• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

From Tupac to Rosa Parks: KY county clerk Kim Davis says "Only God can judge me now"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I made the mistake of looking at the Twitter tag for this lady and I am seeing people calling her the Christian Rosa Parks.....

What the hell...
 

Chaplain

Member
The Bible actually deals with a similar issue. People in power got laws put in the books that would force Daniel and his constituents (who also worked for the state) to commit idolatry against God, or be put to death. Oxford professor John Lennox applies this lesson to what is presently happening in much of the western world when it comes to forcing people of faith to succumb to other worldviews through enforceable legislation.

"The original meaning of the statement "I tolerate you" was famously (and perhaps rather extremely) expressed by Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Tolerance asserts the right to have convictions, to make judgments about right and wrong, which differ from those of others. It also asserts the right to express those views without fear. The new tolerance, however, is completely different. It seizes on the idea of offence and holds that I must not ever offend anyone else by expressing disapproval of any aspect of his or her behavior or ideas. The new tolerance approves of all absolutes except this one: you will be tolerant of everyone else's view. You must, however, be intolerant of intolerance. This means that criticism is forbidden, and must be replaced by unrestrained affirmation and praise, or silence. The new tolerance is intolerant of the old, and indeed negates it. To put it another way: the old tolerance accepted the existence of other views while disagreeing with them; the new tolerance insists on accepting the views themselves and not merely their existence. if we are not allowed to make judgments or have convictions any more, then all that is left is for us to descend to a kind of ethical neutrality. In the end, tolerance simply becomes a synonym for unconditional approval that has a powerful drive to embed the new tolerance in enforceable legislation. The new tolerance wishes to invoke the state to impose its view. It does not heed the warning of nineteenth-century philosopher John Stuart Mill about the tyranny of public opinion that stigmatizes and silences minority and dissident beliefs." (Oxford professor John Lennox)

This is why some see this as an attack on the Judeo-Christian worldview. Ultimately, those who hold to a worldview that says morals and ethics are relative (an absolute claim), want to force others who hold a worldview centered on moral absolutes to alter their view or face the consequences.
 

She is a political prisoner, something we see often in China

Honestly, who cares if these people want to get “Married”? It takes nothing away from me, my faith,....

Tell that to the small business owners who lost their business because they would not participate in gay weddings. What's next, prosecution for discrimination if you don't oblige a homo's sexual advance for no other reason then it is a homo?

I hope he points this out as another case of political correctness gone extremely wrong in the least.

Kim Davis is more of a hero than Rosa Parks could ever have dreamed of being.

Late, but holy shit. Real people are actually saying that.
 

Anoregon

The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
Stopped watching at "lawless judicial decree from the Supreme Court".

Yeah calling any decree by the Supreme Court "lawless" is just saying "I don't care or understand how the constitution actually works, they did a thing I don't like and that means they are wrong and bad!"
 

Garlador

Member
Stopped watching at "lawless judicial decree from the Supreme Court".

Yeah, that cracks me up.

The Bible actually deals with a similar issue. People in power got laws put in the books that would force Daniel and his constituents (who also worked for the state) to commit idolatry against God, or be put to death.
Nobody was "forcing" this woman to do anything. She had the freedom to resign, walk away, and choose any number of professions that don't contradict her religious views. After all, she swore an oath to uphold the laws of the land and now is unable to keep her oath. She chose to remain she was rather than resign. The events of Daniel did not give them any alternative options other than "obey or death". The two situations are not comparable.
 

Xcellere

Member
The Bible actually deals with a similar issue. People in power got laws put in the books that would force Daniel and his constituents (who also worked for the state) to commit idolatry against God, or be put to death. Oxford professor John Lennox applies this lesson to what is presently happening in much of the western world when it comes to forcing people of faith to succumb to other worldviews through enforceable legislation.


This is why some see this as an attack on the Judeo-Christian worldview. Ultimately, those who hold to a worldview that says morals and ethics are relative (an absolute claim), want to force others who hold to an moral absolutes to alter their view or face the consequences.

As usual, you're completely off base, but that never stops you, does it? When minority viewpoints impede on the rights of others, that's when reasonable people tell those viewpoints to shove it.
 

dabig2

Member
People used the Bible to legitimize slavery for 2 thousand years. Why should we care what "devoted" people to this ancient book think about the public laws we have created in the 21st fucking century.
 
I've commented a couple of times in the threads we have on this topic. I fully support the Supremacy Clause here and think what Kim Davis did/is doing is wrong. You're an official who must act under the law of the land, and if you can't then she should have resigned.

That being said, this is one of the FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES facing the Presidential Election next year. Why? Because within the next 4-8 years there are going to be open SCOTUS seats. If a Republican wins the election, we're going to get conservative judges, and we're potentially going to have to deal with repeals on some of these laws. I don't know what that does to those who are married under the current law.

But yeah, the next President is going to have a huge role to play in the framing of the SCOTUS for decades to come, so elect wisely.

It also means that the right-wing guys who are backing the notion that there's actually a religious foot to stand on here (Cruz for example) are going to keep this topic fresh in people's minds for the next year leading up to the election. Because they're going to need all the right-wing conservatives at the polls. And from what I'm seeing on FB and in some of these comments, there are a lot of them in this country.
 
And when she's let out fire her ass. She can't do the job anyway.

Once again, she's an elected official so she can't be fired. She's in jail indefinitely until she is no longer in contempt. So she either needs to start issuing marriage licenses, resign or be impeached. Impeachment isn't an option until January.
 

Enron

Banned
And when she's let out fire her ass. She can't do the job anyway.

Its like people don't read anything but the last 4 posts of a thread lol

She can't be fired, she's an elected official. The only one with the power to remove her from her job is the state, which has a mechanism to do so but that won't happen for a while longer.
 
The Bible actually deals with a similar issue. People in power got laws put in the books that would force Daniel and his constituents (who also worked for the state) to commit idolatry against God, or be put to death. Oxford professor John Lennox applies this lesson to what is presently happening in much of the western world when it comes to forcing people of faith to succumb to other worldviews through enforceable legislation.



This is why some see this as an attack on the Judeo-Christian worldview. Ultimately, those who hold to a worldview that says morals and ethics are relative (an absolute claim), want to force others who hold a worldview centered on moral absolutes to alter their view or face the consequences.

Here's the real problem with trying to apply "Christian values" to this situation. Jesus exemplified what theologians called "power under" not "power over" and told his followers to live as such. Power under means not enforcing your way of life on others. This is what people wanted Jesus to do (hailed him as king) but then he came in riding on a donkey (a sign of peace not war).

Christians in the first few hundred years immediately quit working for the military or the government because they believed that they could not support the killing of others and other power moves of the government.

Quitting or non-participation is a reasonable action if you don't believe in something (not just for Christians, anyone really). But forcing your way of life on others is not reasonable and is definitely not Christian (at least in the Jesus sense of the word). Daniel believed he should still be able to pray - that's good and right. He should be able to practice what he wants. But if he tried to create a law where everyone should pray even if they didn't want to, that would be bad. See the difference?

A country where you are forced to adhere to a specific belief system is only one person away from forcing you to live a life that is completely against your belief system. It only works if you are exactly in line with their worldview. Does anyone really want to live in a world like that?
 

Arkeband

Banned
Of course Ted Cruz is standing behind her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIAH-GSbPig

I like his not so subtle laugh when Kelly mentions the rights of same sex couples getting married.

I think Megyn's poker face is incredible. The wheels had to be turning behind that clenched jaw. She knows Cruz is a slimeball of the highest order, but her marching orders are to endure it and to not buck the system.

When he gave the answer that under Kentucky law they could just go to another county, she should have asked "what if every county has a district clerk with these views?"

His answer would be evasion, "go to another state", or she'd suddenly change the topic because her earpiece would be screaming "YOU'RE FIRED!"
 

Xcellere

Member
Here's a hypothetical I'd love these freedom of religion lunatics to answer: Let's say an influx of fundamentalist Muslims moves into Kentucky, and asks the populace to respect their religion and ban women from showing any skin and take away their driver's licenses. What then? Do these Christians continue to tow the "freedom of religion" line when it isn't their narrative that's under fire?

The signs outside the courthouse say "Freedom of Religion," when they really should say "Freedom of Christianity."
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
The Bible actually deals with a similar issue. People in power got laws put in the books that would force Daniel and his constituents (who also worked for the state) to commit idolatry against God, or be put to death. Oxford professor John Lennox applies this lesson to what is presently happening in much of the western world when it comes to forcing people of faith to succumb to other worldviews through enforceable legislation.



This is why some see this as an attack on the Judeo-Christian worldview. Ultimately, those who hold to a worldview that says morals and ethics are relative (an absolute claim), want to force others who hold a worldview centered on moral absolutes to alter their view or face the consequences.

What biblical verse are you referencing? King Nebuchadnezzar forcing everyone to worship a gold statue in the plain of Dura?

That has no similarity to what is going on in Kentucky at all.
 

Clearos

Member
I just really feel bad for the deputy clerk that has to hand out the marriage license.

"I don't really want to, but I will comply with the law," deputy clerk Melissa Thompson said, weeping while she stood before the packed courtroom. "I'm a preacher's daughter and this is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life."

"I don't hate anybody," she added. "None of us do."

That is the life I want, the hardest thing is handing a piece of paper to a homosexual couple I will probably never see again.

...just imagining that scenario in my head is giving me anxiety.
 

andymcc

Banned
I just really feel bad for the deputy clerk that has to hand out the marriage license.

"I don't really want to, but I will comply with the law," deputy clerk Melissa Thompson said, weeping while she stood before the packed courtroom. "I'm a preacher's daughter and this is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life."

"I don't hate anybody," she added. "None of us do."

That is the life I want, the hardest thing is handing a piece of paper to a homosexual couple I will probably never see again.

...just imagining that scenario in my head is giving me anxiety.

i'm sure they had no issue signing off on the county's divorce forms
 
I just really feel bad for the deputy clerk that has to hand out the marriage license.

"I don't really want to, but I will comply with the law," deputy clerk Melissa Thompson said, weeping while she stood before the packed courtroom. "I'm a preacher's daughter and this is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life."

"I don't hate anybody," she added. "None of us do."

That is the life I want, the hardest thing is handing a piece of paper to a homosexual couple I will probably never see again.

...just imagining that scenario in my head is giving me anxiety.
Dreadful..lol.
 
If you cant handle the job, you just have to gtfo. I wouldn't want her in jail over this but you forced their hand. Wtf did you think they were going to do, give in to your will forever and a day? Fucking clown.

The country made a law, you have to obey it when you are in a position of power. Unless you wanna go all revolutionary in the streets over it deal.
 

Tripon

Member
I just really feel bad for the deputy clerk that has to hand out the marriage license.

"I don't really want to, but I will comply with the law," deputy clerk Melissa Thompson said, weeping while she stood before the packed courtroom. "I'm a preacher's daughter and this is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life."

"I don't hate anybody," she added. "None of us do."

That is the life I want, the hardest thing is handing a piece of paper to a homosexual couple I will probably never see again.

...just imagining that scenario in my head is giving me anxiety.
Yeah, but in the end, she did her job. That is all anybody is asking.
 

oti

Banned
I just really feel bad for the deputy clerk that has to hand out the marriage license.

"I don't really want to, but I will comply with the law," deputy clerk Melissa Thompson said, weeping while she stood before the packed courtroom. "I'm a preacher's daughter and this is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life."

"I don't hate anybody," she added. "None of us do."

That is the life I want, the hardest thing is handing a piece of paper to a homosexual couple I will probably never see again.

...just imagining that scenario in my head is giving me anxiety.

Man, I just want to take that person and shake the stupidity out of her.
 
Here's the real problem with trying to apply "Christian values" to this situation. Jesus exemplified what theologians called "power under" not "power over" and told his followers to live as such. Power under means not enforcing your way of life on others. This is what people wanted Jesus to do (hailed him as king) but then he came in riding on a donkey (a sign of peace not war).

Christians in the first few hundred years immediately quit working for the military or the government because they believed that they could not support the killing of others and other power moves of the government.

Quitting or non-participation is a reasonable action if you don't believe in something (not just for Christians, anyone really). But forcing your way of life on others is not reasonable and is definitely not Christian (at least in the Jesus sense of the word). Daniel believed he should still be able to pray - that's good and right. He should be able to practice what he wants. But if he tried to create a law where everyone should pray even if they didn't want to, that would be bad. See the difference?

A country where you are forced to adhere to a specific belief system is only one person away from forcing you to live a life that is completely against your belief system. It only works if you are exactly in line with their worldview. Does anyone really want to live in a world like that?

This is a great post. 10/10
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Yeah calling any decree by the Supreme Court "lawless" is just saying "I don't care or understand how the constitution actually works, they did a thing I don't like and that means they are wrong and bad!"

That's not necessarily true, and given Cruz's résumé, probably isn't true in this case. Instead, he just has a more nuanced view of the role of the Supreme Court than one a person might pick up in a high school civics class. And while I agree with where the majority ended up in Obergefell (striking down same-sex marriage bans), it's clear from reading Kennedy's opinion that he wasn't really interested in the legal aspects of the question. As Prof. John Hart Ely said of Roe v. Wade, Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." So I can't criticize Cruz for his "lawless" barb. Kennedy could have written an opinion that took the law seriously and still arrived at his desired conclusion, but he decided to skip over the legal part of his legal opinion and jump straight into the love-poem part.
 
Religious beliefs should never override the rule of law.

If religious beliefs were permitted to do so, then we would have individuals demanding Shariah Law due to their beliefs

Separation of Church and State is paramount and non-negotiable

The rule of law is supreme. If people are unhappy, then they should the law.......... good luck with that since the Supreme Court recently ruled on marriage recognition.
 
I just really feel bad for the deputy clerk that has to hand out the marriage license.

"I don't really want to, but I will comply with the law," deputy clerk Melissa Thompson said, weeping while she stood before the packed courtroom. "I'm a preacher's daughter and this is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life."

"I don't hate anybody," she added. "None of us do."

That is the life I want, the hardest thing is handing a piece of paper to a homosexual couple I will probably never see again.

...just imagining that scenario in my head is giving me anxiety.

The judge or someone should've grilled them

Like do you know what you signed up for?

That your religion does not dictate your job?

And get, if its so hard, you can leave?
 
Ask them what they think of this.

pUh39RA.jpg

holy crap
 

Chaplain

Member
Daniel believed he should still be able to pray - that's good and right. He should be able to practice what he wants. But if he tried to create a law where everyone should pray even if they didn't want to, that would be bad. See the difference?

The parallel to Daniel's story is that those in power (who were anti-semitic) were the ones who put the law in state legislation. Your analysis is a false equivalence. Daniel's story is similar to the Kentucky clerk in that a new law was put in place that violated Daniel's faith. This is no difference to what happened to Romanian Christian's when the communist party took over and put every Christian in jail who would not put Stalin above Jesus. An example of life under the communist party:

"The Communist torturers often said, "There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish." I heard one torturer say, "I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart." He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners. I have testified before the Internal Security Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate. There I described awful things, such as Christians tied to crosses for four days and nights. The crosses were placed on the floor and hundreds of prisoners had to fulfill their bodily necessities over the faces and bodies of the crucified ones. Then the crosses were erected again and the Communists jeered and mocked: "Look at your Christ! How beautiful he is! What fragrance he brings from heaven!" I described how, after being driven nearly insane with tortures, a priest was forced to consecrate human excrement and urine and give Holy Communion to Christians in this form. This happened in the Romanian prison of Pitesti. I asked the priest afterward why he did not prefer to die rather than participate in this mockery. He answered, "Don't judge me, please! I have suffered more than Christ!"" (Wurmbrand)

My examples share similarities in that the state was used to force people to violate their faith or suffer various types of consequences (death, jail, torture, loss of employment, etc).

A country where you are forced to adhere to a specific belief system is only one person away from forcing you to live a life that is completely against your belief system. It only works if you are exactly in line with their worldview. Does anyone really want to live in a world like that?

Well, the worldview that is coming into power is a worldview centered on moral relativism. This is exactly the world others are going to be forced to live in. Those that oppose this worldview will be forced to suffer the consequences by the hands of those that believe in tolerating others only when they tolerate whatever they believe. There will be horrible consequences for taking this route that history bares witness to.
 

Arkeband

Banned
Well, the worldview that is coming into power is a worldview centered on moral relativism. This is exactly the world others are going to be forced to live in. Those that oppose this world will be forced to suffer at the hands of those that believe in tolerating others only when they tolerate whatever they believe. There will be horrible consequences for taking this route that history bares witness to.

A world where we live by the creed of "Don't be a dick"?

I weep for the suffering who were unlucky enough to be born straight white and financially stable, I really do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom