Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Religious offshoot argument from American Elections

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    In a nut shell. Davis was elected prior to the federal legislation and felt it contravened her religious beliefs and so asked that licenses not be issued with her personal signature on it. The state legislators refused and so so did she. The U.S. political spectrum REALLY needs to learn to compromise.
    So she should be able to pick and chose which laws she wants to enforce by the date that they were enacted?

    She could do like these people who also felt that they could not dischared the duties to which they had been elected.

    http://www.wbir.com/story/news/2015/...nses/29646743/

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
      I also think that we keep confusing what Marriage is.

      Civil Marriage is what the state does. What the Church does is "Holy Matrimony"

      Not the same. And you can get a marriage license from the state and still be denied marriage from the church.
      Who invented marriage? From where does it come?

      Your bolded statement is technically right, but Marriage is a social institution. Legally, marriage did not exist in the United States prior to the government defining marriage, but that's a misguided understanding of the history of marriage. It's also not correct to say that the Church invented Marriage, since Jesus' first miracle was at a wedding, which means marriage predates the Church as much as it predates the US government.

      Marriage traditions are an aspect of most cultures, that allow for the creation of families and the balance of men's and women's conflicting reproductive instincts, and creates investment in the broader society. Marriage is NOT a requirement: Many cultures do not have identical structures. But practically all successful cultures do. Most likely, cultures with a marriage tradition can organize better, produce more, and fight harder than cultures that do not.

      You will tamper with this structure at your own risk.

      This is an important point to make, because it dictates how marriage should be understood and how it should evolve. "Gay Marriage because equality" makes absolutely no sense in the context of this history.

      That's leaving aside how dangerous it is to have Ivy League lawyers totally disconnected from reality defining essentially every legal tradition to their extremely narrow, modern feelings, and disregarding the opinions of the people who actually wrote the laws that govern the nation.

      There's a lot of issues going on here, and the confusion is probably because there are a lot of issues that I am personally trying to discuss and they are being taken out of context. I listen to NPR, I grow organic herbs in the backyard, I bike whenever I can, I use a reel-lawn mower, and I am a weak atheist, I don't want the freakin' Pope sitting on the Supreme Court and I don't want the Episcopalian church setting marriage standards for a Muslim couple in Dallas, and I sure as hell don't want Mosques banning interest nation-wide.

      I do want people to have a broader understanding of the West and where it came from and thinking about the institutions that under-pin our success. Hint: if the Italians are poor because 1000 years ago they had a pope nearby, then why are we rich today? Think more "Anglo-Saxon culture" and less "democracy, fuck yeah!"
      "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
        There's a lot of issues going on here, and the confusion is probably because there are a lot of issues that I am personally trying to discuss and they are being taken out of context. I listen to NPR, I grow organic herbs in the backyard, I bike whenever I can, I use a reel-lawn mower, and I am a weak atheist, I don't want the freakin' Pope sitting on the Supreme Court and I don't want the Episcopalian church setting marriage standards for a Muslim couple in Dallas, and I sure as hell don't want Mosques banning interest nation-wide.

        I do want people to have a broader understanding of the West and where it came from and thinking about the institutions that under-pin our success. Hint: if the Italians are poor because 1000 years ago they had a pope nearby, then why are we rich today? Think more "Anglo-Saxon culture" and less "democracy, fuck yeah!"
        I dont know why you are fussing so much about the role of the state, they are not the enemy.
        Christendom is already fvcked. The moslems are winning on every front.
        You westerners need to get your white tabards with red crosses on them sorted before its too late.
        For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
          So she should be able to pick and chose which laws she wants to enforce by the date that they were enacted?

          She could do like these people who also felt that they could not dischared the duties to which they had been elected.

          http://www.wbir.com/story/news/2015/...nses/29646743/
          I agree, but the New York Times doesn't and I see their point.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/op...jail.html?_r=1
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
            I agree, but the New York Times doesn't and I see their point.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/op...jail.html?_r=1
            Pari,

            The thing is, the judge had offered Kim Davis a way out by letting her refrain from personally signing same-sex couple licenses. She was given the very generous concession of keeping her job and her conscience intact even before she was jailed for contempt. Instead she decides not only to refuse compliance, but forces her personal beliefs on the rest of her coworkers by not letting them do their jobs. That's what kills any sympathy I might have had for her.
            "Draft beer, not people."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Red Team View Post
              Pari,

              The thing is, the judge had offered Kim Davis a way out by letting her refrain from personally signing same-sex couple licenses. She was given the very generous concession of keeping her job and her conscience intact even before she was jailed for contempt. Instead she decides not only to refuse compliance, but forces her personal beliefs on the rest of her coworkers by not letting them do their jobs. That's what kills any sympathy I might have had for her.
              Red, that's not my understanding of it, the pieces I've read from both sides state that as chief clerk it had to be her signature on it, in fact it's illegal for the office to not put her signature on it but the other clerks are doing that anyway, simply stating 'issued by the office' as a way of complying with the judges contempt of court ruling against them. Given the huge amount of political obstinancy surrounding this case though, I'm more than willing to accept those news reports I've posted here are false.
              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

              Leibniz

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                Pari,

                The thing is, the judge had offered Kim Davis a way out by letting her refrain from personally signing same-sex couple licenses. She was given the very generous concession of keeping her job and her conscience intact even before she was jailed for contempt. Instead she decides not only to refuse compliance, but forces her personal beliefs on the rest of her coworkers by not letting them do their jobs. That's what kills any sympathy I might have had for her.
                Which made the issue political. Facts and logic go out the window. Hence, it's very difficult to get the right series of events from an unbiased source.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                  I agree, but the New York Times doesn't and I see their point.

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/op...jail.html?_r=1
                  I'm not sure that Ryan Anderson,Editor of The Public Discorse website and a Fellow with the Heritage Foundation speaks for the NY Times.

                  That said, the law in North Carolina doesn't/wouldn't apply to Kim Davis. It does allow Magistrates refuse to perform the marriage ceremony of a same sex couple and Assistant and Deputy Clerks from issuing the license. As long as there is someone willing to take their place.

                  Kim Davis is neither a Assistant or Deputy Clerk. She is the Clerk of Court

                  “an act to allow magistrates, Assistant Registers of deeds, and deputy registers of deeds to recuse themselves from performing duties related to marriage ceremonies due to sincerely held religious objection.”

                  The act allows the North Carolina officials to recuse themselves from performing ceremonies or issuing licenses for all marriage ceremonies for six months. After that period, an official can apply to rescind their objections. Officials who supervise the opting-out lower officials must ensure that all people seeking a license or a marriage ceremony have an opportunity to get licensed or married by a willing government official.
                  On another note. The previous discussion about her being a liberal Democrat. DOn't put much stock in the fact that she is a registered Democrat. Its local politics in the south. They are called Dixiecrats.
                  Rowan County has 9261 registered Democrats and 3785 Registered Republicans.

                  http://elect.ky.gov/SiteCollectionDo...s/statcnty.txt

                  In local/State elections everyone elects a Democrat. On the National level they are a solid Republican State.

                  Its normal down here. Same in the small town/county that I live in

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post

                    Kim Davis is neither a Assistant or Deputy Clerk. She is the Clerk of Court
                    I would assume the Clerk of the Court, an elected position has to take an oath of office pledging to uphold the laws of the land. If she is allowed to ignore that, or given a pass on a certain aspect of it, does that not mean any and all of us get the same thing. That would mean I could not in good conscience take an oath to tell the truth before God in court. Or if I sign something I could come back and say well Kim Davis got an accommodation and so I need one because yadayadayada...

                    Comment


                    • WAPO has this legal view
                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-of-your-job/
                      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                      Leibniz

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                        Who invented marriage? From where does it come?

                        Your bolded statement is technically right, but Marriage is a social institution. Legally, marriage did not exist in the United States prior to the government defining marriage, but that's a misguided understanding of the history of marriage. It's also not correct to say that the Church invented Marriage, since Jesus' first miracle was at a wedding, which means marriage predates the Church as much as it predates the US government.

                        Marriage traditions are an aspect of most cultures, that allow for the creation of families and the balance of men's and women's conflicting reproductive instincts, and creates investment in the broader society. Marriage is NOT a requirement: Many cultures do not have identical structures. But practically all successful cultures do. Most likely, cultures with a marriage tradition can organize better, produce more, and fight harder than cultures that do not.

                        You will tamper with this structure at your own risk.

                        This is an important point to make, because it dictates how marriage should be understood and how it should evolve. "Gay Marriage because equality" makes absolutely no sense in the context of this history.

                        That's leaving aside how dangerous it is to have Ivy League lawyers totally disconnected from reality defining essentially every legal tradition to their extremely narrow, modern feelings, and disregarding the opinions of the people who actually wrote the laws that govern the nation.
                        I didn't want to let this post pass without endorsing the long view it takes. Marriage is loaded with restrictions which vary from country to country and culture to culture. Some restrictions are religious or class-based, such as marrying out of caste in India or marrying someone with the same surname, such as in Korea. Many, however, are sensible, and reflect firsthand experience, such as prohibitions against brothers and sisters and first cousins from marrying. The harmful effect of inbreeding was understood centuries ago, even as far back as the ancient Egyptians. For a time in some US jurisdictions incompatible blood types could not marry. But search the world as one may, one will not find any explicit prohibitions against same sex marriage, although there seems to have been a tacit understanding or presumption down through time wherever marriage is controlled, whether by government or societal control, that marriage applies only to a man and a woman. So deep seated was this idea in the world's cultures that apparently it never dawned on the ancients and their descendents to outright ban same sex marriage. So, we are left to wonder whether they knew or presumed that the outcome of allowing such marriages would be destructive to society.

                        Now we are embarked on an enforced experiment to see whether same-sex marriage turns out to be destructive or benign to society. That is one side of the issue. The other is the legal justification for expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage: The 14th Amendment. It's highly unlikely its authors meant to cover same-sex marriage as a right, and they would probably be aghast that today's Supreme Court has interpreted it that way. But it is what it is, and those of us who believe that allowing same-sex marriage may be a terrible mistake must respect the law, but it's good that the law respects our right not to participate in promoting it. It's especially hard for me, because on my wife's side of the family there are already 3 same-sex marriages in the offing. Those involved are wonderful, caring people. In their company I keep my views to myself.
                        To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                          But search the world as one may, one will not find any explicit prohibitions against same sex marriage, although there seems to have been a tacit understanding or presumption down through time wherever marriage is controlled, whether by government or societal control, that marriage applies only to a man and a woman. So deep seated was this idea in the world's cultures that apparently it never dawned on the ancients and their descendents to outright ban same sex marriage. So, we are left to wonder whether they knew or presumed that the outcome of allowing such marriages would be destructive to society.
                          Same sex marriage was banned December 16, 342 AD by the Roman Emperor Constantius II
                          When a man “marries” in the manner of a woman, a “woman” about to renounce men, what does he wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)
                          Gay marriage has been around for a long time. Its not some new thing

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...e-sex_marriage

                          Comment


                          • http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us...?mabReward=CTM


                            Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, said on Friday that she and her family have switched to the Republican Party
                            OMG!!!!

                            Totally did not see this coming.

                            Well, actually I did, but a few here probably did not
                            "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                              http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us...?mabReward=CTM




                              OMG!!!!

                              Totally did not see this coming.

                              Well, actually I did, but a few here probably did not
                              http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...l=1#post997010
                              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                              Leibniz

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X