Religious Persecution Begins in America

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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.

I know it seems a minor thing…but this is where it starts.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

Great footer though ZC!

ICXC NIKA]

I am glad you like it. I grew up watching Bishop Sheen on TV. My daughter teaches religion at a Catholic high school and occasionally shows one of his old videos. According to her…the kids are “blown away.”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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.

There are, and have been, numerous “bad laws”.

They simply must be repealed or changed.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If she was so outrages, the correct approach would have been to get into a different line of work.

What is outrages is the fact that according to Kentucky law people can go to any county clerk for a marriage license. That means that gays who want to “marry” can drive 10 minutes to the next county and get their license.

It’s hard to make someone with 4 marriages to be the champion of the sacrament, although perhaps she was just unlucky.

Was her “unlucky” marriages before she became a Christian or after?
This is really a non issue.

 

[MJJean]

First, she is not being jailed because of her religious beliefs. She is being jailed for taking an oath of office that included vows to uphold the law. Then not only did she decide to break that vow and refuse to uphold the law, she forbade clerks under her from upholding the law.

If she refused out of purely religious beliefs, all she had to do was refuse to personally issue marriage licenses for SSM’s while allowing other county personnel to issue those licenses.

In addition,* this* woman is trying to protect the sanctity of marriage? Really? She was pregnant with husband #3’s twins while married to husband #1. Husband #2 adopted them. Then she cheated on Husband #2 with Husband #3 and married him. She’s now on husband #4.

She’s not a hero. She’s a hypocrite.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

First, she is not being jailed because of her religious beliefs. She is being jailed for taking an oath of office that included vows to uphold the law. Then not only did she decide to break that vow and refuse to uphold the law, she forbade clerks under her from upholding the law.

When a secular law goes against your religious convictions…you have a serious decision to make.

I see by your profile that you are a “converting Catholic”. Welcome aboard.

I am sure that in time you will see the parallels between the early Church martyrs, who died horrible deaths, supporting their beliefs and what Kim is facing today,

If she refused out of purely religious beliefs, all she had to do was refuse to personally issue marriage licenses for SSM’s while allowing other county personnel to issue those licenses.

Allowing subordinates to issue licenses would be unthinkable…as County Clerk, her signature is on all licenses…even those issued by her deputies.

In addition,* this* woman is trying to protect the sanctity of marriage? Really? She was pregnant with husband #3’s twins while married to husband #1. Husband #2 adopted them. Then she cheated on Husband #2 with Husband #3 and married him. She’s now on husband #4.

She’s not a hero. She’s a hypocrite.

This is a non issue. What happened before she became a Christian has no bearing on this case…and is nothing more than gay activism grasping at straws.

 

[GEddie]

I know it seems a minor thing…but this is where it starts.

I agree that there is probably more ahead, and I do not argue that we should wait until we do face head loss before we react; only that the time to cry persecution is not now.

This woman had months to know that the USSC ruling meant that her duties of office would require issuing SSM licenses. She should have resigned then.

You can’t quit from genuine persecution.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I agree that there is probably more ahead, and I do not argue that we should wait until we do face head loss before we react; only that the time to cry persecution is not now.

This woman had months to know that the USSC ruling meant that her duties of office would require issuing SSM licenses. She should have resigned then.

You can’t quit from genuine persecution.

ICXC NIKA

Resigned???

Christians do not resign their beliefs. And why should anyone resign in the face of a wrong.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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.

No…I did not say that religion should have a say in the affairs of state. But when people restrict a state from “prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)” …then the state, its officers and judges have no authority to require any one to violate their religious beliefs.

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.

If you agree that all the above are wrong and evil…then to allow them to exist , either secularly or religiously is hypocrisy.

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.

When a government forces a baker, or anyone, to do work he does not want to do…that is slavery.

Anyone, religious or not, has every right to influence government officials by vote, support or persuasion.

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.

Think of a woman who had several abortions and now speaks out against such evil.
Would you condemn her?

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.

Then why bring up the wrongs done by Kim as a reason for not facing a wrong law?

 

[Larry1700]

First, she is not being jailed because of her religious beliefs. She is being jailed for taking an oath of office that included vows to uphold the law. Then not only did she decide to break that vow and refuse to uphold the law, she forbade clerks under her from upholding the law.

If she refused out of purely religious beliefs, all she had to do was refuse to personally issue marriage licenses for SSM’s while allowing other county personnel to issue those licenses.

In addition, this** woman is trying to protect the sanctity of marriage? Really? She was pregnant with husband #3’s twins while married to husband #1. Husband #2 adopted them. Then she cheated on Husband #2 with Husband #3 and married him. She’s now on husband #4.

She’s not a hero. She’s a hypocrite.

It’s my understanding that this happened AFTER she became a Christian. If correct, then calling her a hypocrite is similar to calling St. Paul a hypocrite, because of what he did before his Damascus conversion. (No, I’m not comparing her to St. Paul. It’s just the first such conversion story that came to mind.)

 

[Kal2012]

Let’s step back and remember that we criticize people from the 1930’s Germany for not standing up against unjust laws and just “doing what they were told”.

And - let’s not kid ourselves and act like everyone is thrilled that gay marriage is the law of the land. Of course, there’s going to be dissent.

Government employees don’t automatically lose their freedom of conscience just because of who they work for. They are still citizens and have human rights. I call BS on that one. No employee, regardless of work environment, should feel like they have to sell their soul to do their job. A lot of people do their jobs because of their faith - not in spite of their faith.

That said, reasonable accommodations need to be made so gay couples can get their marriage licenses. (And religious people can work w/out violating their faith).

She told the people under her not to issue licenses either. And she stopped issuing them for straight couples too - so “they wouldn’t discriminate” against anyone.

Admittedly, I admire her guts, but I think she went about it the wrong way.

In the end, the government is made of all of us - religious and non-religious. Our government motto used to be “E pluribus unum” - out of many one.

Religious people aren’t just going to disappear because they make non-religious folks uncomfortable (and vice versa).

Either we find a way to live together or we figure a way to dissolve the ties that bind us together - peacefully.

A lot of us really don’t care what others people believe - we are ok living in a pluralistic, multicultural society. However, we are sick and tired of being marginalized because we are conservative Christians/Catholics and we actually BELIEVE IT AND LIVE IT.

As a Catholic, I appreciate the separation of church and state more than I did when I was a Protestant. That said, America is really a cultural wasteland these days because of secularism and Progressive so-called “values”.

 

[exnihilo]

I agree that there is probably more ahead, and I do not argue that we should wait until we do face head loss before we react; only that the time to cry persecution is not now.

This woman had months to know that the USSC ruling meant that her duties of office would require issuing SSM licenses. She should have resigned then.

You can’t quit from genuine persecution.

I think you are unfairly limiting persecution. Persecution does not require imprisonment or death. Of course in this case the punishment is prison. Persecution in the U.S. started with financial punishment. This is very effective for a wealthy people who value their comfort. In poor regions where you don’t have material wealth it starts with more physical punishment. But there is, has been and will be persecution in the U.S.

 

[GEddie]

I think you are unfairly limiting persecution. Persecution does not require imprisonment or death. Of course in this case the punishment is prison. Persecution in the U.S. started with financial punishment. This is very effective for a wealthy people who value their comfort. In poor regions where you don’t have material wealth it starts with more physical punishment. But there is, has been and will be persecution in the U.S.

I do not say that persecution necessarily involves prison or death. But being penalized for refusing to do one’s job (in a situation where that means prison) when one knew months ahead that they could not do their job in keeping with their faith, is not IMNAAHO persecution.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

“We will see plenty more ‘law-breakers’ going to jail in the name of religious liberty”

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/09/04/we-will-see-plenty-more-law-breakers-going-to-jail-in-the-name-of-religious-liberty/

 

[ellam25]

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

This. I believe that anyone should be allowed to practice their faith, but that means not finding a job that requires them to go aganist their beliefs. For instance, If I was a nurse, I would never ever work for a doctor who performs abortions and if I chose to, well, I would have to do my job and what’s expected to me. Just my 2 cents.

 

[ellam25]

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!

But she probably issues marriage licenses to people who fornicate, or perform other sins we find immoral (including the fact she has been married and divorced several times) so I don’t believe that she is a martyr. I am against SSM but I don’t think she should be put on some pedestal.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

But she probably issues marriage licenses to people who fornicate, or perform other sins we find immoral (including the fact she has been married and divorced several times) so I don’t believe that she is a martyr. I am against SSM but I don’t think she should be put on some pedestal.

But a man and a woman who fornicate SHOULD be married. Then the fornication stops.
With a same sex couple the fornication continues…

 

[Mike_Dye]

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.

Actually you are incorrect. Kim Davis is doing just what her job demands. The Constitution of her State states that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. By not issuing a permit for same sex couples she is simply enforcing the laws of her State. Just because some idiot in a robe erringly thinks that it his job to legislate doesn’t change anything.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Actually you are incorrect. Kim Davis is doing just what her job demands. The Constitution of her State states that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. By not issuing a permit for same sex couples she is simply enforcing the laws of her State. Just because some idiot in a robe erringly thinks that it his job to legislate doesn’t change anything.

The specific form that Kim is required to fill out for a marriage license specifically requires male and female, If the Kentucky legislature decides they agree with the Supreme Court and they change the laws of Kentucky, that’s a whole different thing.

It is long about time that some Americans woke up and realized that the courts and judges do not make laws. Thomas Jefferson warned against judicial tyranny, which would happen if we ended up allowing a court ruling to become law without the other two branches of government coming in to agree.

A Supreme Court ruling, without enabling legislation, is just the interpretation of five or more unelected lawyers on the court. It is NOT the law of the land.

 

[BackHand]

No…I did not say that religion should have a say in the affairs of state.

If you agree that all the above are wrong and evil…then to allow them to exist , either secularly or religiously is hypocrisy.

Could you clarify this for me? Because it sounds an awful lot like you’re saying that religion should force the state to legislate morality. I do not participate in those things that I believe to be morally wrong. So I am not a hypocrite. They should be allowed to exist because it is not the state’s job to legislate your perceived religious beliefs.

But when people restrict a state from “prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)” …then the state, its officers and judges have no authority to require any one to violate their religious beliefs.

Yes they do if they’re a government officials, this woman refusing to issue marriage license because of her religious views on gay marriage, is as ridiculous as a General not sending troops into battle because it goes against his beliefs of pacifism. She chose her government position. If she can’t fulfill her roles as an official then she has no right to hold that position.

When a government forces a baker, or anyone, to do work he does not want to do…that is slavery.

She is a government official, not not a worker in the private sector.

Anyone, religious or not, has every right to influence government officials by vote, support or persuasion.

True go democracy.

Think of a woman who had several abortions and now speaks out against such evil.
Would you condemn her?

If she was telling me about the evils of condoms as she makes her way back from from abortions clinic still wet from the blood of an aborted baby then yeah I’d condemn her.

Then why bring up the wrongs done by Kim as a reason for not facing a wrong law?

I brought up the wrongs done by Kim because she’s a hypocrite, what I meant by “two wrongs don’t make a right” is that the state interfering with religion is bad, just as it is wrong for religion to interfere with the state.

 

[BackHand]

The specific form that Kim is required to fill out for a marriage license specifically requires male and female, If the Kentucky legislature decides they agree with the Supreme Court and they change the laws of Kentucky, that’s a whole different thing.

It is long about time that some Americans woke up and realized that the courts and judges do not make laws. Thomas Jefferson warned against judicial tyranny, which would happen if we ended up allowing a court ruling to become law without the other two branches of government coming in to agree.

A Supreme Court ruling, without enabling legislation, is just the interpretation of five or more unelected lawyers on the court. It is NOT the law of the land.

The Supreme Court invalidated an unconstitutional ban on gay marriage, they did not make a law, Similar to how they determined that laws which segregated white and black students was unconstitutional, they did not make a law, they just invalidated something that was unconstitutional.