I support Kim Davis 100%. Below is a video that proposes to teach how to “silence” me (and the title calls me an idiot, to boot, which is an ad hominem argument). First, watch the clip, then read my reply.
Warning: Some crude language.
Well, I’m a Kim Davis supporter, and it does not silence me. The clip is woefully wrong on so many levels. Let’s name just a few:
- One need not agree with, endorse, or even understand someone else’s religious belief in order to afford them accommodation for conscience sake.
- The clip’s implied notion of “it is wrong to live by part of the Bible if we don’t keep all of it” is a clever deception. There are multiple covenants in the Bible. The previous ones are often lumped together in a singular phrase: “Old Covenant.” Christians are enjoined to the “New Covenant.” If someone has not agreed to a certain covenant, then we don’t hold them accountable to its precepts. The fictional characters here act as though all the world are signatories to the Mt. Sinai Covenant (also known as the Mosaic Covenant). Christians don’t demand of unbelievers an obedience to our own covenant, let alone obedience to one we don’t even belong to. If you don’t want to take part in a certain covenant, then, yes, you can ignore its precepts, but you also won’t get its rewards, either. Remember that last part when the Day of Judgment arrives.
- It is nearly-universal Christian teaching that the Mosaic Covenant’s ceremonial codes and judicial penalties are not binding on non-Jews, i.e. those who are not part of that covenant (although the Old Testament has some broadly-applicable, explicit commands and some clear, timeless moral judgments of God, and all its content, however minor, harbors principles worthy of study). While we are on this, if we cannot believe in the Bible unless we live by all its covenants, then liberals cannot invoke the Supreme Court in Obergefell unless they also abide by all SCOTUS rulings, such as that black people are not persons, etc, and liberals cannot invoke “rule of law” over Kim Davis, while they ignore all the laws on the books protecting natural marriage (as done, for instance, by President Obama and many states’ attorneys general).
- The Bible’s overall message regarding sexuality has moral aspects that are clear in both the Old and New Testaments. One need not be a Jewish “Old Covenant” believer to know homosexuality is sexual sin; the “New Covenant” believer gets this knowledge from the New Testament as well. Furthermore, the Old Testament’s descriptions of what behaviors constitute the sexual sins, which all fall under a blanket term (fornication) are binding upon non-Jewish believers, as this matter falls within a limited set of Old Testament requirements declared binding on Gentile believers (see Acts 15).
- The TV script writer foolishly presumes that all transgressions are equal in nature, i.e. “all sins are equally severe; there is no big sin and no little sin,” which is blatantly false. Our Western judicial system is based in a significant way on the Mosaic Law’s “Lex Talionis” — the principle or law of retaliation, that “the punishment should fit the crime” (i.e. a penalty inflicted should correspond in degree and kind to the offense of the wrongdoer). This is based on a bedrock truth that not all sins are equal. The TV script writer betrays both their faulty view of “equality of all sins” and their glaring ignorance of the Bible by inserting into the script two falsehoods—that mixing crops/seeds and mixing thread types in clothes were both to be worthy of death under the Mosaic Law (the Bible nowhere called for such a penalty)—and implying that all minor infractions against the Mosaic Law are equal to, and as severe as, homosexuality, which is a concept that is indisputably not biblical.
- Bible passages that regulate/restrict bad behavior, including slavery, rape, polygamy, and wrongful divorce, etc, are not endorsements of said behavior, and the overall message of the Bible has always led true believers away from such behavior.
- Finally, the TV clip “creates” the very bigotry it seeks to rebuke, in two ways: by fictitiously and intentionally portraying a callous, arrogant Christian it creates a false preconception of Christians, and in modeling a horrendous, flawed “how to silence the Christians” approach, it teaches anti-Christian bigotry to biblically illiterate unbelievers who “buy the lie” hook, line, and sinker. That fosters hatred toward believers and ensconces ignorance and bigotry as noble attributes.
“Christians don’t demand of unbelievers an obedience to our own covenant.”
Well, Ms. Davis certainly is interfering with the rights of those who don’t believe as she does…..
You need to learn more about this case. Your assessment is inaccurate. Her request for accommodation of conscience is reasonable, and does not stem from a desire to block people from getting access to legal documents. The issue is that her name is on the legal documents by state law, and due to conscience, she does not want her name to be the authority of record for an event she considers to be sinful. The judge violated federal law by jailing her instead of accommodating her religious conscience on this.
Part of her job is issuing marriage licenses. To perform this job she is getting compensated to the tune of 80k a year. You are arguing that she continues to get paid while not performing a key function of her position. (She hasn’t been doing her job since June–making over 12k for not doing her duty.
The respectable thing to do would be to resign. Typically, when people can’t or won’t do their jobs anymore, they resign. She wants to get paid for doing nothing.
Your assessment is inaccurate. You need to learn more about this case. The function in question comprises only about 5% of her workload, and her request for accommodation of conscience is very reasonable. She has asked that the legal documents (marriage licenses) be modified to remove her name, so that her personal name is not the authority of record under which an act (that she views as sinful) gets recorded in the archives forever. That’s a simple, easy fix. There is no need to jail her, and there is no need for her to resign. Her current refusal to dispense the documents does not stem from a desire to block people from getting access to legal documents. The judge violated federal law by jailing her instead of accommodating her religious conscience on this. Look up the federal RFRA.
This is in no way a reasonable accommodation! Providing marriage certs and upholding the law is her job. If she isn’t comfortable doing that, she should leave. Why should law abiding citizens be denied a right that they have under law, by an official voted into office to uphold the laws of the land? It’s really that simple.
Normally I don’t approve anonymous comments, and I may yet return to that policy on yours, rather than make an exception. I made the exception simply to take time to respond for the benefit of readers.
The KY laws she is sworn to uphold have not been changed, and she is still upholding them. It would require a legislative response to the SCOTUS ruling to revise any KY laws.
Furthermore, of the KY laws that apply to clerks regarding marriage licenses, none of them pronounce any penalty for refusing to give out a license, but they do provide a misdemeanor penalty for giving one out to couples who may not, per KY law, constitute a marriage, and that includes a misdemeanor penalty for giving a license to partners of the same sex. Since the KY legislature has not revised those codes, and no revisions or new laws by the KY General Assembly have been signed into law by the KY governor, it is simply too early in the process for same-sex couples to be demanding any licenses, and it is wrong (see below) for either the governor or the judge to command such.
The state governor is sworn to uphold Kentucky law, which directs him (not just in some ruling, but in written, duly legislated and signed law — see the KY state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or KY RFRA) to seek out a method of enacting the government’s goals in a way that is “least restrictive” of Kim Davis’ religious freedom. Ordering her to violate existing KY laws and at the same time ordering her to violate her conscience, is not the least restrictive means to enact what he is presenting as a governmental goal.
Similarly, the federal judge is bound to abide by federal law, which requires him (not just in some ruling, but in written, duly legislated and signed law — see the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or federal RFRA) to seek out a method of enacting the government’s goals in a way that is “least restrictive” of Kim Davis’ religious freedom. Ordering her to violate existing KY laws and at the same time ordering her to violate her conscience, is not the least restrictive means to enact what he is presenting as a governmental goal. Jailing her is certainly not the least restrictive way.
Given the comparative ease of simply revising the marriage licenses by removing all clerks’ names from them, the accommodation she requested is quite reasonable, and both the governor and the judge violated existing laws in their actions and inactions.
Mr. Joseph, it is unfortunate that you were called an idiot; that is unkind. I try my best to read replies such as yours with an open mind and to understand your point of view, knowing that if I believed as you do, I would have to act as you do. But I must say that your reply, concerning the Bible, is the biggest bunch of non-sensical hogwash mumbo-jumbo I have ever heard. It is head-shakingly unbelievable how you scramble to defend your illogical stance when you know you are wrong but refuse to admit it.
Sue, thanks for calling me an idiot, after saying you weren’t going to. 🙂
http://news360.com/article/310914694#
The Muslim woman who was fired over her religious conscience (seemingly because the company grew weary of accommodating her religious objection) was wronged, and the company may face a suit on that, because there are federal and state laws protecting employees regarding religious freedom. Thanks for sharing the link.
If you refuse to do your job, then you are obliged to give up that job. Remove all the mushy dogma and feelings from it and you’re left with that undeniable fact. She has refused to do the job for which she is paid to do, it does not matter what percentage of her job she is actively refusing, the point is, she has refused to do it.
She should be fired for the same as a janitor who refuses to sweep floors. She took an oath to uphold the law, knowing full well that laws change. The law changing was a known risk going in to the position, and if makes her unwilling to fulfill that position, she needs to leave it. Again, if you remove the touchy feely dogma from it, you’re left with a simple case of a person who’s unwilling to do the job they are paid for.
And no, being asked that your name not be on official state documents to accommodate your religion is not reasonable. It’s not an official state document without her signature. Changing the law to make that okay would render many documents authenticity in question, simply because she happens to not like what to other consenting adults, which in no way what so ever affects her, happen to do in their own bedroom.
Normally I don’t approve anonymous comments, and I may yet return to that policy on yours, rather than make an exception. I made the exception simply to take time to respond for the benefit of readers.
The flawed and lawless decision of the SCOTUS in June has caused chaos, and between that lawless ruling and the lawless commands of the governor and the judge, Kim Davis has done an admirable job of doing the portion of her job she could do, and respectfully declining on the part that she cannot do because of the legal chaos of the moment.
The KY laws she is sworn to uphold have not been changed, and she is still upholding them. It would require a legislative response to the SCOTUS ruling to revise any KY laws.
Furthermore, of the KY laws that apply to clerks regarding marriage licenses, none of them pronounce any penalty for refusing to give out a license, but they do provide a misdemeanor penalty for giving one out to couples who may not, per KY law, constitute a marriage, and that includes a misdemeanor penalty for giving a license to partners of the same sex. Since the KY legislature has not revised those codes, and no revisions or new laws by the KY General Assembly have been signed into law by the KY governor, it is simply too early in the process for same-sex couples to be demanding any licenses, and it is wrong (see below) for either the governor or the judge to command such.
The state governor is sworn to uphold Kentucky law, which directs him (not just in some ruling, but in written, duly legislated and signed law — see the KY state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or KY RFRA) to seek out a method of enacting the government’s goals in a way that is “least restrictive” of Kim Davis’ religious freedom. Ordering her to violate existing KY laws and at the same time ordering her to violate her conscience, is not the least restrictive means to enact what he is presenting as a governmental goal.
Similarly, the federal judge is bound to abide by federal law, which requires him (not just in some ruling, but in written, duly legislated and signed law — see the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or federal RFRA) to seek out a method of enacting the government’s goals in a way that is “least restrictive” of Kim Davis’ religious freedom. Ordering her to violate existing KY laws and at the same time ordering her to violate her conscience, is not the least restrictive means to enact what he is presenting as a governmental goal. Jailing her is certainly not the least restrictive way.
Given the comparative ease of simply revising the marriage licenses by removing all clerks’ names from them, the accommodation she requested is quite reasonable, and both the governor and the judge violated existing laws in their actions and inactions.