Religious Exemptions: How the World Would Look If Kim Davis Had Her Way

[Rhamiel]

sure glad most of you guys were not around in the 1960's
how many of you would say something like
"what, those Jim Crow laws are the law of the land, I mean we have to just go along with it"


unjust laws should now be followed
recognition of homosexual marriages is an unjust law that violates both natural and divine law

 

[Armoured]

because women should be able to drive if they are of age and can pass a driving test

just like homosexuals may now marry, according to secular law.

 

[Rhamiel]

just like homosexuals may now marry, according to secular law.

no, they shouldn't
because that secular law is in violation of Divine Law
and Divine Law trumps national laws

if Islam was the correct religion, they yeah, sharia or whatever sure
but Mohamed was a war-lord and a false prophet
so I do not really care

 

[LoAmmi]

Is there a list of these divine and natural laws that can be viewed?

 

[Hank77]

no, they shouldn't
because that secular law is in violation of Divine Law
and Divine Law trumps national laws

if Islam was the correct religion, they yeah, sharia or whatever sure
but Mohamed was a war-lord and a false prophet
so I do not really care

Any US Catholic should be very glad for the US Constitution. Some of the colonies would not allow Catholics to practice their religion and or hold public office. Even after they became the states some would not allow Catholics to hold public office and this mistrust of Catholics carried on for generations. I remember when JFK became the first Catholic president, some wouldn't vote for him just because of that. I grew up in a politically split household, it made for some interesting conversations.

 

[muichimotsu]

because women should be able to drive if they are of age and can pass a driving test

And I could say that gay people should be able to get married in civil law if they both consent to it and are not related. Merely making such a statement without backing it up with something generally accessible just isolates you or makes you seem simplistic in the argument. I don't disagree that women should be allowed to drive, but your personal moral approval or lack thereof is not always relevant in regards to the law being executed, nor is it persecuting you in any meaningful sense, if at all.

 

[muichimotsu]

no, they shouldn't
because that secular law is in violation of Divine Law
and Divine Law trumps national laws

if Islam was the correct religion, they yeah, sharia or whatever sure
but Mohamed was a war-lord and a false prophet
so I do not really care

Divine law only trumps secular law in general Catholic ideas if it is explicitly against the teachings and forcing you through threats to agree. At least that's my limited understanding, but I somehow doubt Catholicism is antinomian or encouraging some kind of fundamentalism or fringe attitude where you act purely based on theonomy and theocracy.

The U.S. is a country that, even if we acknowledge religious ideals of sorts in its founding, is not in the business of giving privileged status in any way, shape or form to any religious group. That doesn't mean it favors atheists, but treats everyone as equally as possible in regards to the law. The government isn't forcing churches to marry gay couples and the church shouldn't be forcing the government to adhere to strict laws that are only relevant to believers of that particular creed.

 

[muichimotsu]

sure glad most of you guys were not around in the 1960's
how many of you would say something like
"what, those Jim Crow laws are the law of the land, I mean we have to just go along with it"


unjust laws should now be followed
recognition of homosexual marriages is an unjust law that violates both natural and divine law

Pretty sure Jim Crow is demonstrably something people could've argued even back then was repugnant on the level of actual slavery, since it was discriminatory based on services that had no reason to deny service based on race.

Your personal disagreement or disapproval of homosexuality and their getting married in a civil context or even a religious context is not how laws are determined or enforced, esp. when no one is saying you can't disagree or disapprove to the extent that you aren't infringing on people's rights by insisting they follow your religion.

If you value free will, be happy that there's been no real attempt to force churches to marry gay couples and, if you really find gay marriage (which is a redundant term that focuses too much on the external aspects of the relationship) so terrible, perhaps you could do something meaningful about it, like show people how heterosexual marriage is "better" instead of harping and being negative about homosexuality with no real positive contribution

 

[Armoured]

no, they shouldn't
because that secular law is in violation of Divine Law
and Divine Law trumps national laws

if Islam was the correct religion, they yeah, sharia or whatever sure
but Mohamed was a war-lord and a false prophet
so I do not really care

We're talking about the secular sphere, though, where no one religion is supposed to take precedence over any other.

 

[Erose]

This mistakenly assumes that religion by its nature is something insular or resistant to any civil policy that might in any way, shape or form conflict with person beliefs, when that's not necessarily the case. Heck, I'm pretty sure Wiccans, Satanists and various religious people aren't going to take offense at virtually any government job or what it requires: or if they do, they'd not pursue the job after research and discovering that potential crisis to begin with.

Appealing to a historian's fallacy type of argument is the laziest kind someone can use here. Just because the law was one way at a point in history doesn't mean it is static or unable to change. Kim Davis' disagreement with the law was based on a particular perspective of Christianity, not necessarily something that is universal amongst all Christians in regards to church and state matters as well as morality and legality. If you can't even put your signature on something that isn't meant to have moral approval involved in it to begin with, but merely authorizing as a matter of public record, maybe you shouldn't be involved in anything that involves your signature if you don't morally approve of it.

So we will put you on the side that faithful Christians cannot be government employees or officials. Check.

 

[Erose]

Is there a list of these divine and natural laws that can be viewed?

Does not your religion have its own list?

 

[Erose]

First off, USSR doesn't exist anymore, nor is secularism in American pursuing such a course of action in the slightest, except as reflects particular individuals and their philosophy on it. If you want a more modern comparison, you could try France's laicite, which is much more solidly a severing of religion from government.

I'm not sure of all the details but it is seen as a variant of secularism separate from American secularism, which isn't about suppressing religion or expression thereof, but keeping the privilege out of the discussion, because the idea is about neutrality towards religion, allowing people free exercise, but not absolutely allowing anything, since the principle of distinguishing belief and conduct applies in regards to enforcing laws that are neutral in principle towards religion to begin with. In other words, a prohibition against murder is not prejudiced against a religion that practices human sacrifice, because murder is a general moral evil, regardless of religion. And a requirement for government officials to follow a law such as signing a marriage license for a gay couple is not prejudiced against any religion, because it isn't a matter of absolute uniformity that any religion is completely opposed to homosexuality or them getting marriage.

Not to mention there's an obvious categorical distinction people have already brought up: a civil marriage is not equivalent to a religious one. The former is record keeping and general acknowledgement by the state of a particular kind of relationship connected to childrearing and fidelity in a relationship for the purposes of shared property, etc. The latter is a personal and variable ceremony that instills a sacramental and holy aspect to a similar type of union, but doesn't follow to the state's recognition for the purposes of taxes, property, custody of children. One has practical considerations, the other is more a personal value.

A good post. But I will disagree on this point. There is a big push by statists in this country to push religion behind closed doors and out of the public square.

 

[Erose]

We're talking about the secular sphere, though, where no one religion is supposed to take precedence over any other.

No we are talking about right and wrong. Our governments have made plenty of concessions made over the years for religious beliefs of its employees. The Kentucky government should make one here. Mrs Davis offered a perfect solution to the matter, by taking the signature of the clerk off the license.

 

[LoAmmi]

Does not your religion have its own list?

We have 613 commandments that the religion only applies to Jews. There are seven commandments we believe apply to Gentiles. One of them would apply to sexual immorality, but we are not told to force the Gentiles to do anything. Granted, we're not told not to force them, but we seem to go with the idea of leaving people alone to be left alone ourselves.

Your response seems rather dismissive of my query.

 

[bhsmte]

* If you're an adherent of Wahhabi Islam you work at the DMV, you no longer have to issue driver's licenses to women.
* If you’re a Jehovah's Witness you can refuse to take Christmas off work. You just show up and do whatever you do all day.
* If you’re Catholic and a pharmacist, you can refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control.
* If you’re a Quaker you could enlist in the army for education benefits and simply refuse to shoot a gun or fight anyone.
* If you’re a Mormon you can get a job at the liquor control board and then refuse to issue any licenses to any bars.
* If you’re a Mormon and you get a job as a health inspector you can refuse to issue reports for any coffee shops serving caffeinated beverages.
* If you are a Rastafarian, you can work anywhere and refuse to attend any important meeting where you are not allowed to smoke your chalice of herb.
* If you are Amish, you can get a job as a high school teacher and then just not show up to work, ever, since children should not be educated past the eighth grade.
* If you're a Christian Scientist cab driver, you don't have to take anyone to the hospital, even if they’re dying.
* If you’re a cop who is also a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you refuse to take off your pirate regalia and put on your police uniform.
* If you’re Hindu and get a job as a USDA livestock inspector, you can refuse to inspect cattle marked for slaughter. A Muslim or Orthodox Jewish inspector might decide the same for pork.
* If you’re Jewish, you can get a job at a school cafeteria and refuse to prepare non-kosher meals.
* If you’re a Seventh Day Adventist and a mail carrier, you can refuse to work on Saturday but and deliver your route on Sunday instead.
* If you’re a Jain and a sanitation worker, you could refuse to compact trash because it kills bugs.
* If you’re a Hare Krishna bodega employee, you can refuse to honor winning lottery scratchers.

http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-...orld_would_look_if_kim_davis_had_her_way.html

Good example as to why personal religious convictions are private matters and should not be forced upon the public, who either have completely separate religious convictions, or none at all.

 

[Erose]

We have 613 commandments that the religion only applies to Jews. There are seven commandments we believe apply to Gentiles. One of them would apply to sexual immorality, but we are not told to force the Gentiles to do anything. Granted, we're not told not to force them, but we seem to go with the idea of leaving people alone to be left alone ourselves.

Your response seems rather dismissive of my query.

Those seven are a good start for a list are they not? Is there an exhaustive list, I'm not sure. If there is one, then probably Thomas Aquinas?

But I agree that they are important as the founders of this country referred heavily to Nature's law and the Law of Nature's God, in even our Declaration Of Independence.

 

[Erose]

Good example as to why personal religious convictions are private matters and should not be forced upon the public, who either have completely separate religious convictions, or none at all.

So another who thinks religion should be gone from the public square.

These threads sadden me.

 

[parousia70]

So another who thinks religion should be gone from the public square.

So should we chalk you up as one who wants only one religion allowed in the public square?

 

[parousia70]

because women should be able to drive if they are of age and can pass a driving test

As I understand the argument of Kim Davis supporters, that fact doesn't matter, since it violates the moral and religious views of the person issuing the certificate.

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

Unfortunately a lot of issues have come up due to this thread for flaming/goading. Staff has voted to leave permanently closed. Please remember the site rules


MOD HAT OFF​