Religious Persecution Begins in America

[BackHand]

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

What if a man and a woman who were both previously divorced, without getting annulments get married. Then they’re fornicating . Also gay people are going to be fornicating with or without a marriage.

 

[exnihilo]

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.

She didn’t know the law would change when she was elected. And she has an obligation to follow the laws of Kentucky. If persecution excludes that which is legal then there is hardly ever persecution because by its nature it almost always is legal.

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.

Of course they made law. Almost no one before today thought a man and a man could marry. There is no tradition of the idea even existing. They also made law in making segregation illegal. The courts have a long history of making law. Just because a person likes the outcome or the outcome is good doesn’t change the fact they make law and in so doing are usurpers. The segregation rulings should have resulted a long time ago in the bathroom issues we are now seeing with ‘transgendered’ students. Of course like most court decisions they don’t follow their own justifications to their natural conclusions nor do the supporters of the decisions.

 

[PaulinVA]

She is an* elected *official.

She sought this job. Now she refuses to perform the duties of the job. Do elected officials have a right to conscience exemptions to their public duties?

 

[exnihilo]

She sought this job. Now she refuses to perform the duties of the job. Do elected officials have a right to conscience exemptions to their public duties?

Certainly. At least we accept this in principle. A judge can recuse himself if he has conscience problems regarding a certain case. Is this a power judges reserve only for themselves? In our judgeocracy that would certainly make sense.

 

[PaulinVA]

Certainly. At least we accept this in principle. A judge can recuse himself if he has conscience problems regarding a certain case. Is this a power judges reserve only for themselves? In our judgeocracy that would certainly make sense.

No, a judge can’t. A judge recuses himself/herself for conflicts of interest.

 

[exnihilo]

No, a judge can’t. A judge recuses himself/herself for conflicts of interest.

Sure he can. Conscience is a very broad topic. At the very least it is the conscience by which the judge determines he has a conflict of interest. If there was no conscience the judge couldn’t make such a judgement.

 

[PaulinVA]

Sure he can. Conscience is a very broad topic. At the very least it is the conscience by which the judge determines he has a conflict of interest. If there was no conscience the judge couldn’t make such a judgement.

I don’t understand your point. A judge could be in favor of abortion or against abortion, in favor of the death penalty or against it, etc. Judges put aside their own position and decide cases based on the law and the facts of the cases.

 

[Inisfallen]

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.

Well, plenty of people here on these boards would be in favor of coming for the socialists and trade unionists. . . .

 

[JoeFreedom]

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.

Right, I think this is the center of the argument. Many call her a hypocrite for being married four times while not giving marriage licenses to homosexual couples. But before we jump to conclusions, let’s ponder for a moment (and I don’t know if this is true or not) that she remarried three times and then became Christian, and now stands up for the sacrament of marriage, and has confessed her sins of remarrying (of course as Catholics we know that she must stop living in sin, have three annulments, or go back to her first true one-and-only marriage). That would make it easier to support her. But of course, she should stand up for the sacrament of marriage and not provide marriage licenses to homosexuals, because we know god condones it. So even if she is still being sinful and say remarries again, but stands up for that part of the sacrament, is that not better than doing nothing at all? As Evania says, we all sin.

Matthew 7:4-5 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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.

Religion does not have the ability to FORCE anything. The state has the monopoly on FORCE.

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.

It is an understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence that the mere fact that a civil law harmonizes or agrees with religious beliefs is not grounds for finding an Establishment Clause violation.

The state may legislate anything it wants…and if it agrees with my religious and moral standards it is perfectly legal.

Certainly, if the civil law granted recognition only to sacramental marriages as defined in the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church, this would violate the Establishment Clause.

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.

Kim, your General and the judge, who sent her to jail, all took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Kim is the only one doing just that. She is protected under the first Amendment, The judge has no authority to FORCE her to violate her religious views on anything…including gay marriage.

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.

But Kim is not doing that…is she?

You claim to be an Agnostic-Catholic (?) You should refer to Luke 7:41-47 for a little insight about hypocrisy.

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.

I agree with your concept of the separation of Church and state…but I do not see Kim as a hypocrite.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The Supreme Court invalidated an unconstitutional ban on gay marriage,

There was no BAN on gay marriage. There is only a definition of marriage as stated within the Kentucky State Constitution. By declaring that definition to be discriminatory, the Supreme Court CREATED a new right. One that does not exist within the U.S. Constitution because the Constitution does not speak on the issue of marriage, same sex or otherwise.

The Supreme Court really “stepped in it” with this last ruling. They were told that there would be first amendment violations if they got deeper into the marriage issue. Now it starts. Kim Davis will just be the first.

If you think that Kim is wrong by standing up for her religious convictions then you will have no argument when Agnosticism is ruled unconstitutional and the black Suburbans pull up in front of your house.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

Right, I think this is the center of the argument. Many call her a hypocrite for being married four times while not giving marriage licenses to homosexual couples. But before we jump to conclusions, let’s ponder for a moment (and I don’t know if this is true or not) that she remarried three times and then became Christian, and now stands up for the sacrament of marriage, and has confessed her sins of remarrying (of course as Catholics we know that she must stop living in sin, have three annulments, or go back to her first true one-and-only marriage). That would make it easier to support her. But of course, she should stand up for the sacrament of marriage and not provide marriage licenses to homosexuals, because we know god condones it. So even if she is still being sinful and say remarries again, but stands up for that part of the sacrament, is that not better than doing nothing at all? As Evania says, we all sin.

Matthew 7:4-5 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

I certainly don’t see her as a hypocrite. And I feel quite bad for her that she was sent to jail. It seems to me that she could have at least been fined first. However, I do think that as a public servant she has an obligation to follow the law. If she did not want to be involved in the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples, then she should have come up with some sort of accommodation that would allow someone else in her office to do so. Perhaps the judge is trying to send a message to other clerks about the seriousness of refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Like I said, throwing her in jail without first fining her seems rather harsh, but the judge really has no choice but to hold her in contempt, which is completely appropriate and necessary.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Well, plenty of people here on these boards would be in favor of coming for the socialists and trade unionists. . . .

Yeah!

But we really can’t do that…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Let us leave the claim of hypocrisy out of this thread unless this can be explained…

 

[Thorolfr]

What if a man and a woman who were both previously divorced, without getting annulments get married. Then they’re fornicating . Also gay people are going to be fornicating with or without a marriage.

And isn’t Kim Davis herself fornicating since she’s been divorced and remarried numerous times? Even if she’s a Christian now, shouldn’t she and her present husband be living as brother and sister instead of living a life of sin?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It’s interesting how most liberals and homosexuals preach “Live and let live and anything goes”… until someone is living a life that contradicts theirs.

Liberals and homosexuals are the real hypocrites.

 

[1990Domer]

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.

I assume you draw similar conclusions about the POTUS?

 

[BackHand]

Religion does not have the ability to FORCE anything. The state has the monopoly on FORCE.

True, my question which (I think has been sufficiently answered), was if you wanted to use the state as a apparatus to enforce your religious views, I now understand that is not the case.

It is an understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence that the mere fact that a civil law harmonizes or agrees with religious beliefs is not grounds for finding an Establishment Clause violation.

The state may legislate anything it wants…and if it agrees with my religious and moral standards it is perfectly legal.

I completely agree, the state makes laws against murder, rape, drunk driving, fraud, etc. These laws may lineup with the views of Christians but it is not theocracy, because most people from various religious, political and ideological backgrounds will agree that those things are wrong.

Certainly, if the civil law granted recognition only to sacramental marriages as defined in the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church, this would violate the Establishment Clause.

I see there are a few things we agree on.

The judge has no authority to FORCE her to violate her religious views on anything…including gay marriage.

But Kim is not doing that…is she?

The Supreme Court as it currently stands does have the authority to force her to issue gay marriages, all interpretations of the Constitution aside, she is forcing her religious views on someone as she is not refusing to issue gay marriages out of some noble appreciation for the Constitution, she is solely refusing because of her religious viewpoints, therefore she is forcing her religion on someone else.

You claim to be an Agnostic-Catholic (?) You should refer to Luke 7:41-47 for a little insight about hypocrisy.

Can’t control what I feel. But I can control who I marry.

I agree with your concept of the separation of Church and state…but I do not see Kim as a hypocrite.

Maybe attacking her personal life is a low blow, yet the fact remains that she would marry a divorced couple, but at the same time has a problem with issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals.

One thing I wonder is why conservative Christians care so much about gay marriage in the first place. If you think the definition of marriage comes from God, why on earth would you care what the state’s definition is? Let the beater bumpers have their Tartar sauce. As long as churches aren’t forced to issue gay marriages (like they are in Europe), I have no problem with what the state incorrectly defines as marriage, because it doesn’t affect me in any way.

 

[1990Domer]

True, my question which (I think has been sufficiently answered), was if you wanted to use the state as a apparatus to enforce your religious views, I now understand that is not the case.

I completely agree, the state makes laws against murder, rape, drunk driving, fraud, etc. These laws may lineup with the views of Christians but it is not theocracy, because most people from various religious, political and ideological backgrounds will agree that those things are wrong.

I see there are a few things we agree on.

The Supreme Court as it currently stands does have the authority to force her to issue gay marriages, all interpretations of the Constitution aside, she is forcing her religious views on someone as she is not refusing to issue gay marriages out of some noble appreciation for the Constitution, she is solely refusing because of her religious viewpoints, therefore she is forcing her religion on someone else.

Can’t control what I feel. But I can control who I marry.

Maybe attacking her personal life is a low blow, yet the fact remains that she would marry a divorced couple, but at the same time has a problem with issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals.

One thing I wonder is why conservative Christians care so much about gay marriage in the first place. If you think the definition of marriage comes from God, why on earth would you care what the state’s definition is? Let the beater bumpers have their Tartar sauce. As long as churches aren’t forced to issue gay marriages (like they are in Europe), I have no problem with what the state incorrectly defines as marriage, because it doesn’t affect me in any way.

I’ll tell you why I care. Because SSM is merely a checkbox on an agenda that the LGBTQs and their supporters are pushing. The will not be satisfied until every school teaches this immorality, nor will they be satisfied until all churches lose their tax-exempt status because they refuse to marry them. And it does affect me because I am trying to raise a child in my religion, and it keeps getting tougher and tougher to do, especially when it starts penetrating the school curriculum and the overall trash they call television these days. Thank goodness we never watch it…except for Notre Dame football.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The Supreme Court as it currently stands does have the authority to force her to issue gay marriages,

Under what statute? What law? Has the Supreme Court defined marriage?

Under the only written law that applies to this case (Kentucky) Kim and her deputies could be charged by the State of Kentucky for issuing marriage licenses to anything other than a man and a woman.

all interpretations of the Constitution aside, she is forcing her religious views on someone as she is not refusing to issue gay marriages out of some noble appreciation for the Constitution, she is solely refusing because of her religious viewpoints, therefore she is forcing her religion on someone else.

Here is the dilemma and the legal mess that the Supreme Court has unleashed…if she is forced to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples…then the government is violating her civil rights as protected under the First Amendment.

So whose rights take precedence?

Can’t control what I feel. But I can control who I marry.

Interesting concept.

Maybe attacking her personal life is a low blow, yet the fact remains that she would marry a divorced couple, but at the same time has a problem with issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals.

She is an Apostolic Christian. I don’t know much about them…but maybe they don’t look at civil divorce as strictly as we do.

One thing I wonder is why conservative Christians care so much about gay marriage in the first place. If you think the definition of marriage comes from God, why on earth would you care what the state’s definition is? Let the beater bumpers have their Tartar sauce. As long as churches aren’t forced to issue gay marriages (like they are in Europe), I have no problem with what the state incorrectly defines as marriage, because it doesn’t affect me in any way.

Yeah, I wonder why it has gone this far. I can’t understand why they can’t be satisfied with “Civil Unions” rather than “Marriage”. I mean where is the tolerance and understanding of people’s religious convictions and traditions???