Kim Davis

[gurneyhalleck1]

In the end, ALL of politics is a big photo op. The Right (Huckabee) used it as a photo op just like the Left uses these "poor" same-sex 'persecuted' couples as photo ops and their 'struggle' that is so publicly thrown in our faces.

There are things I like about Huckabee, but the thought of a Baptist pastor type in the oval office gives me pause. A lot of people on the far Right like to think the Founding Fathers and previous presidents 'back in the day' were all hardcore Christians. Look at guys like Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and later presidents like Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, etc. etc. they were NOT clergy nor were they hardcore. Most of them were either deists or Sunday church-goers here and there or Christians who had pretty secular agendas. I can't think of any Baptist ministers or fiery preachers in the oval office?

But then again, we've never had a bizarre teleprompter-driven Chicago community organizer socialist atheist-but-says he's-Christian type in the White House either?

This country is going to Gehenna in a hand-basket. All these characters are about as likable as a rash where the sun don't shine...

No matter whether heart was in the right place or not, that 'show' Huckabee put on and that she did participate in makes me feel really uncomfortable. I disagree with how she reacted to it as well. 'Thank you so much! I love you all so much!' It sounded like a celebrity thanking her fans. I suppose the feeling was increased by the show that Huckabee put on along with all the fans. Seeing that though, makes me think of all the others who were persecuted severely -physically and mentally - for their faith, yet never took part in something like this.

Ultimately, the person I lost the most respect for is Huckabee. Seriously...that is the exact opposite of Christianity...our reward is in heaven not on earth. We are to be humble, and Huckabee is certainly making it hard for Davis to do that, even if she wanted to. It was an example of televangelism at its extreme stereotype.

What he did is nothing like keeping an icon on our desks at work. That is quiet witnessing of our faith. Protesting PP clinics is also different, and can be done properly or improperly, just as the release of someone like Kim Davis could have been done properly instead of the show it became.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

just put on some Rocky and watch him beat that Commie punk!

 

[Adam Warlock]

"He is like a piece of iron"

Man, now "Living in America" is stuck in my head

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

"He is like a piece of iron"

Man, now "Living in America" is stuck in my head

 

[rusmeister]

Well, I certainly do not say Kim Davis is a martyr or a hero.
I only say that this is going to come to each of us in one form or another, and we are going to have to make a choice - to confess Christ, or deny Him. Whether you withdraw in one way or another from dealing with and living in the world, by resigning, or retreating to a monastery or conclave, or choose to stay in and accept confrontation, we will all have to do this, sooner or later, Orthodox Christian or heterodox Christian.

Personally, I do not think we can escape it by withdrawal. The world will pursue us, wherever we go, be it to another job or another country. Even Russia. I think here we only have a five or ten year respite relative to you guys. I am alarmed by the happenings over here that seem to be leading to a renewal of hatred and resentment for Christians, even over here. When even the hierarchy contributes to this, what refuge will Russia offer?

 

[GregConstantine]

Rumeister, with your last statement, I do agree. Unfortunately, that question has come to some in the Church, and some of their answers have been rather disappointing.

 

[dzheremi]

Can't speak for Russia, but in the USA where the Kim Davis thing has happened, we're supposed to be protected by the first amendment. It seems like the courts and even many Christians are giving in to the secularists' interpretation of it that attempts to make the public expression (as in, outside of the church building) of religiously-based principles illegal, because they say that "we don't live in a theocracy!" Well, yeah. Of course we don't. But there must be a better way to protect the non-sectarian nature of the government than saying that therefore no one can express Christian principles unless they're only doing so in church, because that is not "making no law respecting the establishment of religion nor the free exercise thereof". That's essentially herding religious people into protected "religious zones", which is absolutely not acceptable. They would have us compartmentalize our faith until it ceases to be applicable in the world itself, and obviously that's not how we're meant to live. And of course showing our faith to be truly active and guiding our lives both inside and outside of the church/monastery/convent is key to bringing the faith to the world and helping to transform it.

For my own little part, whenever anyone posits that I voted this or that way or expressed a particular view because of my religion (as a means to discredit me), I say "Yes, of course I did. I'm a Christian. Am I supposed to vote and think as you would? Why? Is it not enough that you are there to represent your own view?" This is what America is supposed to be about, after all. One man, one vote, and the entire point of the first amendment in the first place is that no one can be compelled against their will to submit to a particular "approved" sort of religious life (this is especially important in modern times, I think, because the secular world does approve of a very particular kind of Christianity that is primarily a charity and good-feelings factory which happily goes along with everything the secular world is doing in the name of being "loving"...just look at the hatchet job they do on the current Roman Pope). In truth, it is the secularist who wants to only enforce the "government establishment of religion" half of the first amendment who does not respect the constitution. We ought to get that message out more clearly and forcefully, rather than submitting to the secularists' idea of the proper observance of religion.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed. I said sometimes I 'WISH' I could retreat a million miles away to solitude, but made it clear that that will do no good. I'm being hyperbolic in what I'm saying seeing as how I have a wife, three kids, and a pension! LOL

Spiritually America is dead. I'm just waiting for the financial and logistical America to collapse into chaos. I find it very revealing that there are so many "preppers" and folks stashing things to the side in case of a melt-down. It just makes you wonder. Shows like Walking Dead, the new Mad Max flick, and a host of other apocalypse shows and movies are a symptom of a quiet sentiment I think of bad things to come.
Hence the reason I stockpile ammo, my rifles and pistols, and my dad has a small armory! LOL

Well, I certainly do not say Kim Davis is a martyr or a hero.
I only say that this is going to come to each of us in one form or another, and we are going to have to make a choice - to confess Christ, or deny Him. Whether you withdraw in one way or another from dealing with and living in the world, by resigning, or retreating to a monastery or conclave, or choose to stay in and accept confrontation, we will all have to do this, sooner or later, Orthodox Christian or heterodox Christian.

Personally, I do not think we can escape it by withdrawal. The world will pursue us, wherever we go, be it to another job or another country. Even Russia. I think here we only have a five or ten year respite relative to you guys. I am alarmed by the happenings over here that seem to be leading to a renewal of hatred and resentment for Christians, even over here. When even the hierarchy contributes to this, what refuge will Russia offer?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree with Kim Davis 100% and don't blame her for doing what she's doing. But I'm pained to say that this is now the law of the land. Sodomy is marriage in America now. It's sick, it's evil, it's sad, it's pathetic, but it's the law, and she refuses to obey the law. I don't fault her for it, but we can't expect people to individually interpret laws and cherry-pick. What if a Catholic refused to issue her those 3 divorce papers? What is a Nazi white supremacist refuses to allow blacks and whites to intermarry? What if a gun-hating liberal refuses to issue a CCW? The permutations go on and on, I'm constrained to point out and sad to say....

Can't speak for Russia, but in the USA where the Kim Davis thing has happened, we're supposed to be protected by the first amendment. It seems like the courts and even many Christians are giving in to the secularists' interpretation of it that attempts to make the public expression (as in, outside of the church building) of religiously-based principles illegal, because they say that "we don't live in a theocracy!" Well, yeah. Of course we don't. But there must be a better way to protect the non-sectarian nature of the government than saying that therefore no one can express Christian principles unless they're only doing so in church, because that is not "making no law respecting the establishment of religion nor the free exercise thereof". That's essentially herding religious people into protected "religious zones", which is absolutely not acceptable. They would have us compartmentalize our faith until it ceases to be applicable in the world itself, and obviously that's not how we're meant to live. And of course showing our faith to be truly active and guiding our lives both inside and outside of the church/monastery/convent is key to bringing the faith to the world and helping to transform it.

For my own little part, whenever anyone posits that I voted this or that way or expressed a particular view because of my religion (as a means to discredit me), I say "Yes, of course I did. I'm a Christian. Am I supposed to vote and think as you would? Why? Is it not enough that you are there to represent your own view?" This is what America is supposed to be about, after all. One man, one vote, and the entire point of the first amendment in the first place is that no one can be compelled against their will to submit to a particular "approved" sort of religious life (this is especially important in modern times, I think, because the secular world does approve of a very particular kind of Christianity that is primarily a charity and good-feelings factory which happily goes along with everything the secular world is doing in the name of being "loving"...just look at the hatchet job they do on the current Roman Pope). In truth, it is the secularist who wants to only enforce the "government establishment of religion" half of the first amendment who does not respect the constitution. We ought to get that message out more clearly and forcefully, rather than submitting to the secularists' idea of the proper observance of religion.

 

[katherine2001]

I agree with Kim Davis 100% and don't blame her for doing what she's doing. But I'm pained to say that this is now the law of the land. Sodomy is marriage in America now. It's sick, it's evil, it's sad, it's pathetic, but it's the law, and she refuses to obey the law. I don't fault her for it, but we can't expect people to individually interpret laws and cherry-pick. What if a Catholic refused to issue her those 3 divorce papers? What is a Nazi white supremacist refuses to allow blacks and whites to intermarry? What if a gun-hating liberal refuses to issue a CCW? The permutations go on and on, I'm constrained to point out and sad to say....

Why doesn't she quit her job? She's complaining that she is being expected to compromise her belief/faith. Why not quit her job--then she will be out of that position? I also wonder why she ran for County Clerk in the first place. She was just elected in November of 2014. It's not as though it wasn't very obvious that same-sex marriage would be legalized (and probably very soon). If you're against same-sex marriage, why would you run for an office where one of your duties is issuing marriage licenses to those who meet the legal guidelines (and there is no way that I would run for that office for that reason). I do believe that God expects us to think about things and consider possible consequences of what we are planning to do. Personally, the last thing I would have done is run for that office. By the way, I have quit a job because I was being expected to do something that I was not willing to do. Is there at least a possibility that God is using this situation to try and get her to give up the job? To me, if she is not willing to do the job that the citizens of that county are paying her to perform, she should resign. I can't help but wonder if she's not giving up her job because she wants the $80,000 a year she is paid for that job. She'd be better off taking a job where she makes half that and isn't expected to go against her conscience.

 

[katherine2001]

How do you know this isn't a grand way at garnering attention for herself? Wouldn't that be the sin of pride and vanity? Wouldn't it be awful if she was using the banner of Christ to commit these transgressions? Why celebrate that or give notice or nod of approval?

I agree. Why didn't she just quietly resign from the office? Does she honestly think this will be the only thing she will have to do that will go against her conscience? Probably not. Better to resign now and get another job, even if it pays a lot less than $80,000/year.

 

[katherine2001]

I would side with Rus, that while we might not venerate this woman as an Orthodox Saint, she is indeed suffering persecution for her standing fast in a confession of Christ. Was the thief at Golgotha not worthy of our remembrance since he was not "Orthodox". Christ told him "you will be with me in Heaven". Though never officially canonized a saint by the Church, he is generally regarded as a saint because of Christ's proclomation. Our designation of sainthood is our best guess at what only God knows. How God will treat this woman's suffering in His name is not ours to know.

But she CHOSE to run for the very office that would require her to issue a marriage license to anyone who meets the legal requirements for the office. It should have been obvious to her that same-sex marriage was going to be made legal during her 4 year term in office. Personally, I would have chosen not to run for that very reason. She chose to put herself into the very situation she is in and then complains about being forced to compromise her faith. I would have much more respect for that if she gave up her job because she felt so strongly that it is wrong to issue those licenses. It says a lot about how strong our faith is both to God and others when we are wiling to give up something very important to us (like a very high-paying job).

 

[rusmeister]

I agree. Why didn't she just quietly resign from the office? Does she honestly think this will be the only thing she will have to do that will go against her conscience? Probably not. Better to resign now and get another job, even if it pays a lot less than $80,000/year.

I feel like I've already responded to this, but my two reasons for "why not?" Are 1) because it means we'd ultimately have to resign from all offices, to remove all Christians from public offices. I can't think of anything more certain to unleash the persecution of ancient Rome. I think that kind of withdrawal wrong, and I think it right to take a stand against it.
2) because there is ultimately nowhere to go to. There will be nowhere that this will not be imposed. If anyone may be forced to recognize illegitimate law as law, then this may be done anywhere, not only in a county clerk's office. A trash collector won't be able to escape it.

I agree with Kim Davis 100% and don't blame her for doing what she's doing. But I'm pained to say that this is now the law of the land. Sodomy is marriage in America now. It's sick, it's evil, it's sad, it's pathetic, but it's the law, and she refuses to obey the law. I don't fault her for it, but we can't expect people to individually interpret laws and cherry-pick. What if a Catholic refused to issue her those 3 divorce papers? What is a Nazi white supremacist refuses to allow blacks and whites to intermarry? What if a gun-hating liberal refuses to issue a CCW? The permutations go on and on, I'm constrained to point out and sad to say....

Yes, Gurney, we DO have to "cherry-pick" when laws become evil. If it becomes the law to report a neighbor for hiding Jews, will you say the same thing? Of course not! At some point, you have to admit that we must not hold law as hallowed when it is immoral. The answers to your questions is that the white supremacist is actually wrong about morality, and you are free to get the liberal fired if you can. But a person standing for what is unquestionably morally right is right to stand against immoral law. (And technically, it isn't even law, only a ruling, that contradicts actual law under which she was elected and agreed to uphold). You can't blame her for refusing to uphold a law that didn't exist when she was elected and never agreed to uphold. I'm a bit surprised to find you advocating upholding it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You threw me at the "at some point you have to..." part, Rus? I've never said people should follow immoral laws? I never said Kim Davis should follow the law. I said she should resign and refuse to play ball. I have repeatedly said she did the right thing, BUT I made the point that it IS the law and she's breaking it. How am I wrong there? And if she stays in the job, refuses to follow the law, keeps doing this, how is that productive? She'll get arrested, thrown in jail, they replace her with toady liberal modernist who WILL obey the law. She might as well quit and find a job that doesn't compromise her morality.

I'm puzzled about your whole post here. It almost sounds like you've never met me, and I'm constrained to pull a Greg: I don't think you read my post.

I never said she should uphold it? I do say it's THE LAW, and you can't expect to hire people who refuse to follow laws. Highway patrol, police, county officials, teachers, we all have laws to follow. If it gets to the point in CA where they FORCE me to teach same-sex "gay" nonsense in the classroom, I WILL pull a Kim Davis. Then when compelled further, I'll quit. And I will understand why they fired me. I'm not complying with the law that is on the books?

How is that controversial or wrong?

If we cherry-pick, different people will find different problems with different laws. What if a man FEELS IT IN HIS BONES that interracial marriage is immoral and that God never meant people to marry different colors? Would you advocate he not issue the license and fight the powers and stay in control? Or what if people feel it in their bones that using drugs is perfectly fine and in fact laudable? Should DEA guys let cocaine dealers off the hook because their liberal morals say it's ok? Or a Catholic refuse to issue a divorce because his religion teaches divorce is wrong? Or a Protestant who refuses to recognize a Catholic marriage because he follows Jack Chick-like thinking that Catholics are pagans? I mean, if we want to, we can go all day thinking up scenarios of this religious reasons to abstain from following laws on the books. That's all I'm saying.

I'm fine with boycotting participation in gay "marriage." But I also understand why officials have to fire Kim Davis. It's the law. You hate it. I hate it. But it's the law. It sucks rocks. But it's the law. And the county can't keep a woman who refuses to obey the law, even if she's morally right.
As for your argument that gay "marriage" wasn't on the books when she took her oath, it isn't your contention that laws that change over time don't have to be obeyed if the magistrate or official didn't personally agree to it at the time of their swearing in, right? That would be ludicrous.

So in review

a) I don't advocate she participate in gay nonsense
b) I don't think she's wrong
c) I wouldn't participate or enter into this behavior
d) I understand WHY she's going to lose her job
e) No civil government will keep an employee who refuses to follow the law

Hopefully that helps. You got me pegged wrong here.

I feel like I've already responded to this, but my two reasons for "why not?" Are 1) because it means we'd ultimately have to resign from all offices, to remove all Christians from public offices. I can't think of anything more certain to unleash the persecution of ancient Rome. I think that kind of withdrawal wrong, and I think it right to take a stand against it.
2) because there is ultimately nowhere to go to. There will be nowhere that this will not be imposed. If anyone may be forced to recognize illegitimate law as law, then this may be done anywhere, not only in a county clerk's office. A trash collector won't be able to escape it.


Yes, Gurney, we DO have to "cherry-pick" when laws become evil. If it becomes the law to report a neighbor for hiding Jews, will you say the same thing? Of course not! At some point, you have to admit that we must not hold law as hallowed when it is immoral. The answers to your questions is that the white supremacist is actually wrong about morality, and you are free to get the liberal fired if you can. But a person standing for what is unquestionably morally right is right to stand against immoral law. (And technically, it isn't even law, only a ruling, that contradicts actual law under which she was elected and agreed to uphold). You can't blame her for refusing to uphold a law that didn't exist when she was elected and never agreed to uphold. I'm a bit surprised to find you advocating upholding it.

 

[rusmeister]

Thanks! That does clarify your intent, as far as I'm concerned.

Still, my short answer is that we cannot keep a county that recognizes immoral law. Either we put the enactors in prison, or they put us in prison. I think a people is right to rise up and throw out a government at doesn't represent them, if they have any power to do so.

You say "the law is the law". I think that a Supreme Court ruling as law can be debated, but more importantly, I think an unlawful law is NOT law, not something we MUST obey or honor from a moral perspective. Treating any law as an absolute that we must recognize is not something that I see as Christian witness in history.

I have responded to the whole idea of resigning; I think it futile, and even ultimately wrong, as long as there is any hope of resistance among the common people. In the end, I see all resistance as "delaying" action, only; I think that unless people voluntarily turn to Christ, our nation is doomed. But it behooves us to stave off evil rule as long as we can. When we cannot, we give up. We resign. I do not think this issue is one we must admit total defeat on, though, and I think resigning moves it more swiftly toward that doom, which nearly all people who live through will wish they weren't.

We can no longer live in an empire that tries to make large numbers of people with widely diverging and contradictory beliefs live together under one rule. It cannot be done. As long as a majority of the people honestly believed, or at least gave lip service to Christian belief and teaching, it was possible, though difficult. It is no longer possible. It cannot be done in Russia, it cannot be done in America. One belief or the other must dominate. If it is not Christian it will be secular - of the world and the devil - and it will not tolerate us for a minute longer tan it takes to pass laws it can get people to obey, even if sullenly and unwillingly. So that's where it's at. I DON'T think the Christian admonition to honor rulers and render unti Caesar means honoring bad laws and granting to Caesar what Caesar has no power or right to grant.

It's no use talking about what Roman Catholics or Muslims might refuse to do: they are LOGICAL in refusing to sell condoms or pork, respectively. They think their teachings actually true, and act accordingly. I speak against acting, as far as public life is concerned, as if our teachings are so unimportant that we will not stand up for them. I think the time has come to do so. (I think the same things will be over here with a ten year lag, so I don't consider where I am to be especially safe from all this.) Resigning means turning over all government decisions to the enemies of the Faith right now; rolling over and playing dead.

 

[buzuxi02]

At this point in time its best if the clergy follow the lead of Fr. Patrick Reardon. If Orthodox couples want to get married they should be required to take pre-marital counseling explaining to them what an Orthodox marriage requires. They can then opt out of it, if its not what they are looking for.
They can register with the secular authorities later on at their own leisure for the legal perks.

 

[St Herman's Ghost]

Lolol

 

[buzuxi02]

How old is that? Jolly Ranchers on the counter and $1.95 for a pack. 5 cents the bubble gum, that's like 30 years ago.

 

[St Herman's Ghost]

How old is that? Jolly Ranchers on the counter and $1.95 for a pack. 5 cents the bubble gum, that's like 30 years ago.

It's from the movie Clerks if that says anything

 

[rusmeister]

Resigning means turning over all government decisions to the enemies of the Faith right now; rolling over and playing dead.

So can people at least agree that this is what resigning means, or at least upon demand if not this moment, and that some of you think this is what we should do?