Kim Davis is no longer a hero... :(

[Revoltingest]

I was not really talking about the hypocrisy, per se.
I was referring to the celebration of hypocrisy.
Tom
"Good for you Kim, one step at a time!!!! Let the revolution continue to stand up for "Religious Freedom."

Yes, I wasn't criticizing you....just go'n on.

 

[columbus]

Yes, I wasn't criticizing you....just go'n on.

Well, at least you didn't attribute it to an alcoholic stupor. I suppose I should be expressing my gratitude or something.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, at least you didn't attribute it to an alcoholic stupor. I suppose I should be expressing my gratitude or something.
Tom

I'm not in a stupor.....yet.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Norman: Hi jonathan180iq, do you have any convictions that you are willing to stand up for at your own expense and not at the expense of others? Good for you Kim, one step at a time!!!! Let the revolution continue to stand up for "Religious Freedom."

Such a shame Davis' actions do not fall under this category because she abused her government position to deny others their legally mandated rights, she forced people into a position where they had to expend time & money engaging her in a lawsuit she could never have won because her actions were unquestionably illegal, and she chose to serve her god by breaking an oath she had sworn to him on the holy book of her own religion.

Hardly someone to be admired..

 

[leibowde84]

Hypocrisy is fun to attack, but it's not that big a sin.
Far worse is that she harmed others by denying them their right to marry.

You = smart

 

[Norman]

She refused to do her job which harmed many others financially and mentally. She should be ashamed of herself. She broke her oath that she made "under God" literally.

Norman: I will present both sides of this argument. First I will say in my opinion Kim Davis is a hero to those who hold her same values such as myself. It took great courage to do what she did. I am sure Ms. Davis did this with much prudence before acting upon her religious right to do so. Such advocates of same-sex marriage are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought but equally and quickly will criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them. In the case of Ms. Davis it was incarceration. In the halls of Judicial Edict there is a scale of justice and mercy; which way would you tip the scale leibowde84 in regards to Ms. Davis? The Kim Davis crusade has only strengthened my position as a Christian and it behooves me as to what I must do. Ms. Davis sought a religious exemption from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in the dictate of her own conscience and rightly so.

In my opinion leibowde84 you have to ask yourself; when Kim Davis put her right hand on the Bible when she swore to uphold the Constitution, was she putting the Bible first? Some would argue that she did and that resonated with her argument that her oath incorporated her faith. According to Ms. Davis in her legal brief argued; that she understood her oath of office “to mean that, in upholding the federal and state constitutions and laws, she would not act in contradiction to the moral law of God.” Why? Because her oath included the words, “So help me God.”

Now, the other side of this argument, some would take the position that she was violating an oath she made before God to uphold the Constitution and laws of the U.S. The Constitution requires her to issue licenses for gay couples. Under the Constitution, the government can’t force Kim Davis to engage in a religious action or stop Ms. Davis from exercising her freedom of religion. Normally, it shouldn’t coerce her to act against her faith. But no one was or is coercing Kim Davis. She’s free to serve the public and obey her oath to God to follow the law. And she’s free to quit and absolve herself of that oath. The choice is hers. In conclusion of all of this and with all the legalis of our judicial system I say “Res ipsa loquitur.”

Citation:

America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. David W. Neubauer. Copyright 2002 Wadsworth/Thomson

Source:

http://employment.findlaw.com/emplo...tion-and-harassment.html#sthash.su69cHgi.dpuf

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

First I will say in my opinion Kim Davis is a hero to those who hold her same values such as myself.

So, in other words, to you a hero is someone who willfully breaks their oaths and violates the law?

In the case of Ms. Davis it was incarceration

Because she broke the law and her oath as a civil servant. Yes, she did it because of her faith, but she was not prosecuted because of her faith; she was placed under arrest, appeared before a judge, a judge who admired himself that he is a man of religious convictions, and sentenced to jail because she broke the law by violating her oath as a civil servant. She is bound, by oath, to uphold the law and constitution of the United States. She willfully failed to this. The presiding judge made it clear the entire case revolved around her breaking her oath, and as the judge said "oaths mean something."

Ms. Davis sought a religious exemption from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in the dictate of her own conscience and rightly so.

As a civil servant, she has no grounds to do so. It has already been deciding, by the courts, that positions like police or firefighters cannot "pick-and-choose" based on personal preference, but, rather, they must equally serve all.

when Kim Davis put her right hand on the Bible when she swore to uphold the Constitution, was she putting the Bible first?

She may or may not have thought she was, but she swore to uphold the law of this land, the Constitution of the United States, not Biblical law and principles.

 

[columbus]

According to Ms. Davis in her legal brief argued; that she understood her oath of office “to mean that, in upholding the federal and state constitutions and laws, she would not act in contradiction to the moral law of God.” Why? Because her oath included the words, “So help me God.”

I've asked this question of Davis' supporters a couple of times, and nobody has responded. So I will try you.
If she had converted to Islam would you agree that she should start enforcing Sharia in Rowan county? As per her religious beliefs.
Tom

 

[SomeRandom]

To all the average Joe's out there, she was just a ultra-conservative nut job - but to many people within the Religious Liberty movement, she was a martyr for their cause and champion of her faith...

“Martin Luther King went to jail because he didn’t follow the law. There’s a long precedent in America from people saying, ‘You know the law has to change to accommodate what is the right thing to do, in their own moral judgment…I can tell you I’m very proud of the fact that she stood up for those convictions and she should stood up for what I believe.” - Rick Santorum

“I am tired of watching people being just harassed because they believe something of their faith and we cannot criminalize the Christian faith or any faith in this country and I pray that there will be remedies that do not involve putting someone in jail for their convictions... If somebody needs to go to jail, I am willing to go in her place, and I mean that” - Mike Huckabee

"I think it's absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty." - Rand Paul

"Praise God Kim has been released!" - Ted Cruz

https://www.facebook.com/supportkimdavis
"Join us Monday as we stand for Kim Davis and against the judicial tyranny."

The people in Religious Liberty support law breaking, lazy, unprofessional people?

Kim Davis basically threw a tantrum, refused to do the job she's paid to do (which is grounds for dismissal in most of not all professional environments) and broke the law by refusing to issue marriage licenses to already legally married couples. She's a disgrace, she's immature and I have a newsflash for her and anyone who supports her. It's one thing to protest or otherwise not agree with things. But the world doesn't revolve around you. The rest of society does not need or care about your support or lack thereof. It does not need you to be the morality police. If gay people are legally married and your job, the one where you are paid for your time and services, is issuing marriage licenses your personal feelings on the matter are wholly irrelevant. Irrelevant to the people getting them, irrelevant to society at large and irrelevant to your employer. They only matter to you. And you're simply not important enough to go out of your way to endorse or condemn the "sin." You do that on your own time. When someone is paying you either find another job if it's uncomfortable for you or act like a damned professional and do your freaking job!!
You think I'd still have a ****ing job in the deli if I refused to serve beef to people because I'm Hindu or refused to sell meat during Christian holidays? No I'd be out on my ***, rightfully so.

 

[Paranoid Android]

Since Kim Davis has apparently turned her back on her faith-based mandate to deny same-sex marriage licenses by returning to work and "not interfering" with their issuance, shouldn't the Conservative politicians that supported her for being a martyr of Religious Freedom turn their backs on her for enabling sin in her community?

I mean, wouldn't that be the logical response, given the rhetoric of the Religious Liberty movement?

http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-clerk-jailed-over-gay-marriage-return-085806509.html

This is how *I* would have handled it.

If I thought same sex marriage was against the law, I wouldn't marry same sex couples. I would passively accept prison, and make it clear they can't make ,e marry them. I would spend as much time in prison as they decreed.
Of course, I don't think that, so I would have no problem marrying same sex couples. But if I did, that is what I would do.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Norman: I will present both sides of this argument. First I will say in my opinion Kim Davis is a hero to those who hold her same values such as myself.

You view a liar and an oath-breaker as a hero? That's rather revealing.

It took great courage to do what she did. I am sure Ms. Davis did this with much prudence before acting upon her religious right to do so.

If Davis acted with prudence you'd think she'd have considered the following:

1) That if she makes a Constitutional argument based on the First Amendment, that other parts of the Constitution would also apply to job and her attempts to use it to force her beliefs on others.
2) That the courts would have picked her up on her oath-breaking first & foremost

Such advocates of same-sex marriage are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought but equally and quickly will criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them.

Strawman - this isn't about free speech. Davis wasn't found in contempt because of what she said - it's what she did (or, more accurately, refused to do) that led to her being jailed for refusing a court order.

The Kim Davis crusade has only strengthened my position as a Christian and it behooves me as to what I must do.

Lying, oath-breaking and law-breaking is a sacred crusade to you. Okay then, says a lot about you.

Ms. Davis sought a religious exemption from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in the dictate of her own conscience and rightly so.

So just to be clear, if an Amish got Davis' job several years down the line and refused to issue driver's licences because the Amish view cars as evil and distracting from God, you'd be okay with it? What if it was a Muslim who only agreed to offer marriage licences if the applicants were Muslim? Would you be okay with it then? What if it was a Pagan who refused to issue marriage licences to Christians because Abrahamic religions didn't invent the concept of marriage? Would that be fine?

Would you be okay with any of these people refusing any of these things even while drawing a pay cheque for a job that requires them to do these things - which they swore to do?

you have to ask yourself; when Kim Davis put her right hand on the Bible when she swore to uphold the Constitution, was she putting the Bible first? Some would argue that she did and that resonated with her argument that her oath incorporated her faith.

Evidently she didn't put the Bible first because she doesn't act according to the verses speaking against divorce or remarrying; she doesn't act against the passages against wearing mixed fabrics etc. She was cherry-picking. Indeed, she tried to exert religious authority over men. That is a big no-no in the Bible.

According to Ms. Davis in her legal brief argued; that she understood her oath of office “to mean that, in upholding the federal and state constitutions and laws, she would not act in contradiction to the moral law of God.” Why? Because her oath included the words, “So help me God.”

And her various legal appeals have shown that understanding to be horse hockey. "So help me God" is an affirmation designed to invoke divine power to help her keep her oath to uphold the Constitution. So she swore to God that she'd keep her oath which she then broke. So basically she lied to God.


The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, not the Bible.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I will present both sides of this argument. First I will say in my opinion Kim Davis is a hero to those who hold her same values such as myself. It took great courage to do what she did. I am sure Ms. Davis did this with much prudence before acting upon her religious right to do so.

If I was a devout follower of the Church of Satan and in Kim Davis' position, would I have the right to deny marriage licenses to all people because the Church of Satan believes only in Polygamy?
What about denying to open the Clerk's Office during normal working hours because we devout Church of Satan worshipers only believe in doing things at night?

Does your argument hold true in that case?
Are you able to champion the rights of Religious Liberty for an opposing mindset?
Would you consider me a hero if I did those things?

Such advocates of same-sex marriage are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought but equally and quickly will criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them.

Freedom of Speech and institutionalized denial of rights are two completely different things, aren't they?

The Kim Davis crusade has only strengthened my position as a Christian and it behooves me as to what I must do. Ms. Davis sought a religious exemption from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in the dictate of her own conscience and rightly so.

Again, would I have the right, if I were in Ms. Davis' shoes, to deny marriage licesnes to all people because of my hypothetical religious belief only in polygamy? Would you champion my devotion and faith in the same way that you champion Kim Davis'?

In my opinion leibowde84 you have to ask yourself; when Kim Davis put her right hand on the Bible when she swore to uphold the Constitution, was she putting the Bible first?

She swore to uphold the Constitution... not her personal cherry-picked version of the Bible, plus a little bit of the Constitution. By your own argument she broke her oath. Not only that, she forced the people who work with her to do her bidding, as their supervisor.

If I'm not mistaken, the Bible itself (which Religious Liberty advocates love to quote from in defending their positions) suggests that Christ's followers should obey the laws of the land, because whatever authority exists in your life was put there by God himself, doesn't it? That those things belonging to Caesar should be rendered to Caesar, but those things belonging to god should be rendered to god, right?
Would Believers really be so bold as to deny the lessons of their own scripture?

Some would argue that she did and that resonated with her argument that her oath incorporated her faith. According to Ms. Davis in her legal brief argued; that she understood her oath of office “to mean that, in upholding the federal and state constitutions and laws, she would not act in contradiction to the moral law of God.” Why? Because her oath included the words, “So help me God.”

Can you please cite for me where the "Moral Law of God" is mentioned in the Constitution?
Also, why didn't she uphold the ENTIRE "Moral Law of God" if that is her argument? Why did she limit the "Moral Law of God" to merely same sex marriage licenses?

 

[leibowde84]

Norman: I will present both sides of this argument. First I will say in my opinion Kim Davis is a hero to those who hold her same values such as myself. It took great courage to do what she did. I am sure Ms. Davis did this with much prudence before acting upon her religious right to do so. Such advocates of same-sex marriage are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought but equally and quickly will criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them. In the case of Ms. Davis it was incarceration. In the halls of Judicial Edict there is a scale of justice and mercy; which way would you tip the scale leibowde84 in regards to Ms. Davis? The Kim Davis crusade has only strengthened my position as a Christian and it behooves me as to what I must do. Ms. Davis sought a religious exemption from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in the dictate of her own conscience and rightly so.

In my opinion leibowde84 you have to ask yourself; when Kim Davis put her right hand on the Bible when she swore to uphold the Constitution, was she putting the Bible first? Some would argue that she did and that resonated with her argument that her oath incorporated her faith. According to Ms. Davis in her legal brief argued; that she understood her oath of office “to mean that, in upholding the federal and state constitutions and laws, she would not act in contradiction to the moral law of God.” Why? Because her oath included the words, “So help me God.”

Now, the other side of this argument, some would take the position that she was violating an oath she made before God to uphold the Constitution and laws of the U.S. The Constitution requires her to issue licenses for gay couples. Under the Constitution, the government can’t force Kim Davis to engage in a religious action or stop Ms. Davis from exercising her freedom of religion. Normally, it shouldn’t coerce her to act against her faith. But no one was or is coercing Kim Davis. She’s free to serve the public and obey her oath to God to follow the law. And she’s free to quit and absolve herself of that oath. The choice is hers. In conclusion of all of this and with all the legalis of our judicial system I say “Res ipsa loquitur.”

Citation:

America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. David W. Neubauer. Copyright 2002 Wadsworth/Thomson

Source:

http://employment.findlaw.com/emplo...tion-and-harassment.html#sthash.su69cHgi.dpuf

.

This is nonsense because she refused to resign from a job that REQUIRES her to put the law above her religious beliefs. Same-sex couples have a RIGHT in the US now to get marriage licenses. She is responsible to provide them, no matter how she feels about them. If she is unable to, then she has the choice to resign. It has nothing to do with silencing objections to same-sex marriage. That is nothing but a pitiful straw-man. The issue I have is that she refused to do the job that she swore (before God) to do and she refused to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which she made also swore to uphold.

 

[Norman]

I've asked this question of Davis' supporters a couple of times, and nobody has responded. So I will try you.
If she had converted to Islam would you agree that she should start enforcing Sharia in Rowan county? As per her religious beliefs.
Tom

Norman: Hi Tom, If I am understanding your question correctly I would say no. She was not trying to start a religious movement in Rowan County, She simply was
enforcing her own convictions.

 

[fantome profane]

Norman: Hi Tom, If I am understanding your question correctly I would say no. She was not trying to start a religious movement in Rowan County, She simply was
enforcing her own convictions.

And how is this any different from someone trying to enforce Sharia law?

 

[Akivah]

Since Kim Davis has apparently turned her back on her faith-based mandate to deny same-sex marriage licenses by returning to work and "not interfering" with their issuance...

http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-clerk-jailed-over-gay-marriage-return-085806509.html

Your headline isn't in accordance with what Kim herself said:

Davis said she did not want to be in the spotlight. "And I certainly don't want to be a whipping post. I am no hero. I'm just a person that's been transformed by the grace of God, who wants to work, be with my family. I just want to serve my neighbors quietly without violating my conscience," she said.

It looks like the changed licenses provided the accommodation that Kim was originally seeking.

The document, a template issued by the state and filled out by each clerk, had been altered. Where the name of the clerk and the county is typically entered, it said instead "pursuant to federal court order."

With the changed wording, Kim can now issue the gay licenses without it looking like she personally approved of them. It is a win-win situation. I'm glad she and the county could work out their differences despite the agitators.

 

[ChristineES]

Since Kim Davis has apparently turned her back on her faith-based mandate to deny same-sex marriage licenses by returning to work and "not interfering" with their issuance, shouldn't the Conservative politicians that supported her for being a martyr of Religious Freedom turn their backs on her for enabling sin in her community?

I mean, wouldn't that be the logical response, given the rhetoric of the Religious Liberty movement?

http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-clerk-jailed-over-gay-marriage-return-085806509.html

She never was a hero. A lot of my fellow Christians believe that she did this for herself and not for other Christians or for God. She never herself out to be a hero, either. She didn't bring all this attention to herself, the media did that. She is one woman out of billions of women who refused to do her job for one reason or another. I don't blame her for all of this attention but I blame the media for it. It tried to make an "example" out of her but it rather backfired on them.

 

[suncowiam]

She never was a hero. A lot of my fellow Christians believe that she did this for herself and not for other Christians or for God. She never herself out to be a hero, either. She didn't bring all this attention to herself, the media did that. She is one woman out of billions of women who refused to do her job for one reason or another. I don't blame her for all of this attention but I blame the media for it. It tried to make an "example" out of her but it rather backfired on them.

Here is where I believe she did drew attention deliberately. When she stood on that podium with pro-religious politicians and rallied with her supporters for religious freedom. If she didn't want attention, then she shouldn't have stepped up to that podium.

I don't understand your last line: "It tried to make an "example" out of her but it rather backfired on them."

Could you please detail this a bit more?

 

[columbus]

Norman: Hi Tom, If I am understanding your question correctly I would say no. She was not trying to start a religious movement in Rowan County, She simply was
enforcing her own convictions.

You are mistaking my question.
You said she should uphold "the moral law of God". She is (or was) upholding a version that you agree with. I'm asking if you would still support her if she were upholding a law you did not agree with.
I.used the example of a Muslim and Sharia because Sharia is well known for conflicting with the US Constitution and USA views on human rights. But hundreds of millions do consider it the moral law of God.
So I am asking if you would still support her taking a stand against US law, in favor of the moral laws of God, if her religion was different from yours.
Tom

 

[averageJOE]

Norman: Hi Tom, If I am understanding your question correctly I would say no. She was not trying to start a religious movement in Rowan County, She simply was enforcing her own convictions.

She was enforcing her own convictions...onto other people.