Kim Davis

[jckstraw72]

yah i just recently read something that she appealed to have it changed, and to do so the governor would have had to call the legislature into session early and he refused to do so. can't for the life of me remember where i read this though.

 

[gzt]

That agrees with my vague memory of the situation, so we must have both read it somewhere.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I never meant to imply you're not an American, Rus. You'll always be American! I was just saying that since you live in Russia and your kids and wife are Russian, your job, way of life, and it seems like your destiny will lay in Russia possibly until your passing, that America becomes more of a distant reality, something that doesn't touch you as much, something almost theoretical and intangible after a while. It's like me hoping for peace in the Middle East. I do indeed wish such peace, but it'll never directly impact me really.

Regarding Kim Davis's past, yeah, I suppose you're right on it. She probably regrets her sins, for all I know. But I really don't know. We live in such a screwed-up age that I half the time haven't the foggiest clue as to what people are thinking or what they really believe. I hope and probably guess she's repentant. I wish her the best. I have learned from this thread and exchange, though, that it CAN be a tool of Satan to hold people's pasts against them in order to delegitimize their truthful actions. If we can only attach credibility to people with clean pasts, St. Augustine, St. Paul, and so many others would be bereft of credible truth-telling and testimony. Good food for thought, and I'm glad we discussed this.

There's a lot there I can and do agree with.

I guess one remaining question would be regarding Davis's past. We're pretty big on insisting on God's forgiveness and mercy, particularly when a person repents. My impression is that, generally speaking, she has repented. I don't know, of course, maybe she thinks divorce is a fine thing and plans to do it next year. But it seems to me that we give each other the benefit of the doubt, and even heterodox Christians can be sorry for their past, and while the world will drag it up, it seems to me that as long as she's not crowing about and praising her divorces, we should grant that a person who seriously confesses Christ probably holds repentance and awareness of sin in a relatively important place in his or her life. We give ourselves a break on that, anyway, and assume that we have all repented.

So why treat her past as something she HASN'T repented of? Why refer to it as something she's probably going to continue doing or as something by which we should judge her sincerity now? I really doubt she holds her past sins and errors as something helpful in, as you say, fighting the powers-that-be.

On Russia, I think people on your end have a general impression that Russia is becoming Holy Russia again because Orthodoxy is currently fashionable. I don't think that's the case, I think important figures in the Church here are reproducing behaviors that provoked the tremendous backlash against faith in the Russian Revolution: turning blind eyes to both government injustices and outrageous behavior of people acting in the name of the Church. Most people don't seriously believe, nominalism is rife - and meaningless, they still import "Futurama", "Family Guy" and the rest of the c%$p from US TV affirming the normality of abnormality. The propaganda is chipping away here, too, if more slowly. I give us only ten years, give or take a few, to backlash.

And I AM American. I pay prices to keep my citizenship, and still love my native land, and care what happens to my family and friends. I appreciate what you say about armchair generaling, and agree that, yes, it is easier for me to say these things. But I say them because I really think they will impact me and those I love, so still have to weigh my words.

Thanks, though, for bringing the ability to see and reach out to those you disagree with!

 

[Albion]

her refusal to issue licenses was a violation of the first amendment since she is a government official.

I don't remember that being part of the First Amendment.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I don't remember that being part of the First Amendment.

I don't think this is about free speech either. I think it is about her violating her oath of office. From what I understand she isn't even issuing marriage licenses to streight couples. Why is she even there if she is doing nothing but picking up a paycheck. That isn't fare to anyone.

 

[rusmeister]

I don't think this is about free speech either. I think it is about her violating her oath of office. From what I understand she isn't even issuing marriage licenses to streight couples. Why is she even there if she is doing nothing but picking up a paycheck. That isn't fare to anyone.

We praise Fr Patrick Henry Reardon when he decides to try to apply a consistent policy, and then blast Davis for trying to do the same.

The oath of office, in military or civilian life, as I understand it, is not to uphold Supreme Court rulings that change what we sign up for, but to support and defend the Constitution. Even that is moot to those of us who think we are not bound to obey clearly immoral laws, let alone rulings not confirmed in law. But if you believe in obeying immoral laws, as it appears you do, there's not much to say to you. It seems to me that you would rather have homosexuals and godless people in office spreading this stuff as rapidly as possible. That is certainly the effect of the advice of all the "resigners". It's no use our voting for Christians now, because they'll just have to resign at the first challenge, according to this logic.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

We praise Fr Patrick Henry Reardon when he decides to try to apply a consistent policy, and then blast Davis for trying to do the same.

The oath of office, in military or civilian life, as I understand it, is not to uphold Supreme Court rulings that change what we sign up for, but to support and defend the Constitution. Even that is moot to those of us who think we are not bound to obey clearly immoral laws, let alone rulings not confirmed in law. But if you believe in obeying immoral laws, as it appears you do, there's not much to say to you. It seems to me that you would rather have homosexuals and godless people in office spreading this stuff as rapidly as possible. That is certainly the effect of the advice of all the "resigners". It's no use our voting for Christians now, because they'll just have to resign at the first challenge, according to this logic.

The oath of office is to serve the public in the capacity of that office, by performing the services due the public by the law of the land. If you don't like what the duties are then you leave the office and look for employment elsewhere.

The secular world is the way it is and to not understand that is to not understand what Christ said by persecution. Religion should not be a part of government for the simple reason is that nobody should be able to force their understandings upon you. I'm sure that others feel differently about this, but that's only because Christianity is the prevelant religion in America. Now if Islam overtook Christian then they would think differently.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Why is it that most of the conversation always seems to go on in the rare threads I pretty much avoid and don't participate in?

 

[rusmeister]

The oath of office is to serve the public in the capacity of that office, by performing the services due the public by the law of the land. If you don't like what the duties are then you leave the office and look for employment elsewhere.

The secular world is the way it is and to not understand that is to not understand what Christ said by persecution. Religion should not be a part of government for the simple reason is that nobody should be able to force their understandings upon you. I'm sure that others feel differently about this, but that's only because Christianity is the prevelant religion in America. Now if Islam overtook Christian then they would think differently.

The idea that no one should be able to force understandings is false. All law is the forcing of understandings. This new idea that men can marry men is in fact being forced (and therein you contradict yourself, in defending de facto that particular forcing). Secularism can take over as easily as Islam and persecute even more thoroughly.

 

[rusmeister]

Why is it that most of the conversation always seems to go on in the rare threads I pretty much avoid and don't participate in?

I only post on threads where I feel I have something to add, the things I think I have learned something worth offering.
There are a lot of things where I don't think I have the best answers. Jackstraw blows me away on the Church fathers, so I mostly shut up and listen. Matt or any of the other seminarians will knock me flat on liturgics, and most here are pretty competent at answering visitor questions. I usually consider my input unnecessary.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

The idea that no one should be able to force understandings is false. All law is the forcing of understandings. This new idea that men can marry men is in fact being forced (and therein you contradict yourself, in defending de facto that particular forcing). Secularism can take over as easily as Islam and persecute even more thoroughly.

There is a difference between secular laws and religious laws. I thought I made it quite clear I was speaking about religious laws, and no there are no forced understandings in secular laws because they are specific and distinct with penilities envolved. There are no attempts to justify these laws at the level of those enforcing them and those recieving that enforcement.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Why is it that most of the conversation always seems to go on in the rare threads I pretty much avoid and don't participate in?

What people feel strongly about is where they will accumulate.

I've tried to open up some philosophy posts but mine seem to fizzel out bafore the first page is even filled out. I guess I'm no good at this thread making stuff.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Mine is even MORE unnecessary! Heck...barely relevant! LOL

I only post on threads where I feel I have something to add, the things I think I have learned something worth offering.
There are a lot of things where I don't think I have the best answers. Jackstraw blows me away on the Church fathers, so I mostly shut up and listen. Matt or any of the other seminarians will knock me flat on liturgics, and most here are pretty competent at answering visitor questions. I usually consider my input unnecessary.

 

[dzheremi]

We praise Fr Patrick Henry Reardon when he decides to try to apply a consistent policy, and then blast Davis for trying to do the same.

Don't you mean "We praise Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon for applying a policy consistent with his living of the Eastern Orthodox faith as a priest within this church, and cognizant of its historical and present approach to marriage as a holy mystery"? I haven't noticed anyone confusing that with Kim Davis just because they're both trying to apply a consistent policy that is in some way in line with the basics of Christian teaching regarding homosexuality. That doesn't mean that they ought to be viewed in the same light just because they're both trying to be consistent, when one springs from a knowledge of the historical norms of the Church that a priest actually lives in and the other from Mrs. Davis' personal conviction that she as an individual has a Christian duty to not do her job, not let anyone around her do the job, and not seek to leave or change her job, but instead to run it like her personal Evangelical fiefdom. This thread is (supposed to be) about Eastern Orthodox people treating her as a hero of Christianity, after all. Is it wrong to teach proper boundaries between your church and the outside whenever anyone outside of your church shows a basic knowledge of Christian doctrine regarding homosexuality? Or does being against homosexual marriage trump literally everything else, as though this is the only thing that Christians of any church actually care about, and Christianity really only exists to be anti-gay?Because that's what secular society and particularly its younger generations already think of Christianity. I would've thought the Eastern Orthodox would have a deeper understanding of it, and a different view than that of American Evangelicals Protestants.

All this other stuff is irrelevant to the opening post of the thread, which I assume is the reason why the thread was actually started.

 

[rusmeister]

No, I don't mean that, dzheremi. *Sigh*

Since it can never be our job to "marry" homosexuals, your argument falls flatter than a pancake for me.

 

[dzheremi]

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.

 

[GregConstantine]

"it wrong to teach proper boundaries between your church and the outside whenever anyone outside of your church shows a basic knowledge of Christian doctrine regarding homosexuality? Or does being against homosexual marriage trump literally everything else, as though this is the only thing that Christians of any church actually care about, and Christianity really only exists to be anti-gay?Because that's what secular society and particularly its younger generations already think of Christianity."

Rumeister, please directly answer this question.

You are right dzheremi, the OP of this tread does have everything to do with Orthodox Christians treating her like a hero or martyr. I also personally specified that I couldn't care less what Kim Davis decides or not decides to do. My original post/question has to do with Orthodox Christians treating her as a hero/martyr.

Here's what I think some of what is happening:

There are very staunch politically conservative folks who have become Orthodox. They became Orthodox for a variety of reasons, but one main thing that attracted them to Orthodoxy is what was in their mind, a conservative approach to morality. Seeing that being compromised in their respective former Protestant organizations, they came to Orthodoxy hoping to find refuge from a trend of liberalization of traditional Christian morality.

Unfortunately, as Americans are wrought to do, they (and liberals do this too) turned the various moral issues and problems of our society into political issues. And, the particular brand of conservatism that they follow is one that is very "paranoid" of anything and anyone with a different opinion. This partly explains their knee jerk rejection of evolution, and immediately assuming that every person who studies or uses the theory of evolution is up to some nefarious plan to "get" the rest of us. They came to Orthodoxy wanting a communion that fits their brand of American Conservatism that's been conflated with what they think Christianity is. Perhaps they are starting to realize that that was a mistake. Not coming to Orthodoxy, but coming to Orthodoxy for those reasons. You see, if you convert for those reasons, or any reason other than Jesus Christ and to know Him crucified, then you will never, ever be satisfied. For Orthodoxy, while small in the US, is a major faith in the world in general, made up of different people with different opinions.

I'm sure this will make some people angry, but, if you wish to know why I'm saying this, please give me the benefit of the doubt and pm me so this tread doesn't derail any further.

Thank you

 

[~Anastasia~]

What people feel strongly about is where they will accumulate.

True.

I wasn't thinking about anything like why my threads get fewer posts - I honestly never pay attention to that. They usually get discussed to the degree they need to be.

I think it may have more to do with the possibility that I'm not posting in the "hot topic" areas, and not really interested in reading them. I thought I posted in this one early on, but it's just not something worth hundreds of posts to me. I probably missed almost all of the points to discuss on the issue. Lol.

I think it's my problem. If it IS a problem. Mostly I just wonder sometimes where folks are, but then I see they ARE here ... Just not where I am. It's all good.

I've tried to open up some philosophy posts but mine seem to fizzel out bafore the first page is even filled out. I guess I'm no good at this thread making stuff.

Philosophy can be interesting ... But I don't see a great tendency toward it in Orthodoxy in mist cases.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I only post on threads where I feel I have something to add, the things I think I have learned something worth offering.
There are a lot of things where I don't think I have the best answers. Jackstraw blows me away on the Church fathers, so I mostly shut up and listen. Matt or any of the other seminarians will knock me flat on liturgics, and most here are pretty competent at answering visitor questions. I usually consider my input unnecessary.

Lol, I know what you mean.

I have a habit (it might be a bad one?) left over from being a catechumen where I try to answer questions the best I can (usually with disclaimer), then see from the others what I missed.

But recently the thread with all the questions from a guest - our regulars got to it first, and yes, they are amazing. But then I knew that.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

True.

I wasn't thinking about anything like why my threads get fewer posts - I honestly never pay attention to that. They usually get discussed to the degree they need to be.

I think it may have more to do with the possibility that I'm not posting in the "hot topic" areas, and not really interested in reading them. I thought I posted in this one early on, but it's just not something worth hundreds of posts to me. I probably missed almost all of the points to discuss on the issue. Lol.

I think it's my problem. If it IS a problem. Mostly I just wonder sometimes where folks are, but then I see they ARE here ... Just not where I am. It's all good.


Philosophy can be interesting ... But I don't see a great tendency toward it in Orthodoxy in mist cases.

My friend, I'm like this. I see these debait sites as a pool provided for us to come and swim in. The water is the attitudes the membership brings with them and how comfortable they are here depends on how accomedating the membership as a whole is to one another.

I think that we, as members come here as orphans of light surrounded by an outter world of indifference in order to shine our own individual light on that which matters to us with a guarentee of being heard, where on the outside there is no guarentee of anything. We all have our individual light to shine and we come here to illuminate as well as be illuminated. Those who are incapable of accepting that others have their own light are the one's who cause the most darkness within here, no matter what message they bring. If they not hear to listen as well as speak, then they waste their time, for without acknowledgment of others concerns, then they quickly loose the interest of those they speak to. It ends up in a shouting match where people who might benefit from others wisdom are more put off than turned on.

I am not very concerned with fighting the good fight as so many claim that they are doing, when they break against eachother like male walruses going head to head as if their ideals are enough to make their attitudes palletable enough to follow them through their battles.

I see these as sideshows and are here not to indentify with others ideals but to identify with them as people. We are more than the some of our ideals and much more than the world would attribute to us. Every one of us are unique and distinct individuals and we all have our own warmth and joys as well as our hates and fears.

I would rather get to know those who come here for their inner child that still sees the world outside as a wonder to behold, instead of the contrivercy that are forced upon us all by a self centered world out to placate itself, no matter what the cost.

Philosophy and personal inquiry into ech and every one here is a way that I try to know others. Sometimes I can talk with others and sometimes I can. This is why I lament the failures of my posts to strike interests. Personally I am not that charismatic, but if I was then I would probly have too many freinds to care much for anyone, so I'm well pleased to be the boring person I am. I would rather appriciate those small number of friends I do have than deminish their importance in my life by drowning them in a sea of other aquaintences that are of lesser quality people. Thank you