Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Surely the judge had the brains to know what kind of message that jailing a person for their Christian faith would send to Christians in America, but they did it anyways. Couldn't do something less controversial like place her on furlough or something. No, let's give her the most extreme punishment.
Judge Bunning is a christian who opposes SSM. Unlike you, however, he understands separation of church and state.
"Her good-faith belief is simply not a viable defense," said Bunning, who said he also has deeply held religious beliefs. "Oaths mean things."
Bunning's mother said her son, who was raised Roman Catholic, doesn't agree with the idea of same-sex marriage but does believe in upholding the law."
I think there should have been a compromise, any county or state that has a clerk that opposes SSM does not have to have SSM. Any employee or business that does not want to serve for SSM is exempt from doing so and in exchange gays and lesbians can stay in the closet. That is a compromise that Mrs Davis and Jeff could agree on.
The clerk refused to issue license because it was against her faith. She refused to allow her 6 deputy clerks to issue license because that too was against her faith. The only compromise left without charging her was to allow the county to not issue license for SSM. If this county could refuse to issue a license why not all the countries? The religious freedom of the deputy clerks, the applicants for the licenses and the religious freedoms of those who are going to officiate are all secondary because Mrs Davis does not approve of it. And a Christian judge who doesn't agree with SSM is now accused of persecuting Christians because he thinks they should either do their job or let someone else do it for them. Jeff claims there should be a compromise but the only compromise she was willing to accept is t9 deny gays their rights from her office. The compromise is that she gets her way 100% and the gays get zero and that is what Jeff thinks is fair. Anything less than her being able to deny her deputy clerks from issuing licenses is persecution of Christians. In other ways the only fair way to settle this dispute is for the fundamentalists to get their way absolutely and totally.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
And your proof of this is??
God grew? Wow, what a incredible distortion of the truth. God never changes and I'm thankful for that. If God is constantly evolving and changes His morals, how can you have any security? What if God one day in eternity decides to kick us all out of heaven huh?
.....
Your God changes his mind all the time. Let's start with Numbers 14:11-20 ( I have a long list but we'll start with this one).
God says he's going to smite all the Jews for disobeying the rules that down, but Moses whines and sniffles and says something to the effect that the Egyptians with that no they have one, then God says oh ok alright, you convinced me I wont smite them all.
Example number one of him changing his mind. Why oh why does the atheists have to teach you what the Bible says?
God grew? Wow, what a incredible distortion of the truth. God never changes and I'm thankful for that. If God is constantly evolving and changes His morals, how can you have any security? What if God one day in eternity decides to kick us all out of heaven huh?
Were you able to read the verses of scripture? Your unchanging god said one thing, then Jesus contradicted Him.
You cannot have security--and that is the point--no security means one must rely on faith in God. Security means--I have an I D O L for me, and it's name is the B I B L E.
If God decides to kick us out of Heaven because He is God---is that the same as since He is God if He decides to murder one bunch of people while telling us not to do that, it's because He's GOD????
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Jesus radical teachings in opposition to the OT commands was to demonstrate that His sacrifice made the Old Convent null and void. If you can't grasp this basic concept then you really know NOTHING about the Bible.
Jesus was Jew--through and through. His message was primarily to the Jew, His preaching was couched in Jewish concepts of DOING as a form of righteousness, He never claimed He was voiding any "Old" Covenant---that's your Paul godhead talking.
And you would know that if YOU knew anything about the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
You don't know the spiritual condition of her heart any more than you know mine. Of course you support her being jailed. You always support anything that goes against Christianity.
Ms. Davis took a vow and broke a vow in direct violation of God's commandment in the Bible. That makes her a traitor to the oath she took before men, and a hypocrite for claiming to "honor" God by dishonoring a vow she took in His name.
And once again you are supporting a lawbreaker and practicing spiritual hypocrite--like you did Josh Duggar---and you claim I can't grasp basic concepts!!!
A Christian was jailed for her faith, yes faith and you apparently fully support that.
No one is jailed for their faith. They are jailed for breaking the law. Faith in this case was merely motive, not crime. Learn the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
And the only reason she is in contempt of court is because of her faith.
Contempt of court is contempt of court. A crime is a crime. None of this changes depending on which one of her hobbies was her motivation for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
No, that's how secularism works. It has no respect for religious freedom.
Quite the opposite in fact. But what it certainly has no respect for is people like you seeing personal privileges and legal exemptions based on your personal hobbies.
It really doesn't matter now what Kim Davis thinks or what jeffbase thinks or what Christians agree with or not. The law is the final arbiter there and the judge involved (despite his personal views) understands that. It just happens to be that the law is right in this case.
More and more Christians are coming to accept that what is going the happen - gay rights in marriage as in other areas - is also right and those fighting a rearguard faith action are going to lose. The office is issuing the chits whether she likes it or not. I'd say she has put herself out of a job, whether she realizes it or not. The job description has changed.
Actually, no she was cited for contempt because as the face of country government, she placed the government in the position of denying the constitutional rights of its citizens.
Actually yes, she was forced into a position where she had to be in contempt of court because of her faith. You can hide behind the legal argument all you want, but at the end of the day, this is still a result of imprisoning someone because of their faith. This was done to make a statement and example of her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
This is what you and folks like yourself keeping getting wrong here. Secularism is about not allowing the government, and Ms Davis is the government, from imposing religious beliefs upon the citizens.
Quite the opposite. It's about imposing secular beliefs onto religious folks. Traditional marriage was in place long before Kim Davis even held a job. The LAW respected and acknowledged marriage as being between one man and one woman. Now the law is basically saying accept homosexuality or else. Eventually pastors will be throw in prison for preaching any sermons against homosexuality. We are headed down a dark road.
Actually yes, she was forced into a position where she had to be in contempt of court because of her faith.
Actually no, she was asked to do her job and leave her personal hobbies out of the work place. You can avoid the legal arguments all you want, but at the end of the daz, this is still a result of someone breaking the law, and getting arrested for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Quite the opposite. It's about imposing secular beliefs onto religious folks.
Quite the opposite. As there are no "secular beliefs". Rather Secularism is about knowing when and where beliefs have their place and where not. Your personal hobby has no place in the work place for example. And as for the latter part of your nonsense, you might do well to remember that numerous religious people are secular too. So the "imposing secularism on the religious" is just another of your propaganda canards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
