So, we can arrest Kim Davis now, right?

hey lady: you lost. ****abee and other bigots supporting you will be looked back on in 10, 20, 30 years as pathetic human beings.
 
goldfly said:
1. you really love stressing the oh so scary "state" but the higher authority should be the people they are governing and elected to govern over.

2. but i think it is silly to do the swearing in at all (but old silly traditions of the past die hard obviously)

3. but even more so that she swore on the bible to uphold the laws of the land and then did the opposite of that. she broke her oath that she swore to a higher power (that she seems to believe in) to do.

4. I would think that would go against some type of belief, thus why i brought it up
Click to expand...

1. I do for a few reasons - the history of states when more and more power is entrusted into their hands and less and less room is given for dissent; our own founding fathers concerns and thus 3 branches of government with checks and balances; the nature of the human heart; and thus the danger of majority views against minority opinions. Nothing new here.

2. Whether you do or not is beside the point - it is our tradition and a tradition reflective of the view that the State isn't sovereign. You describe it as silly. I'd describe it as humble and wise.

3. That very action implies a conditional (not an absolute) oath - in other words when the State directs the person to do something contradictory to that higher authority, then you can and should conscientiously object, dissent, resist. Her oath to a higher power can't be to defy that higher authority when the lesser contradicts it.

4. Christians should take Rom. 13 very seriously, but in light of the principle found in Acts 5:29. Davis belongs to a heterodox church so I am uncertain of her approach. I suspect though that it is still the same.
 
on the bright side, this is good for Democrats, especially having ****abee there. this is why the republican party and people like ted cruz and mike huckabee lose their younger base. keep the crazy coming, repubs!
 
12006136_1539870362767328_46695679132157378_n.jpg
 
BedellBrave said:
1. I do for a few reasons - the history of states when more and more power is entrusted into their hands and less and less room is given for dissent; our own founding fathers concerns and thus 3 branches of government with checks and balances; the nature of the human heart; and thus the danger of majority views against minority opinions. Nothing new here.

2. Whether you do or not is beside the point - it is our tradition and a tradition reflective of the view that the State isn't sovereign. You describe it as silly. I'd describe it as humble and wise.

3. That very action implies a conditional (not an absolute) oath - in other words when the State directs the person to do something contradictory to that higher authority, then you can and should conscientiously object, dissent, resist. Her oath to a higher power can't be to defy that higher authority when the lesser contradicts it.

4. Christians should take Rom. 13 very seriously, but in light of the principle found in Acts 5:29. Davis belongs to a heterodox church so I am uncertain of her approach. I suspect though that it is still the same.
Click to expand...

as much as it seems you and others want a Christian state here to counter ISIS, i really don't want that and to hide behind "freedom" is pretty pathetic imo

no one is stopping you or putting anyone in jail here cause of their religious beliefs. we do have a problem when Ms Eye of the Tiger and her followers think that their religious views should be law and refuse to do the job they were elected and swore to uphold.
 
There is a long history within Christian theology - especially coming from within the theology of the Reformation - of affirming the right and duty of certain civil disobedience by Christian citizens to unjust and immoral laws, but especially those Christians who serve as governmental officials - lower magistrates under superior magistrates (like SCOTUS) who decree immoral laws or make what they view as immoral rulings (like Dred Scott for instance).

One must be willing to suffer the consequences though - as Davis has been.

Next y'all can get rid of dissenting military chaplains if you'd like. You'll not give room for dissent on this issue. It's what I've been saying for years now. And it's playing out.
 
I'm propagating a traditional liberal argument in a measured and nuanced defense of an elected Democrat and heterodox lady. That ought to count for something!
 
BedellBrave said:
There is a long history within Christian theology - especially coming from within the theology of the Reformation - of affirming the right and duty of certain civil disobedience by Christian citizens to unjust and immoral laws, but especially those Christians who serve as governmental officials - lower magistrates under superior magistrates (like SCOTUS) who decree immoral laws or make what they view as immoral rulings (like Dred Scott for instance).

One must be willing to suffer the consequences though - as Davis has been.

Next y'all can get rid of dissenting military chaplains if you'd like. You'll not give room for dissent on this issue. It's what I've been saying for years now. And it's playing out.
Click to expand...

Glad we are finally putting an end to whatever you have been claiming is coming if it means it puts an end to inequality for all from the govt/law
 
Btw, just read that folks in Rowan county could have also gotten their licenses from "the county executive of Rowan County" (if the author is correct).

Link
 
goldfly said:
or she could just do her job that was elected and swore to do

or quit
Click to expand...

Yes, those are two options. I'm in favor of additional ones. You aren't. I'm for more choice. You aren't. I'm for reasonable accommodation. You aren't. I'm for giving latitude in keeping with the way we've done things in the past. You aren't. I'm for tolerating such. You aren't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top