities (and they are not citing their religious beliefs for failing to do so). For that matter, President Obama doesn’t go to prison when the administration ignores a federal court (for example, violating a court injunction around the time of the BP oil spill).

But, even if this were religious persecution, it’s not the beginning.
 
Evania said:
On one hand, I can see your argument.

However, since we all sin and fall short of perfection should any of us speak up? Do you have to be perfect in order to stand up for the truth of the sacraments or should you stay silent? Would St. Augustine be qualified to be a champion of the sacrament of Marriage? I’m not being snarky, I’m just asking sincere questions.

Also, is the answer as simple as finding another line of work? I’ve heard the same argument from people who are upset when Christian nurses won’t participate in abortions at hospitals, that they should find another line of work. Should bakers who won’t provide cakes for homosexual weddings find another line of work as well? As Christians, do we think the answer is to hide our lamps under bushels which is what Jesus said not to do in Mark 4:21?
Click to expand...
You are not being snarky at all…I appreciate the charitable and civil discussion you offer on what can be a passionate topic.

Your point about sin and St Augustine is well taken, and would be true in his wilder days…perhaps this woman has undergone
a converdion…I should not have judged.

The second point I have issues with… we can’t compare a baker with a government clerk…the baker is providing a commodity that I can go to another provider to receive…only this woman has the power to issue a required license, and I can’t go to a the DMV and get a marriage license there. I guess the argument could be made I could go to a different city or state, but that’s the same basis of the find another job contention.

Finally, yes, Christians should not hide the lamp under a bushel…yell, scream, holler, work for change…but still as a saint Paul said, we should submit to authority…and indeed Christ had Peter pay the Temple Tax for himself and Peter even though Christ had no obligation to pay it.

Peace and all good!
 
I do believe that this is the beginning of religious persecution.
First they threw the first Christians into prisons, and then into the arena with lions.
Read some of the comments on those article, particularly in a liberal news source. You will be shocked how people suggest that we deal with her- ‘let her rot in prison’ is one of the more MILD suggestions.
 
There are PLENTY of elected officials out there that refuse to enforce the law of the land.
 
mjs2001 said:
…I believe that this is possibly an example of religious persecution because other elected officials do not goto jail for failing to uphold the law with respect to sanctuary cities (and they are not citing their religious beliefs for failing to do so). For that matter, President Obama doesn’t go to prison when the administration ignores a federal court …
Click to expand...
Remember the refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act before the SCOTUS? Should we bring up Benghazi, IRS, Fast & Furious, the VA, etc? Yet the Feds want to persecute a lowly county clerk. SMH. God bless her, that she has the spine to stand up for her beliefs no matter what!
 
SMH_2015 said:
Remember the refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act before the SCOTUS? Should we bring up Benghazi, IRS, Fast & Furious, the VA, etc? Yet the Feds want to persecute a lowly county clerk. SMH. God bless her, that she has the spine to stand up for her beliefs no matter what!
Click to expand...
Admittedly I haven’t had a chance to watch FOX News yet…so tell me, what does all those things have to do with this woman?..was she at Bengazi, or work for the VA?
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=22294&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1441306869
Click to expand...
ServusHumilis said:
Her duty as a Christian comes first.
Click to expand...
Here’s my problem with that line of thought Zoltan Cobalt and ServusHumilis think that religion should have a say in the affairs of the state, but they don’t specify to what extent, for example this woman thinks that gay marriage certificates should not be handed out. But has absolutely no problem divorcing four husbands? Do you not see the inherent hypocrisy? I’m sure she would have had a problem if she was denied to those divorces.

Saying that religion has the right to interfere with the state is a belief that becomes very dark very quickly. Should we censor the Internet from immoral things? Surely pornographic and violent things are wrong so we should censor movies and video games? And books? Contraception is wrong maybe our politicians should make a law banning condoms? Missing church on Sunday is wrong maybe we should make a law forcing people to attend. Taking the Lord’s name in vain is wrong there should be a law against it.

Society is either secular or theocratic there is no in between. The government forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding, is just as bad as religion forcing its belief upon those who interact with governmental officials.
Neofight said:
If she was so outrages, the correct approach would have been to get into a different line of work.

It’s hard to make someone with 4 marriages to be the champion of the sacrament, although perhaps she was just unlucky.
Click to expand...
I agree someone who has been married four times should not be lecturing others on the sanctity of marriage, it’s the whole not throwing rocks when you live in a glass house, take the log out of your eye before lecturing me on the splinter in mine, type deal.
Evania said:
Also, is the answer as simple as finding another line of work? I’ve heard the same argument from people who are upset when Christian nurses won’t participate in abortions at hospitals, that they should find another line of work. Should bakers who won’t provide cakes for homosexual weddings find another line of work as well? As Christians, do we think the answer is to hide our lamps under bushels which is what Jesus said not to do in Mark 4:21?
Click to expand...
I completely agree that it is wrong for the government to force a religious person to perform a business task that explicitly pertains to homosexuality, granted I think denying someone a burger at a fast food joint just because they’re gay should be illegal (just as the denying someone who is Catholic service should be illegal). A religious person should have the right to deny service in certain circumstances, doctors should be allowed to refuse abortions, ect.

That being said two wrongs do not make a right, the government should leave religion alone, just as religion should leave the state alone.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Not so much the start, really just bringing what was already underway to the next level.
Click to expand...
Well, I was reminded earlier by a co-worker, Jesus warned us times like this would come when christians are persecuted and jailed, etc due to his name…that is exactly whats happening.

Personally, I think she is doing a great job of sticking to her faith, more power to her!
 
WKW_69 said:
No. This is a elected government official refusing to do her duty. If Kim Davis said she wasn’t going to issue marriage certificates to Catholics because of her religion would you say that was ok? Just because she issues a certificate for any reason doesn’t mean she approves of the actions of the people that receive it. IMHO.
Click to expand...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…"

When the Amendment was drafted, it applied only to the U.S. Congress; state and local governments could abridge the free exercise of religion as long as there was no similar provision in the state constitution. In 1940, the Supreme Court held in Cantwell v. Connecticut that, due to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause is enforceable against state and local governments.

That being said…Kim has a strong Supreme Court case that should be ruled in her favor.

We have an activist judge who has jailed an elected official for no reason other than her religious beliefs. That is a serious violation of her rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top