Kim Davis

[paul becke]

1.We admit that they are not Orthodox martyrs or confessors. You seem to be defining "martyr" as "only Orthodox".
But she is certainly confessing Christ. There are non-Orthodox martyrs and confessors for Christ. Sure, we don't formally recognize them. But only an arrogant person would deny that they are sacrificing something for their faith in the Christian God.

2. She was elected by her people to a certain position to do a certain job, and only those people have a right to remove her. If they choose to do so, that is their choice. They have not done so, to the best of my knowledge. No one, as far as I know, claims she was forced, in general, to give out marriage certificates. The forcing is specifically in regard to something none of us may recognize. Looks like you're beating on a straw man there. Sometimes we mix up straw men with reductio ad absurdam. Frankly, a situation of being ordered to commit a moral act or be punished looks like persecution to me.

Nobody is saying she's Orthodox, nobody is saying she is being tortured or murdered. Let's set aside those ideas right away. I'd say she is a heterodox confessor of Christ and God's law. Give credit where credit is due. Do you think "resigning" (and "voluntarily" (how is that not duress?) losing your job) is not punishment? You try being fired sometime and see what it feels like. Do you think paying fines is not punishment? She wants to do her job in peace, in accordance with moral law, and is being punished for it. Whether she loses her job and pays fines, or goes to prison, it's still suffering in the name of the Christian God. It is right to refuse to acknowledge immoral law, and wrong to insist on upholding such law, and it's a damned shame, in the most direct theological sense of the word, that I should have to say that here.

-----------------------

Well spoken, Rusmeister. Not only that, but her brave stand was an oasis of adamant Christian witness in an ocean of diabolical paganism, which now seems to exercise all but total hegemony in the West, not least as exercised by the all-powerful media. It might have turned into what Catholics designate as a 'white martyrdom'. But certainly losing a supervisory job for a point of Christian principle falls within the generic term, 'martyrdom' we are familiar with via the press and TV. The pagans are showing no scruples whatsoever in hounding Christians of whatever stripe through the courts, to force them to bow to their demands - demands moreover that are more than tendentious, being notable for their vacuity and mendacity. Their lobbying is extraordinarily, shamelessly mendacious.

One example: You don't champion diversity by preferring homosexuality (homo = Gk prefix for same) in possibly THE most fundamental of human relationships. Rainbows? The indications are that they would have them all of the one colour. Doubtless, a virginal white..! And don't you dare suggest otherwise!

Another example: a UK judge stated that the world 'abnormal' is offensive. Before long, mathematicians and actuaries will be in trouble for talking about 'standard deviations'. Or perhaps they'll be acclaimed for promoting sexual deviancy as standard, conventional behaviour!

 

[rusmeister]

Greg, I think you need to know proper boundaries in order to teach them.
And since you guys think that law is sacrosanct, and whatever has been passed has to be obeyed, and you have no conception of civil disobedience, the idea of saying "No" and not resigning or going anywhere (which I DO find in our Tradition), I don't think anything at all can be said to you.

 

[paul becke]

You really are something else Rusmeister. You don't even know me and you hurl judgmental assumptions at me. How do you know if I've been fired from a job or not? Well, how do you know? Please directly answer that question.

Your conservative meanness really shows in your response.

We're citizens of the Kingdom of God, not of any political persuasions, ideologies, or parties.

You seem to be quite unaware of historic, mainstream Christianity.

Do you even realise that we are in the midst of a spiritual war of unimaginable dimensions, of which all the suffering, the cruelty, the illness and the horrors in our world are a part, and every Christian is called be a hero, to give his life, physical or not physical, for his/her faith; even though it may primarily involve the apparently mundane matter of bringing up a Christian* family - surely one of the most epic endeavours to do the best of one's abilities. And as even many French atheists and agnostics realise, children need a father and a mother.

*This is dangerous territory to be indicating that a person (who is not a combative atheist) might be animated by the spirit of charity (Christ), like the man in the Last Judgment as recounted by Jesus in Matthew 25, who claimed he didn't even know God - but it is necessary. Just as it is necessary for we Christians to understand that formal observances while required of those who know better, cannot be the be all and end all of our faith - which is primarily a commitment to the self-denying love of God and man, inspired by God.

 

[katherine2001]

Our job? Do you go with Kim Davis to her job? Are you including the rest of us in your Kim Davis-Rusmeister car pool? I don't really want to go to Kim Davis' office. It sounds like an unpleasant place.

And it kinda is her job when the law says it is. That's the whole problem. That's a reason to change the law, just as activists for homosexual marriage changed it in the first place only starting a few months/years ago.

But again this has very little to do with EO people treating Kim Davis as a Christian hero...other than the fact that you're EO, I guess.

I agree. I think it is important to stress that she wasn't just refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples--she was refusing to issue any marriage licenses. Heterosexual couples (including Christians) were not being given marriage licenses either. Was she pushing people into fornication if they weren't involved it in already? I would be curious as to whether couples had to cancel their weddings because they couldn't get her office to issue any marriage licenses. She had worked as deputy clerk under her mother (who was County Clerk before her), so it is not as though she didn't know what her duties were.

I also feel sorry for the people in her office. She would sit in her office with the blinds closed, while her deputy clerks had to deal with upset and frustrated citizens (both same-sex and heterosexual couples) were told day after day that marriage licenses weren't being issued today. Deputy clerks also lied when someone would ask to speak to Mrs. Davis about this and tell them that she was not there, when she was sitting in her office. Even though all the deputy clerks (except her son Nathan) were willing to issue the licenses, Mrs. Davis would not let them. Evidently, she had the right to make them act according to her conscience as well.

 

[Hank77]

I think it is important to stress that she wasn't just refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples--she was refusing to issue any marriage licenses. Heterosexual couples (including Christians) were not being given marriage licenses either.

Why do you think she did that, not issuing any licenses at all?

 

[dzheremi]

And since you guys think that law is sacrosanct

Wrong. It is precisely because the law is not sacrosanct that we're in the position that we're now in.

and whatever has been passed has to be obeyed

Who has said that?

and you have no conception of civil disobedience

If there are any people who seem to need a refresher on civil disobedience, it would be those who are shocked that Kim Davis went to jail over this. Plenty of people engaged in organized, willful disobedience of the law for the sake of changing the law did so with full knowledge and acceptance that they'd go to jail for it. So who are you charging with having "no conception of civl disobedience" -- the people in this thread who are disagreeing with you, or some of Kim Davis' supporters?

the idea of saying "No" and not resigning or going anywhere (which I DO find in our Tradition), I don't think anything at all can be said to you.

Did those people go to jail, lose their positions, etc.? Just curious.

 

[katherine2001]

Why do you think she did that, not issuing any licenses at all?

Because she thought she wouldn't break the ruling handed down if she refused to give out any marriage licenses.

 

[Hank77]

Because she thought she wouldn't break the ruling handed down if she refused to give out any marriage licenses.

I would have thought her attorneys would have been smarter than that.

 

[RDKirk]

I feel like I've already responded to this, but my two reasons for "why not?"

Likewise he who is called as a free man is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.-- 1 Corinthians 7

It ought to be realized than an elected official is a slave of men. That's what "public servant" means.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Likewise he who is called as a free man is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.-- 1 Corinthians 7

It ought to be realized than an elected official is a slave of men. That's what "public servant" means.

^You can not serve two masters. This is why I look at this person as I do.

 

[rusmeister]

Wrong. It is precisely because the law is not sacrosanct that we're in the position that we're now in.



Who has said that?



If there are any people who seem to need a refresher on civil disobedience, it would be those who are shocked that Kim Davis went to jail over this. Plenty of people engaged in organized, willful disobedience of the law for the sake of changing the law did so with full knowledge and acceptance that they'd go to jail for it. So who are you charging with having "no conception of civl disobedience" -- the people in this thread who are disagreeing with you, or some of Kim Davis' supporters?



Did those people go to jail, lose their positions, etc.? Just curious.

You're twisting my words away from what I mean.
When I say that "you think the law is sacrosanct" I mean that you think it may not and ought not to be defied, and that is the effect of your calls for Davis to resign, which logic I think would have to be applied to anyone challenged in a government post, which means all Christians so challenged must forthwith quit their posts.

YOU said that, by saying that she has to resign. That IS obeying the law. It's not actually doing the evil directly, of course, but it acknowledges a right to impose evil. And this is the line. Evil does NOT have a right to exist, and people do NOT have a right to do evil, whatever legal claim is made to the contrary. The whole point is that we must say the right is not right, and so cannot be a right, and the effect of your position, regardless of whatever words you may say, is to say that it IS a right, and therefore is right. You can't say in any logic or consistency "They have a right to get married, but I can't consider them actually married".

Did the Three Holy Youths go to jail? How about Daniel? How can you speak as if no one in our Tradition ever defied an immoral law and refused to uphold it, or leave, run and hide?

 

[rusmeister]

I agree. I think it is important to stress that she wasn't just refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples--she was refusing to issue any marriage licenses. Heterosexual couples (including Christians) were not being given marriage licenses either. Was she pushing people into fornication if they weren't involved it in already? I would be curious as to whether couples had to cancel their weddings because they couldn't get her office to issue any marriage licenses. She had worked as deputy clerk under her mother (who was County Clerk before her), so it is not as though she didn't know what her duties were.

I also feel sorry for the people in her office. She would sit in her office with the blinds closed, while her deputy clerks had to deal with upset and frustrated citizens (both same-sex and heterosexual couples) were told day after day that marriage licenses weren't being issued today. Deputy clerks also lied when someone would ask to speak to Mrs. Davis about this and tell them that she was not there, when she was sitting in her office. Even though all the deputy clerks (except her son Nathan) were willing to issue the licenses, Mrs. Davis would not let them. Evidently, she had the right to make them act according to her conscience as well.

I can only say that her conscience ought to be our conscience, and above all, I mean that we ought not to think that her view is a personal and private view. If it WAS only hers, your idea would follow, I admit, but it isn't. She has the great common sense of humanity to know that homosexuality is an abomination, doubly so when put as a parody of marriage. You do not agree with her response, but at least admit that her view on that is not her own.

 

[dzheremi]

You're twisting my words away from what I mean.
When I say that "you think the law is sacrosanct" I mean that you think it may not and ought not to be defied

Well I don't know what you think the word sacrosanct means, but when something is regarded as sacrosanct it means that it is considered to be too important or valuable to be interfered with. So I replied that it is precisely because people did not consider it to be so that we are in this situation, as activists for gay marriage had no trouble changing the law when it was not in favor of their right to gay marriage. So, yes, we are in this current situation precisely because the law was not treated as sacrosanct. And we hold a similar view whenever we say a law should be changed or abolished. Such is the nature of living in a state where people can propose new laws, extensions of existing laws, etc. That's precisely why the argument that gay marriage was not legal when she was hired does not carry weight with judges.

That IS obeying the law. It's not actually doing the evil directly, of course, but it acknowledges a right to impose evil. And this is the line. Evil does NOT have a right to exist, and people do NOT have a right to do evil, whatever legal claim is made to the contrary.

Well I guess nobody told evil that, because it exists anyway...with legal sanction and without, and regardless of who among us says it has a "right" to exist or not.

The whole point is that we must say the right is not right, and so cannot be a right, and the effect of your position, regardless of whatever words you may say, is to say that it IS a right, and therefore is right. You can't say in any logic or consistency "They have a right to get married, but I can't consider them actually married".

It doesn't seem that you're understanding that this law was passed over our objections. Particularly in California, where I live, we voted for Prop 8, which banned gay marriage. It was later overturned essentially by fiat. So if anyone understands what it means to say "they have a right to get married, but I can't consider them actually married", it would be every Orthodox Christian in this state. This is not conferring legitimacy onto gay marriage (which will always be wrong, regardless of what law is passed about it) anymore than recognizing the existence of churches other than the Orthodox Church is saying that other churches are legitimate. Sure, you can say "Well, they aren't legitimate!", but the point is that they still legally exist, even if by your interpretation of what God would want, where everyone is in the Eastern Orthodox Church, they really shouldn't, and certainly don't have any kind of divine right to exist.

Soooo...when can I expect you and Kim Davis to show up to the local Coptic, Roman Catholic, or Baptist Church, barring worshipers and non-worshipers from entering those churches?

I would hope that you take your ecclesiology just as seriously, and consider it just as divinely-ordained, as any other aspect of Christianity. So I will see you soon.

Unless of course (again) it's really about hyper-focus on gay stuff.

 

[rusmeister]

I do. And the point of conflict is not to go out and seek out people who would do evil (thus, going to other churches to forbid things doesn't even come up) but when they come to us and try to force validation from us.

I do understand that you object to these things. i think our chief misunderstanding is over the concept of rights. You evidently see the concept as "whatever governments may grant". I see rights as legitimate only when they are also morally right. I grant no rigt of any kind when the claimed right is morally wrong. I think we should address that.

 

[dzheremi]

No. I see it terms of legality. To say that someone has the legal right to do something is to recognize that some governing body that confers legal status upon the thing that the person wants to do has decided "okay, people can now do this thing without any legal repercussions in terms of going to jail, etc." (or "with some legal benefits via XYZ"). It's not that morals don't have anything to do with this; it's that what is morally right and what is a legal right are often not the same thing, not because we don't want them to be, but because they just aren't. Because we don't live in a world where everyone is Orthodox, or even Christian, or even heterosexual. What's to be done about that...make everyone be Orthodox Christians insofar as it is possible without compromising what that means? Yes! And that's precisely why we don't look to Evangelicals adoringly as though they know anything about what that means just because they too don't view homosexual marriage as legitimate. That's why I've posted in this thread at all (since I'm not EO, the OP doesn't even pertain to me). Because what we need to do to get to where we want to get to isn't going to be accomplished by settling this one issue. Gay marriage could be re-illegalized tomorrow and it would not transform society in such a way as to bring it in line with traditional Christian anthropology and morals (as it was already way out of whack with that last year, when this stuff was still illegal at a federal level, or twenty years ago, when it was still illegal everywhere in the USA). Sure, gay marriage being legal (and all this other sexuality and gender based stuff that is everywhere) certainly isn't helping, but...well...what can anyone say? The world is not getting any easier out there, so we have to work harder and smarter than we have been, and not rely on the lazy, entitled Evangelical mainstream to do our work for us when we'd be better off doing it ourselves than making quasi-saints of their flash-in-the-pan culture warriors. So I personally see the Kim Davis approach as one fitting Evangelicals, who have a very politicized and surface level understanding of Christian morality in the first place, but not for Orthodox Christians, who are supposed to have a holistic, deep lived knowledge of personhood, rights, and all of these other things that cannot be limited to "Don't be gay cuz Jesus says so", which is the (only) message that people outside of Christian circles seem to be getting from this whole mess.

 

[GregConstantine]

Rumeister, don't take this personally, but you have a listening/reading problem. You are also using words like "sacrosanct" wrongly.

You using the 3 holy youths as an example shows you still consider Kim Davis to be on the same level as they. Nope, not even close.

Can you keep your American republic conservatism separate from Orthodoxy?

 

[GregConstantine]

I love it when Protestants come on here and tell us that we ought to have a deeper awareness of "historic Christianity" Lol.

 

[GregConstantine]

"Did the Three Holy Youths go to jail? How about Daniel? How can you speak as if no one in our Tradition ever defied an immoral law and refused to uphold it, or leave, run and hide?"

They were FORCED!!!! Kim Davis HAS A CHOICE!

You dishonor the memory of the martyrs and saints when you try to put Kim Davis in the same category as the martyrs!! Really Rumeister!?!?

 

[RDKirk]

Did the Three Holy Youths go to jail? How about Daniel? How can you speak as if no one in our Tradition ever defied an immoral law and refused to uphold it, or leave, run and hide?

I would point out that in all of those cases, the law they disobeyed was "Don't worship your God." They all otherwise did everything the king required them to do in administering the government. Moreover, they did not have the option of just resigning.

 

[paul becke]

Likewise he who is called as a free man is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.-- 1 Corinthians 7

It ought to be realized than an elected official is a slave of men. That's what "public servant" means.

On the contrary. Christ, himself, made himself a public servant of the highest order. It did not entail deferring to the World in matters of religious morality. On the contrary; which was why he was officially executed - and on the trumped-up charge you are now peddling: disobeying the state.