Marriage equality, religious freedom.. and kim davis.

[malakos]

I appreciate the reminder from the Pope that despite the era of good feelings his papacy has opened, that the church and its leaders are hostile to the idea of gay and lesbian people being happy and secure while they live on this planet. We will remember.

That's quite the leap.

 

[keenobserver]

That's quite the leap.

No, it is a logical conclusion, based on what I see. Let me say I don't expect the teachings of a church to change to fit the times. That said the Roman Church will only accept homosexuals as members in good standing if they are celibate. Period. That's all folks. Ergo if a gay person tries to build a life tat includes intimacy with a same sex partner, then they are violating the churches teachings and are out of its grace unless they confess, repent and live according to doctrine - which brings us back to celibate. Marriage or a monogamous relationship are not on the table - this really limits the life choices of gay Catholics. I think that supports my conclusion pretty well.

 

[MisterSlave]

They don't call it confession anymore.. Its reconciliation now.. This is Catholic 2.0, now.. lol The pope is Human after all. Pandering to conservatives fills church pews and collection plates. Riding the Kim Davis Wave brings in parishioners. Gays must not be contributing enough lira/ (euros).

 

[Boobalaa]

[

No, it is a logical conclusion, based on what I see. Let me say I don't expect the teachings of a church to change to fit the times. That said the Roman Church will only accept homosexuals as members in good standing if they are celibate. Period. That's all folks. Ergo if a gay person tries to build a life tat includes intimacy with a same sex partner, then they are violating the churches teachings and are out of its grace unless they confess, repent and live according to doctrine - which brings us back to celibate. Marriage or a monogamous relationship are not on the table - this really limits the life choices of gay Catholics. I think that supports my conclusion pretty well.

yes..yes..and they are banned from the most holy sacrament : Communion, The Eucharist!

 

[malakos]

No, it is a logical conclusion, based on what I see. Let me say I don't expect the teachings of a church to change to fit the times. That said the Roman Church will only accept homosexuals as members in good standing if they are celibate. Period. That's all folks. Ergo if a gay person tries to build a life tat includes intimacy with a same sex partner, then they are violating the churches teachings and are out of its grace unless they confess, repent and live according to doctrine - which brings us back to celibate. Marriage or a monogamous relationship are not on the table - this really limits the life choices of gay Catholics. I think that supports my conclusion pretty well.

You are essentially correct about all of this. However, that's not to say that this was what the Pope was talking about. He was talking specifically and strictly about the right to conscientious objection (which is a right that applies to many issues; more commonly it is associated with pacifists).

 

[Klingsor]

You are essentially correct about all of this. However, that's not to say that this was what the Pope was talking about. He was talking specifically and strictly about the right to conscientious objection (which is a right that applies to many issues; more commonly it is associated with pacifists).

Surely conscientious objection becomes problematic when the person in question refuses either to perform her duties as a government official or to step down from that office.

It's also a little disconcerting to see a refusal to kill people placed on the same footing as a refusal to let people get married.

 

[keenobserver]

You are essentially correct about all of this. However, that's not to say that this was what the Pope was talking about. He was talking specifically and strictly about the right to conscientious objection (which is a right that applies to many issues; more commonly it is associated with pacifists).

I don't think Kim Davis is a pacifist is any sense of the word - more like passive aggressive. And the pacifist classification does not fit here - she's not being asked to violate "Do not kill." Her situation is more like a) "render to Cesear," or b) the example Christ gave about being pressed into service by the Romans - "if you are told to carry the load one mile, carry it two." While Christians answer to God for their conduct Christ tells his followers to obey governments because they are in place because of God.

When a person works for the state it is always clear you obey the law, or leave your job. Surely the Pope understands that chaos will ensue when people can pick and choose what laws to follow. Given his history in Argentina this Pope knows that.

It is also interesting that the Pope tacitly supported this nutcase, marrying 4 times, having a baby with a man not her husband at the time because she is DEFEDING traditional marriage even as he is taking steps to make it easier for Catholics to dissolve their traditional marriages and be welcomed back into the good graces of the church. So I am asked to ponder how is this supportive of marriage?

Under this example a 4 time married slut with bastard children rates as more valuable in the eyes of God's man on earth than a same sex couple that has stood together through sickness and in health for 30 years faithfully.

But, as Francis famously said, "Who am I to judge?"

 

[halcyondays]

I didn't think my opinion of the pope could get any lower until I learned yesterday that he met with Kim Davis. No surprise he kept that audience secret.

 

[malakos]

Surely conscientious objection becomes problematic when the person in question refuses either to perform her duties as a government official or to step down from that office.

It's also a little disconcerting to see a refusal to kill people placed on the same footing as a refusal to let people get married.

Sure, but I don't think the Pope commented on that. From what I've read he was simply defending the right to conscientious objection and the need for society to respect that right, without delving into the practicalities of what a conscientious objector should do when their religious fidelity conflicts with their worldly duties.

I didn't put them on the same footing. I just compared them as two different types of conscientious objection.

 

[malakos]

I didn't think my opinion of the pope could get any lower until I learned yesterday that he met with Kim Davis. No surprise he kept that audience secret.

I'll admit, I don't have much respect for his choice to meet with her. Practically the only thing they have in common is the inability to recognize the separation between Christian marriage and civil marriage.

 

[AlteredEgo]

I grew up in an Episcopal (Anglican) church built by the first black American to be a licensed architect, where the unmarried, female interim rector adopted her daughter, and then agreed to wed two men. According to the time it was supposed to go down, that would have been right after she blessed the AA meeting in the undercroft. The church wedding didn't happen only because one groom was deathly ill, and she married them at his bedside, just in case. Wasn't going to be a licensed wedding, but their God and their church family were behind it 100%. Well, maybe 95%. There were some foolish dissenters. Catholic lite, as the old joke goes.

 

[malakos]

I grew up in an Episcopal (Anglican) church built by the first black American to be a licensed architect, where the unmarried, female interim rector adopted her daughter, and then agreed to wed two men. According to the time it was supposed to go down, that would have been right after she blessed the AA meeting in the undercroft. The church wedding didn't happen only because one groom was deathly ill, and she married them at his bedside, just in case. Wasn't going to be a licensed wedding, but their God and their church family were behind it 100%. Well, maybe 95%. There were some foolish dissenters. Catholic lite, as the old joke goes.

That sounds like quite the interesting religious upbringing!

 

[malakos]

I don't think Kim Davis is a pacifist is any sense of the word - more like passive aggressive. And the pacifist classification does not fit here - she's not being asked to violate "Do not kill."

No, I didn't say she was a pacifist. I was simply pointing out that conscientious objection is a right that can be applied to many situations, with objection to war being one of the more common examples of that.

It is also interesting that the Pope tacitly supported this nutcase, marrying 4 times, having a baby with a man not her husband at the time because she is DEFEDING traditional marriage even as he is taking steps to make it easier for Catholics to dissolve their traditional marriages and be welcomed back into the good graces of the church. So I am asked to ponder how is this supportive of marriage?

Under this example a 4 time married slut with bastard children rates as more valuable in the eyes of God's man on earth than a same sex couple that has stood together through sickness and in health for 30 years faithfully.

I really doubt that many people are under the impression that the Pope approves of her marriage history, but perhaps I am being too optimistic in that.

 

[Boobalaa]

In this morning's paper, ....by Claire Galofaro AP"...Just knowing that the Pope is on track with what we're doing and agreeing, you know, it kind of validates everything.."Kim Davis speaking to ABC News.

Vatican Observers response;

"You can't take his presence with someone as affirmation of everything that they stand for..." "...He thanked her for her courage and told her to stay strong. That's a commitment to her voice in the conversation. I don't think it's necessarily a commitment to her policy views.." Cathleen Kaveny; Theologian and legal aasxholar, Boston College.

Then there's this;
"It throws a wet blanket on the goodwill that the pontiff has garnered during his U.S. visit last week." Francis DeBernardo; New Ways Ministry.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/clerk-jailed-gay-marriage-pope-encouraged-34144849

Isn't a "commitment to her voice in the conversation" about a law she refuses to follow, the same thing as a policy commitment to the law she is refusing to follow? These Theologians boy, whew-wee..BS 101, ya gotta luv it, they've been at it over 1,000 years..
I can understand how this type of illogical logic intrigues some people; kinda sucks um in with all the Mumbo-Jumbo ; he meant this, not that, it's a commitment to her voice, not her values..Priceless stuff!

 

[Klingsor]

Sure, but I don't think the Pope commented on that. From what I've read he was simply defending the right to conscientious objection and the need for society to respect that right, without delving into the practicalities of what a conscientious objector should do when their religious fidelity conflicts with their worldly duties.

But that's the problem. There can't be a right to conscientious objection devoid of context; otherwise anyone could refuse to follow any law because of "conscience." Were that the case, the right to conscientious objection itself would soon be disallowed.

I didn't put them on the same footing. I just compared them as two different types of conscientious objection.

A difference such that, for all practical purposes, there's no comparison.

 

[Boobalaa]

http://www.religionnews.com/2015/09/28/pope-francis-gay-marriage-sex-abuse/
"Francis said conscientious objection had to be respected in legal structures. “Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying: ‘This right has merit, this one does not.'”
Ya think? Wow , now that's deep. Was he using "respect" in the sense of, "a particular aspect, point, or detail."?, or the admiration kind of respect? If respect for conscientious objection is defined as a particular aspect, point or detail in legal structures, then yes, that is what courts and lawyers and judges are all about...And the court has already spoken to Kim Davis "with respect" to her conscientious objection to following the law.

 

[Simon9]

I don't know about this Kim Davis. First Cruz and Huckabee gave her foot rubs and nobody says anything.

After she met with the pope (he called her up and asked her if she could fit him in to her schedule) she was escorted by a special ops squad and flew off in a black helicopter and attended a Bilderberg meeting in Vienna where she met with the Rothschilds. Then Air Force One picked her up and brought her to CIA headquarters at Langley where she entered through the secret golden back door. All security cameras were turned off while she was there.

The next day, she made a few brief comments to the boys at the Federal Reserve regarding where interest rates had better go and finished the day reviewing some "lost" email files with Hillary where they laughed their asses off. Scientologists call her "Mother Kim". Kim Jong-Un thinks she's his long lost sister but wants to marry her anyway.

I suspect we're just not being told everything about this b*tch...

 

[AlteredEgo]

*slain* THAT was funny.

 

[malakos]

But that's the problem. There can't be a right to conscientious objection devoid of context; otherwise anyone could refuse to follow any law because of "conscience." Were that the case, the right to conscientious objection itself would soon be disallowed.

I would agree that, as with the Kim Davis, if a conscientious objector has voluntarily taken on a role of civil/public service, when their conscience obstructs them from fulfilling their duties, they should not be allowed to retain that position. So I would likewise say that in a case like the Muslim stewardess on the airplane, she should be expected to serve the alcoholic beverages, or she should be invited to quit the job without hassle.

However, when it comes to expectations that have not been volunteered for, I do think this right must be honored. I just can't bring myself to be comfortable with the idea of, for instance, a Quaker being expected to go off and fight in a war.

 

[keenobserver]

I would agree that, as with the Kim Davis, if a conscientious objector has voluntarily taken on a role of civil/public service, when their conscience obstructs them from fulfilling their duties, they should not be allowed to retain that position. So I would likewise say that in a case like the Muslim stewardess on the airplane, she should be expected to serve the alcoholic beverages, or she should be invited to quit the job without hassle.

However, when it comes to expectations that have not been volunteered for, I do think this right must be honored. I just can't bring myself to be comfortable with the idea of, for instance, a Quaker being expected to go off and fight in a war.

I generally agree with you - although Quakers are not as peaceful as they are generally portrayed, - that's for another day. Mrs. Davis has the same job now she has always had. It did not change. At no point was she ever required or expected to make sure that people seeking to marry met her moral definition of what a married couple should be. She herself does not fit that definition. Are you saying if she knew a woman had divorced because she was having an affair she would deny that woman a license? Did she refuse to file divorces? Did she try to stop them? After all marriage is forever - right? Better or worse? Beaten or abused? She no more believes in a traditional definition of marriage than the man in the moon.

If she was sincere about her so called convictions she would have quit her job when this first became an issue. Instead she took great delight in demeaning people who were trying to build their lives. I have no use for her, her supporters, politicians who embrace her, or religious leaders who do the same thing.