News Article: Kentucky Clerk Is Due In Federal Court For Contempt Hearing

[81usaf92]

I disagree. She is merely a useful idiot.Now, I don't mean to insult her and I know the origin, but that sums it up.

I can probably accept that she probably takes more issue with her situation than Wallace, but when the judge gives her a compromise that she eventually accepts but denies it at first. It kinda makes you wonder. I'm not challenging her faith or morality, I am more challenging if she is 100% committed or grandstanding. I think it's kinda funny that this a Kentucky issue and not an alabama, Georgia, or Texas issue.

 

[chanson78]

It seems to me that you do not think us common worshipers truly have religious freedom unless we are in a church. I believe that religious freedom goes far beyond that. i would find it hard to believe that the framers would place such limits on what they considered such inherent rights.

I think you have a misplaced expectation regarding religious freedom. It seems evident in your own statements. It is evident to me that you have been willingly led down the relative recent attempt to rewrite history so that this picture below is no longer an artistic license but an attempt to capture what many believe happened.

Regarding the second point:

Thomas Jefferson

in every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own

James Madison

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.

Thomas Paine

As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith.

Edit:
As an aside, I know that there were many who were Deists and Christians, but please quit using the term "framers" as some unanimously Christian group whose consideration of religion was the primary goal in setting up the nation when they authored the founding documents.

 

[Jon]

probably deserves it's own 30 page thread but whatever

 

[92tide]

So does her religious freedom end when she goes into work? What about her right to free speech? Does she lose any other certain inalienable rights when she arrives on the job site? Let's say that the SCOTUS creates a right for pedophiles to marry people of their sexual preference and specify that churches were not exempt from this ruling, do you decide to abandon your beliefs or quit your job? It may sound like a severe hypothetical but some would've thought the same (5 years ago) about what we are discussing today.
It seems to me that you do not think us common worshipers truly have religious freedom unless we are in a church. I believe that religious freedom goes far beyond that. i would find it hard to believe that the framers would place such limits on what they considered such inherent rights.

so, slavery, the holocaust, jim crow, and now pedophilia. you have the inside straight

 

[Jon]

so, slavery, the holocaust, jim crow, and now pedophilia. you have the inside straight

LOL, I guess now with a good laugh I can be productive and get some work done. thanks

 

[92tide]

probably deserves it's own 30 page thread but whatever

now you are just ramming down our throats and rubbing in our faces the tyranny that five un-elected justices have wrought upon us

 

[Go Bama]

Raised as a Baptist, I was always stunned by the absolute ignorance of so-called Sunday School teachers regarding the whole free will/predestination argument. The SBC of the 1970s and 1980s has really abandoned its primarily Calvinistic roots and has a radical form of free will that was rejected 1500 years ago at the Council of Orange. People are so clueless on the actual history of Christian theological views that they don't realize that both the Augustinian-Calvinist side AND the Wesleyan-Arminian side would not even recognize the people flying their banners today. I had a Calvinist professor make the observation that John Wesley was 'stronger' on the doctrine of 'original sin' than any Reformed Calvinist writer of the similar time frame.

Yet everyone makes it a simple argument of 'free will' or 'predestination,' one side or the other, and gets both sides wrong.

Most theistic folks think God is under some obligation to either save, offer salvation, or be 'fair' in human terms. To do otherwise is to be an 'unloving God.' My problem with that assumption is that it assumes that God loves everyone equally. I've never understood why anyone thinks that - operating from a biblical worldview. If man is made in the image of God and man does not love everyone equally, why do we assume God cannot make distinctions in HIS love?

(Keep in mind at this point the existence of God is assumed; this isn't a problem for a skeptic, but it is for Kim Davis and the like).

I've been thinking a lot about this post. I'm working and will have to get back to it later. It's very thought provoking but perhaps deserves it's own thread.

 

[TRUTIDE]

Regarding the second point:

Thomas Jefferson


James Madison


Thomas Paine


Edit:
As an aside, I know that there were many who were Deists and Christians, but please quit using the term "framers" as some unanimously Christian group whose consideration of religion was the primary goal in setting up the nation when they authored the founding documents.

I will take Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to back up my arguments any day. Even out of context, their writings show the significance out founding fathers placed on religious freedom in the writing of the Constitution.

Thomas Paine purely hated all religion. He was especially outspoken on his disdain for Christianity and the Bible. He ran afoul of most and died a lonely, derided man. You can have him on your team. He would fit right in.

 

[TRUTIDE]

so, slavery, the holocaust, jim crow, and now pedophilia. you have the inside straight

I only made reference to one of these but just go with what you feel.

 

[cbi1972]

That would certainly be one way to spin a desired outcome.

I'd be just as happy to have marriage be completely irrelevant to government, but if they are going to grant favors and enact important policy on the basis of marital status, they need to be even-handed about it. Equal protection as a right is spelled out explicitly, some are fighting like mad for UNEQUAL protection, and that is wrong.

 

[92tide]

I only made reference to one of these but just go with what you feel.

and i lumped your's in with the previous three which have been bandied around this thread since page 2 or so. same bad analogies, different poster

 

[Jon]

I will take Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to back up my arguments any day. Even out of context, their writings show the significance out founding fathers placed on religious freedom in the writing of the Constitution.

Thomas Paine purely hated all religion. He was especially outspoken on his disdain for Christianity and the Bible. He ran afoul of most and died a lonely, derided man. You can have him on your team. He would fit right in.

start another thread based on David Barton's BS work, i'm in

 

[cbi1972]

I will take Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to back up my arguments any day. Even out of context, their writings show the significance out founding fathers placed on religious freedom in the writing of the Constitution.

What Jefferson had to say about religious freedom

that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

 

[TRUTIDE]

What Jefferson had to say about religious freedom

As I said...in or out of context, this is my guy...

The following text is a draft written by Thomas Jefferson in 1777. It promoted religious freedom for the state of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison promoted the bill for years before it was finally passed by the Virginia legislature. At the time, the Anglican Church was officially recognized as the state religion. The law disestablished that denomination. An alternative proposal that many other denominations be recognized was rejected.

This bill is often called "the precursor to the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution. 1 It is this Amendment that guarantees religious freedom for the individual, while erecting a wall of separation between church and government.
...
SECT. II. WE, the General Assembly of Virginia, do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

horizontal rule

SECT. III. AND though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

I do not see how anyone reading the full text would conclude that he is trying to limit religious freedom. IMO after reading this, he is speaking out against a religion established by the State of VA pointing out the existence of individual religious freedom and that it be protected as a natural right.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

So does her religious freedom end when she goes into work? What about her right to free speech? Does she lose any other certain inalienable rights when she arrives on the job site? Let's say that the SCOTUS creates a right for pedophiles to marry people of their sexual preference and specify that churches were not exempt from this ruling, do you decide to abandon your beliefs or quit your job? It may sound like a severe hypothetical but some would've thought the same (5 years ago) about what we are discussing today.
It seems to me that you do not think us common worshipers truly have religious freedom unless we are in a church. I believe that religious freedom goes far beyond that. i would find it hard to believe that the framers would place such limits on what they considered such inherent rights.

The harsh answer is "Yes, yes it does." It ends the moment it interferes with her sworn civil legal duties. When it does interfere with those, then it is her duty to step aside for someone who will do so. And don't try to lead this off into comparing complying with orders involving the taking of human life. As I said "reductio ad absurdum." However, it's my opinion that, as long as the money keeps pouring into her cause and pocket, this ridiculous dog and pony show will go on...

 

[GrayTide]

The harsh answer is "Yes, yes it does." It ends the moment it interferes with her sworn civil legal duties. When it does interfere with those, then it is her duty to step aside for someone who will do so. And don't try to lead this off into comparing complying with orders involving the taking of human life. As I said "reductio ad absurdum." However, it's my opinion that, as long as the money keeps pouring into her cause and pocket, this ridiculous dog and pony show will go on...

LIKE

 

[cbi1972]

As I said...in or out of context, this is my guy...


I do not see how anyone reading the full text would conclude that he is trying to limit religious freedom. IMO after reading this, he is speaking out against a religion established by the State of VA pointing out the existence of individual religious freedom and that it be protected as a natural right.

Of course he's not trying to limit religious freedom. He is trying to prevent religious zealots from infringing on civil rights of those who do not share their beliefs. He is most definitely not saying that religious freedom includes the right to infringe on others.

 

[TRUTIDE]

Of course he's not trying to limit religious freedom. He is trying to prevent religious zealots from infringing on civil rights of those who do not share their beliefs. He is most definitely not saying that religious freedom includes the right to infringe on others.

Nor have I. But you are reading into it much more than I do. Looking back to the history of Jefferson, he is a proponent of individual religious freedom. One of his biggest concerns was the establishment of religion as a state (government). This document protected individual religious freedom from be infringed upon by the state. He also sets forth the highest protections for individual religious freedom. To quote him goes against what you and others are insinuating. That our religious freedom is limited and only protected in certain places. That the government can set aside this right for newly created rights of others. Some might say infringement. I do not believe that anyone can force their religion or beliefs onto others in any circumstance. I do believe that our religious freedom should always be protected and the government should not force anyone to do anything against those beliefs. Kim Davis did not commit an act against anyone. She withdrew from committing an act that she says went against her religious beliefs. The words being thrown around like invoke and force are inconsequential here. She did no such thing.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Nor have I. But you are reading into much more than I do. Looking back to the history of Jefferson, he is a proponent of individual religious freedom. One of his biggest concerns was the establishment of religion as a state (government). This document protected individual religious freedom fro be infringed upon by the state. He also sets forth the highest protections for individual religious freedom. To quote him goes against what you and others are insinuating. That our religious freedom is limited and only protected in certain places. That the government can set aside this right for newly created rights of others. Some might say infringement. I do not believe that anyone can force their religion or beliefs onto others in any circumstance. I do believe that our religious freedom should always be protected and the government should not force anyone to do anything against those beliefs. Kim Davis did not commit an act against anyone. She withdrew from committing an act that she says went against her religious beliefs. The words being thrown around like invoke and force are inconsequential here. She did no such thing.

So if the president doesn't believe in something then he shouldn't enforce the law of the land?

 

[Jon]

Nor have I. But you are reading into much more than I do. Looking back to the history of Jefferson, he is a proponent of individual religious freedom. One of his biggest concerns was the establishment of religion as a state (government). This document protected individual religious freedom fro be infringed upon by the state. He also sets forth the highest protections for individual religious freedom. To quote him goes against what you and others are insinuating. That our religious freedom is limited and only protected in certain places. That the government can set aside this right for newly created rights of others. Some might say infringement. I do not believe that anyone can force their religion or beliefs onto others in any circumstance. I do believe that our religious freedom should always be protected and the government should not force anyone to do anything against those beliefs. Kim Davis did not commit an act against anyone. She withdrew from committing an act that she says went against her religious beliefs. The words being thrown around like invoke and force are inconsequential here. She did no such thing.

straight up BS

Who does Davis work for again?

Who does the 1st amendment protect citizens from?


Did she let her team issue licenses that they were comfortable with and she wasn't?


Did she deny rights to people that had them?

You already know the answers to all these questions and know you are wrong. I challenged you on it pages ago, saying something to the effect of "ah, you just don't like gay people" which you have yet to deny.

Jefferson would LOL at you as he was chiefly concerned about a Government that would deny individual freedoms by codifying any religious code. This is exactly what Davis and her supporters want to do.

sometimes I hope people like you end up desperately needing a blood transfusion and the only hospital within safe travel distance for you is run by the Jehovahs Witnesses perhaps then you'll see the dangers of this "freedom" you are pushing for