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

[Jon]

(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).

sorry? Skeptic's (and I count myself as one first and foremost) would always have a problem with anything supernatural which God by definition most certainly is

as for the rest of your post I've been reading quite a bit lately on the Early Baptist's in the US and their unflinching support for true religious freedom. It's pretty mind boggling to see (especially in heavily Baptist GA) baptists pushing to codify their beliefs into law.

 

[mittman]

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).

Very well said. I couldn't agree more with your assessment of how people today view those centuries old arguments, and I agree with the effect you are describing. Thankfully (IMO) those old battle lines are getting properly fuzzy.

Your statement concerning the nature of God will require some contemplation on my part

 

[bamabelle1991]

I guess here's the part I don't get (but perhaps I'm burdened with a seminary education that examines things a little more deeply than mere dogmatism) - let's BUY INTO all of the evangelical or even fundamenalist assumptions solely for the sake of argument.

Let's assume the abomination of homosexuality, that God is upset about gay marriage (God's wrath, etc), blah blah blah blah blah.

How does Kim Davis refusing to do her job accomplish anything at all? Some of you probably remember me telling about the Catholic doctor who would not prescribe birth control pills to single women. Like or hate that all you want, but he'd simply have another doctor issue it. Patient cared for, doctor's conscience clear.

Why couldn't Davis merely do that, which is what I'm reading now she will do?

I mean, I just don't get the religious freedom aspect of this at all. If the government were mandating that I as a minister MUST perform gay weddings I think we'd all agree here that THAT would constitute a violation of my own religious freedom. But that isn't what we have here.

Perhaps the problem is that Kim Davis is another Christian who thinks it is her job to block a sinner in pursuit of sin. What I find ironic about all of that is the self-appointed theism it embodies. Think of the arrogance - "I can stop the wrath of God by refusing to give gay people licenses."

Doesn't sound like much of a god to me.

As far as the 'evil' argument goes, we have plenty of evil that isn't illegal and shouldn't be. Technically, asking for a higher price for your Bama tickets than you paid for them could be considered 'evil,' but oh well.

And yet I'll also bet that if Kim Davis were questioned on her religious views, she'd insist on a Pelagian form of 'free will.' More irony if you ask me.

I'm done.

I like everything you say here. Kim Davis is an Apolistic Pentacostal Christian. In case that matters.

 

[cbi1972]

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?

By that token, why would God need to issue commandments to men, if being made in God's image means sharing his mind? The questionable premises add up in a hurry.

 

[81usaf92]

By that token, why would God need to issue commandments to men, if being made in God's image means sharing his mind? The questionable premises add up in a hurry.

Well if bill maher and bill oreilly had to stop debating this very question. I don't think it's an easy question to answer for either side

 

[TRUTIDE]

How does Kim Davis refusing to do her job accomplish anything at all? Some of you probably remember me telling about the Catholic doctor who would not prescribe birth control pills to single women. Like or hate that all you want, but he'd simply have another doctor issue it. Patient cared for, doctor's conscience clear.

Why couldn't Davis merely do that, which is what I'm reading now she will do?

I mean, I just don't get the religious freedom aspect of this at all. If the government were mandating that I as a minister MUST perform gay weddings I think we'd all agree here that THAT would constitute a violation of my own religious freedom. But that isn't what we have here.
.

I don't follow. So how is your religious freedom on a higher ground than hers or Bill Maher's for that matter? Does Seminary school grant you more vigorous individual rights in the first amendment of the constitution? What about her individual rights?
Religious freedom is an inherent right for everyone. She was not blocking anyone from doing anything. There were other clerks in KY still issuing marriage licenses. She was stopping herself from participating in something she saw as sinful. Other Governors in other states moved to protect all of their citizens' individual rights. They changed state policy to accommodate. They made it where these clerks did not have to perform acts against their religious beliefs and allowed for the duty to fall to others in these cases. Why did this KY governor not do the same? The judge did it. The governor is allowing it now. Why wait till someone is jailed before doing this? Why risk discriminating against anyone's rights. Individual rights do not change when they go to work and their religious beliefs do not either. The only thing that changed here was her job description after a new right was created by our SCOTUS .

 

[cbi1972]

new right was created by our SCOTUS

You mean the pre-existing right was finally recognized.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I don't follow. So how is your religious freedom on a higher ground than hers or Bill Maher's for that matter? Does Seminary school grant you more vigorous individual rights in the first amendment of the constitution? What about her individual rights?
Religious freedom is an inherent right for everyone. She was not blocking anyone from doing anything. There were other clerks in KY still issuing marriage licenses. She was stopping herself from participating in something she saw as sinful. Other Governors in other states moved to protect all of their citizens' individual rights. They changed state policy to accommodate. They made it where these clerks did not have to perform acts against their religious beliefs and allowed for the duty to fall to others in these cases. Why did this KY governor not do the same? The judge did it. The governor is allowing it now. Why wait till someone is jailed before doing this? Why risk discriminating against anyone's rights. Individual rights do not change when they go to work and their religious beliefs do not either. The only thing that changed here was her job description after a new right was created by our SCOTUS .

The problem is she is using the power of her government position to deny others their civil rights.

This is akin to someone with a moral opposition to guns refusing to give a license to anyone.

Or an Amish clerk denying a motor vehicle license to anyone.

Or a teetotaler refusing a liquor license to anyone.

Or refusing a license to anyone who has previously been married.

Or wants to marry interracially.

Or denying a parade license because of the protester's political beliefs.

It's all the same, essentially.

And none of it would be the right thing to do.

 

[KentuckianaBFan]

I don't follow. So how is your religious freedom on a higher ground than hers or Bill Maher's for that matter? Does Seminary school grant you more vigorous individual rights in the first amendment of the constitution? What about her individual rights?
Religious freedom is an inherent right for everyone. She was not blocking anyone from doing anything. There were other clerks in KY still issuing marriage licenses. She was stopping herself from participating in something she saw as sinful. Other Governors in other states moved to protect all of their citizens' individual rights. They changed state policy to accommodate. They made it where these clerks did not have to perform acts against their religious beliefs and allowed for the duty to fall to others in these cases. Why did this KY governor not do the same? The judge did it. The governor is allowing it now. Why wait till someone is jailed before doing this? Why risk discriminating against anyone's rights. Individual rights do not change when they go to work and their religious beliefs do not either. The only thing that changed here was her job description after a new right was created by our SCOTUS .

The governor of Kentucky does not have that authority...must be done by the Kentucky legislature, which is not in session.

 

[Jon]

The governor of Kentucky does not have that authority...must be done by the Kentucky legislature, which is not in session.

and it would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to convene a special session.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I don't follow. So how is your religious freedom on a higher ground than hers or Bill Maher's for that matter? Does Seminary school grant you more vigorous individual rights in the first amendment of the constitution?

I never said it was on a higher ground. There is a difference between refusing to perform a religious ceremony in church and refusing to do a job you were elected and took an oath to do. When I took my own oath, this subject never even came up but it is surely implied.

Almost any job anyone takes involves a curtailing of one's rights or privileges in some sense. She opted to run for the job she has.

What about her individual rights?

Nobody has denied her individual right to oppose gay marriage; she is in trouble for not doing her job. If her job conflicts with her religion, she has an obligation to resign. Should I point out that both John F. Kennedy and Geraldine Ferraro - both Catholics - stated during their campaigns for office that they would resign if it came to the point that the religion and job were in conflict? Ferraro said it during the VP debate with GHW Bush.

Religious freedom is an inherent right for everyone. She was not blocking anyone from doing anything. There were other clerks in KY still issuing marriage licenses. She was stopping herself from participating in something she saw as sinful. Other Governors in other states moved to protect all of their citizens' individual rights. They changed state policy to accommodate. They made it where these clerks did not have to perform acts against their religious beliefs and allowed for the duty to fall to others in these cases. Why did this KY governor not do the same? The judge did it. The governor is allowing it now. Why wait till someone is jailed before doing this? Why risk discriminating against anyone's rights. Individual rights do not change when they go to work and their religious beliefs do not either. The only thing that changed here was her job description after a new right was created by our SCOTUS .

I reject the notion of rights in the first place. What are rights when you really get down to the nitty-gritty? They're basically rules we've agreed that permit society to function. I know it's common for Christians to say they have 'God-given' rights, but the amusing thing is while I recall a whole lot about commandments, I don't recall all that much about rights in the Bible. I mean people SAY it, but it's an unexamined statement. It's repeated so often people believe it.

Furthermore - and I say this as one who tries to be consistent - where are all the Christian doctors denying teenage girls birth control pills because they shouldn't be having sex in the first place? Should a Christian hotel clerk deny a room to someone he or she thinks is using it for adultery? I mean, is that REALLY any different here? "Well, I don't want to take part in such and such because that means I approve of it." (Insert Baptist joke here about Christian doctor and hotel clerk waving at each other inside the casino).

I have nothing against Ms Davis. I even think the folks bringing up her multiple marriages are out of line. It's just there's a fine line in this whole thing that puzzles me. I don't regard her as some martyr for the faith (of course, I also think ML King was not the 'big Christian hero' he's been made out to be, either - nothing but a plagiarist who should have been stripped of his doctorate in my view - and btw, the man denied every essential doctrine of the Christian faith).

But then again I'm different anyway.

And while I concur on the 'hey, let's hunt around this Constitution and see what it can mean that nobody in his right mind saw for 200 years,' it's still the law now.

 

[81usaf92]

I don't follow. So how is your religious freedom on a higher ground than hers or Bill Maher's for that matter? Does Seminary school grant you more vigorous individual rights in the first amendment of the constitution? What about her individual rights?
Religious freedom is an inherent right for everyone. She was not blocking anyone from doing anything. There were other clerks in KY still issuing marriage licenses. She was stopping herself from participating in something she saw as sinful. Other Governors in other states moved to protect all of their citizens' individual rights. They changed state policy to accommodate. They made it where these clerks did not have to perform acts against their religious beliefs and allowed for the duty to fall to others in these cases. Why did this KY governor not do the same? The judge did it. The governor is allowing it now. Why wait till someone is jailed before doing this? Why risk discriminating against anyone's rights. Individual rights do not change when they go to work and their religious beliefs do not either. The only thing that changed here was her job description after a new right was created by our SCOTUS .

The problem with this whole thing is that she was George Wallace grandstanding. Neither is 100% committed to their side if the public ignores them. Had she been so against it to the degree she claims she is then she would've resigned or taken the judge's compromise instead of sitting in the drunk tank for 1 week. This has very little to do with religious freedom and more to do with a grandstander

 

[TideWatcher]

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.

Jonathan Edwards was around.

 

[NationalTitles18]

The problem with this whole thing is that she was George Wallace grandstanding. Neither is 100% committed to their side if the public ignores them. Had she been so against it to the degree she claims she is then she would've resigned or taken the judge's compromise instead of sitting in the drunk tank for 1 week. This has very little to do with religious freedom and more to do with a grandstander

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.

 

[Tide1986]

You mean the pre-existing right was finally recognized.

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

 

[TRUTIDE]

The governor of Kentucky does not have that authority...must be done by the Kentucky legislature, which is not in session.

He should check with Obama on how to issue Executive orders. The AG could have weighed in here as well. I find it hard to believe that this state would forbid a sitting Governor of this power. Upon returning, to work, Kim Davis has taken her name off the licensing forms herself. Making the accomondation may have saved the state many more dollars in the long run.

 

[TRUTIDE]

I never said it was on a higher ground. There is a difference between refusing to perform a religious ceremony in church and refusing to do a job you were elected and took an oath to do. When I took my own oath, this subject never even came up but it is surely implied.

Almost any job anyone takes involves a curtailing of one's rights or privileges in some sense. She opted to run for the job she has.


Nobody has denied her individual right to oppose gay marriage; she is in trouble for not doing her job. If her job conflicts with her religion, she has an obligation to resign. .

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.

 

[TRUTIDE]

The problem is she is using the power of her government position to deny others their civil rights.

This is akin to someone with a moral opposition to guns refusing to give a license to anyone.

Or an Amish clerk denying a motor vehicle license to anyone.

Or a teetotaler refusing a liquor license to anyone.

Or refusing a license to anyone who has previously been married.

Or wants to marry interracially.

Or denying a parade license because of the protester's political beliefs.

It's all the same, essentially.

And none of it would be the right thing to do.

I don't doubt that any of these have already happened except for the Amish thing. That sounds a bit extreme. I do not pretend to define anyone's religious beliefs. As I have explained in depth previously, I rarely have a good experience when I go to a courthouse to get anything. I do not see how an individual can deny anyone of their rights. If I had a real need or desire for something, I would surely go to another office or to another county for that matter. I feel my rights have been violated several times before. I have not pushed to have anybody put in jail or out of business for it though. That would not be the right thing to do. I really would not have waited 10 weeks for a marraige certificate. I would have maybe called first and found another office. The Christian hate and bullying tactics tend to backfire more and more.

 

[NationalTitles18]

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.

She doesn't have a JOB so much as she serves the public as an elected government official. As such, she is duty-bound to serve the public, which she refused to do. In any case her religious rights have not been infringed.

 

[GrayTide]

I am continually reminded how much I enjoy your posts.

Please do not encourage him. :cool2: