Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on September 05, 2015, 08:56:27 AM
-
And one supported by candidates for the Republican nomination for President. Good old Mike Huckabee
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34155775
-
And one supported by candidates for the Republican nomination for President. Good old Mike Huckabee
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34155775
That whole situation is a mess. The woman refuses to do her job but she can't be fired because she is an elected official.
If her conscience prevents her from being able to do her job in accordance with the US constitution, she should resign from it. However, her conscience is selective because she is quite happy to allow divorcees and former adulterers to get married. There's also the small matter of $80,000 per year.
I will ay one thing in her defence though. It will probably come up on this thread that she herself is three times divorced and two of her children were the result of an adulterous relationship and therefore she isa hypocrite. However, all of that preceded her conversion to Christianity, so it doesn't count.
-
She has a particular view, so why shouldn't she try and stick to it to the extent that she can?
-
She has a particular view, so why shouldn't she try and stick to it to the extent that she can?
Nobody is stopping her from sticking to her view. Her view is, however, incompatible with the job she was elected to do. If her conscience prevents her from doing her job, she must resign from it.
-
Well, obviously not. She thinks she is trying to do the job she was elected for.
-
If the state objects they can try and impeach her or try and un-seat her at the next election. If she is breaking the law they can try and keep her in prison.
Here, our naked rambler has been in prison for nearly 10 years, without having done anything illegal!
-
If the state objects they can try and impeach her or try and un-seat her at the next election. If she is breaking the law they can try and keep her in prison.
She is clearly unable to do her job. She should resign.
Here, our naked rambler has been in prison for nearly 10 years, without having done anything illegal!
No, you mean he hasn't done anything that you find objectionable. He wouldn't be in prison if he hadn't done anything illegal.
-
The bigger issue here is of holding elections to such posts, rather than appointing them.
-
Silly woman.
-
The bigger issue here is of holding elections to such posts, rather than appointing them.
No it isn't. That's only an issue because it prevents her from being fired.
-
The bigger issue here is of holding elections to such posts, rather than appointing them.
No it isn't. That's only an issue because it prevents her from being fired.
Having elected somebody why not have a vote of no confidence?
-
Sounds like a plan Humph. Hold a recall vote on her. She will win of course. I bet you didn't realize that.
-
This seems like one of these 'only in America' stories because it seems they have this odd situation of being secular politically and yet some there seem to have an almost childlike infatuation with religion.
Marriage legislation is a matter of public policy and not theology, and it isn't in the gift of Christians or any other theists to second-guess this legislation: her role is to administer the legislation in line with what the requirements are but she seems to think that her Christianity is some kind of trump-card that allows her to vary legislation to suit her particular set of religious superstitions.
If her conscience bothers her then her only option is to quit and not play the martyr.
-
This seems like one of these 'only in America' stories because it seems they have this odd situation of being secular politically and yet some there seem to have an almost childlike infatuation with religion.
Marriage legislation is a matter of public policy and not theology, and it isn't in the gift of Christians or any other theists to second-guess this legislation: her role is to administer the legislation in line with what the requirements are but she seems to think that her Christianity is some kind of trump-card that allows her to vary legislation to suit her particular set of religious superstitions.
If her conscience bothers her then her only option is to quit and not play the martyr.
*round of applause*
-
I haven't been able to access the story, so can't comment, I'm afraid. For some reason, when I try to open the BBC website, it all comes up except that it asks me to "Customise your homepage" - something I did a few days ago and don't really want to recustomise. Even when I did add an unobjectionable option (World News!!), it first told me that my homepage had been updated but then returned to the 'Customise your homepage' banner, which stops the rest of the site working.
Any ideas?
-
Hope,
Just google Rowan County Kentucky. Oodles of sites on the lady going to jail because she won't compromise her faith for Obama.
-
and yet some there seem to have an almost childlike infatuation with religion.
I think that better describes you and Shaker since you can't seem to rise above the ''Religious people are stinky poo heads'' stage.
-
Hope,
Just google Rowan County Kentucky. Oodles of sites on the lady going to jail because she won't compromise her faith for Obama.
You forget this is the U of K where the done thing is to crawl up the boss's bottom.
-
Mr. Meth,
YUCK! Never get that close to the state broadcaster!
-
The woman is refusing to do the job she is being paid for. She should resign and allow somebody more competent to do the job.
-
The woman is refusing to do the job she is being paid for. She should resign and allow somebody more competent to do the job.
I would have thought if somebody doesn't do the job they should get the sack. What's all this bollocks about going to jail?
-
The woman is refusing to do the job she is being paid for. She should resign and allow somebody more competent to do the job.
I would have thought if somebody doesn't do the job they should get the sack. What's all this bollocks about going to jail?
Apparently she can't be sacked because she was elected. She was sent to jail for refusing to obey the law, and what's more she gave orders to her subordinates to do the same. Fortunately they have more sense, and are doing the job properly.
-
The woman is refusing to do the job she is being paid for. She should resign and allow somebody more competent to do the job.
I would have thought if somebody doesn't do the job they should get the sack. What's all this bollocks about going to jail?
Apparently she can't be sacked because she was elected. She was sent to jail for refusing to obey the law, and what's more she gave orders to her subordinates to do the same. Fortunately they have more sense, and are doing the job properly.
Ah, a last ditch stand against linguistic piracy.
-
She was elected county clerk BEFORE Obama changed the laws. So it is a case of her being forced to compromise her faith because that is what Obama demands and Obama will let her rot in jail until she is crushed under his boot.
-
Hope,
Just google Rowan County Kentucky. Oodles of sites on the lady going to jail because she won't compromise her faith for Obama.
Obama wants a marriage license from Kentucky? You'd have thought his divorce would have been reported, or at least one of the Fox "News" dipshits would have picked up on his attempted bigamy...
Unless, of course, you're just being facetious about the millions of gay Americans who are celebrating the fact that they now have marriage rights?
O.
-
She was elected county clerk BEFORE Obama changed the laws. So it is a case of her being forced to compromise her faith because that is what Obama demands and Obama will let her rot in jail until she is crushed under his boot.
She is a silly cow who knows that everybody must obey the law of the land or accept the consequences. The key to getting our of jail is in her own hand ... but it means resigning and losing money, and that is too hard for her.
-
She was elected county clerk BEFORE Obama changed the laws. So it is a case of her being forced to compromise her faith because that is what Obama demands and Obama will let her rot in jail until she is crushed under his boot.
Laws change, that's hardly an unforeseeable circumstance - her job is to apply the law, not to decide if the law is 'right'. If she finds her personal subjective view of how the secular law interacts with her personal superstition causes her discomfort she is welcome to resign her position.
Her job is not to 'approve' of the marriages she licenses, only to decide if the applicants are legally in a position to do so.
O.
-
I don't like that she has to leave her elected position because Obama changes a law. Hold a recall vote, let the people decide.
-
If it is a clerical position, why have an electoral process for it?
-
She was elected county clerk BEFORE Obama changed the laws.
Obama didn't change the law. The state laws that banned same sex marriage were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
So it is a case of her being forced to compromise her faith because that is what Obama demands and Obama will let her rot in jail until she is crushed under his boot.
Nobody is forcing her to compromise her faith. She has an option that does not involve compromising her faith, it's called resignation.
-
Obama made a law?
Obama passed a law?
Was this by executive order?
I think not.
I'm no expert on US legislature, but doesn't a law have to be approved by Congress before it is legal?
Or the Supreme Court challenges the legality?
As far as I'm aware, no such challenge has been made.
Therefore to 'blame' one man - even POTUS, in this case, is simply wrong, whether one agrees or disagrees with the law itself.
-
Mr Davis is using his wife's Twitter account while she is otherwise engaged*.
He wants to know why his wife is in jail when "Muslims gays nad [sic] baby killers walk the streets."
https://goo.gl/5aDlr4
Surely a couple who were made for each other.
* She's very keen on being engaged - while happy to deny marriage to others because of reasons, she's currently on her fourth marriage.
-
I don't like that she has to leave her elected position because Obama changes a law. Hold a recall vote, let the people decide.
Her elected position is to apply the law, whatever that law might be. It's not a surprise that laws change, if she doesn't like the direction the job moves in she has the opportunity to leave.
The fact that a large number of bigots in her locale might, indeed, re-elect her to the position doesn't change the fact that she doesn't get to determine what the law is, that's not what she's been elected for.
I get that it hurts you that Obama's bringing the US into the modern era despite the best efforts of the fundamentalist idiots of the country, but that doesn't make you or her right.
O.
-
I would have thought if somebody doesn't do the job they should get the sack. What's all this bollocks about going to jail?
But that's the point, Vlad - she was elected to this position. Even here in the UK, someone who has been elected to a position can't be sacked.
-
I would have thought if somebody doesn't do the job they should get the sack. What's all this bollocks about going to jail?
But that's the point, Vlad - she was elected to this position. Even here in the UK, someone who has been elected to a position can't be sacked.
Untrue
-
Untrue
I think that you'll find that I am correct, NS. If someone is elected to a post, the only ways they can be removed is by the electoate voting against them at the next opportunity or by judicial process (which is different to sacking).
-
Apparently Mike Huckabee will be visiting her on Tuesday - what a treat for anyone.
While I'd love him to ask her what she thinks Jesus said about equal marriage (nothing) as opposed to divorce (a significantly longer conversation), I'm not holding my breath.
-
Untrue
I think that you'll find that I am correct, NS. If someone is elected to a post, the only ways they can be removed is by the electoate voting against them at the next opportunity or by judicial process (which is different to sacking).
Except it isn't since 'sacking' as a term simply means being removed from employment, or position.
-
However having said that the women is inconsistent, as someone pointed out she seems to have no problem issuing marriage certificates to adulterers and divorced people.
She is selective in what offends her religion and it's all subjective.
Interestingly, Rose, there is nothing in Christianity that teaches that divorce is wrong. I realise that the Churches have long treated it as wrong and taught that divorcees shouldn't remarry, but that appears nowhere in scripture. Scripturally, the point of divorce was to protect a woman from simply being discarded by a man without recourse to social protection.
-
Interestingly, Rose, there is nothing in Christianity that teaches that divorce is wrong. I realise that the Churches have long treated it as wrong and taught that divorcees shouldn't remarry, but that appears nowhere in scripture.
Where does equal marriage appear in scripture?
-
Interestingly, Rose, there is nothing in Christianity that teaches that divorce is wrong. I realise that the Churches have long treated it as wrong and taught that divorcees shouldn't remarry, but that appears nowhere in scripture.
Where does equal marriage appear in scripture?
Before I answer that, what do you mean by 'equal marriage'?
-
Before I answer that, what do you mean by 'equal marriage'?
Don't you know? It's a familiar enough term - you must have heard it before.
-
Untrue
I think that you'll find that I am correct, NS. If someone is elected to a post, the only ways they can be removed is by the electoate voting against them at the next opportunity or by judicial process (which is different to sacking).
I don't know about here, but Ms Davis could be impeached, which could then lead to her removal from office.
-
Kim Davis will be back at work on Monday. Just so you all know, Davis is a DEMOCRAT and the judge that sent her to jail is a REPUBLICAN.
Yes, I consider the power and position of the presidency as having a lot of influence as to where things stand with the gay marriage thingy. No, of course Obama didn't sit down and write a gar marriage law. I shouldn't have stated it that way, of course I always shouldn't take for granted that people in the UK will get how things work behind the scenes in Washington.
Obama flip flopped on the gay marriage thingy and the Vice president kinda forced his hand. So on his second inaugural speech, Obama made clear that he now supports same sex marriage. Later he tossed in his support for the case in California, challenging that state's ban on same sex marriage. Believe it or not the pres and vice pres positions hold a lot of sway. Some judges sit there and think, now who appointed me here? Just like our senate and your Lords kinda.
-
Kim Davis will be back at work on Monday.
I wonder how long she'll stay there. Not very long, if she tries to interfere with her deputies as they issue marriage licenses.
Just so you all know, Davis is a DEMOCRAT and the judge that sent her to jail is a REPUBLICAN.
How is this relevant? The judge has already demonstrated that he can do his job properly whatever his political affiliation may be, so I really don't see the relevance.
-
Yes, I consider the power and position of the presidency as having a lot of influence as to where things stand with the gay marriage thingy. No, of course Obama didn't sit down and write a gar marriage law. I shouldn't have stated it that way, of course I always shouldn't take for granted that people in the UK will get how things work behind the scenes in Washington.
Obama flip flopped on the gay marriage thingy and the Vice president kinda forced his hand. So on his second inaugural speech, Obama made clear that he now supports same sex marriage. Later he tossed in his support for the case in California, challenging that state's ban on same sex marriage. Believe it or not the pres and vice pres positions hold a lot of sway. Some judges sit there and think, now who appointed me here? Just like our senate and your Lords kinda.
You think the decision of the supreme court was a result of undue pressure by Obama? This is a supreme court, the majority of whom were appointed by Republican presidents and the majority of whom are Roman Catholic.
I think you are clutching at straws.
-
Only a fool would believe that the party doesn't have influence. Five liberal Judges and four conservative. Outcomes are usually forgone conclusions Jeremy. I would estimate 75% of the time one can guess how they are going to vote on an issue by the number of liberal vrs conservative judges, the pres position and party position. Why do you think Bernie and Donald are riding so high in each party? Because the people of the USA know how rotten all of Washington is and they have had enough.
-
For those that dismiss political influence in the Supreme Court in Washington, may I suggest you watch the next confirmation hearings for the next candidate for the S court put forward by the Pres. I've been watching S Court confirmation hearings and observing all the political crap from each party for many years. That politics doesn't have influence in that court is very naïve.
-
Or maybe they just interpreted the US Constitution correctly.
-
They certainly did interpret it correctly when they gave G W Bush the presidency. I'm sure you will agree.
-
They certainly did interpret it correctly when they gave G W Bush the presidency. I'm sure you will agree.
Are you claiming that the Supreme Court is biased in favour of Republicans?
-
They certainly did interpret it correctly when they gave G W Bush the presidency. I'm sure you will agree.
Are you claiming that the Supreme Court is biased in favour of Republicans?
Not only that, but he supporting the action which gave Idiot Bush the presidency which was as close to being a coup as is possible in the USA.
-
Kim Davis is back at work and still doing the Kevin the Teenager act - refusing to grant marriage licences to same-sex couples with her name on them, although she is prepared to have her deputies do it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-kentucky/index.html
There seems to be some doubt however that this is even legal:
Davis' work-around - not to sign licenses but not to interfere with her deputies if they do so - produced more questions than answers.
She acknowledged she is not sure about the legality of licenses altered in such a way.
... she has offered what she considers an interim solution, but it is unclear if it passes legal muster.
U.S. District Judge David Bunning "indicated last week that he was willing to accept altered marriage licenses even though he was not certain of their validity," Davis said. "I, too, have great doubts whether the license issued under these conditions are even valid."
Davis was clear on one thing: She will not sign any marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and her deputies are not authorized to issue them either.
But, she added, if her deputies go against her orders and provide marriage certificates to same-sex couples anyway, she will not take any action against them.
So, is Davis continuing to defy the order from the judge? Even experts said they weren't sure at first glance.
CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that Kentucky law might allow for a deputy's signature to be valid on a marriage license, even without the clerk's consent. But if the documents are altered to remove Davis' name and title, a court may have to rule on their validity.
The modified marriage licenses are effectively in limbo, Mihet said, as it is unclear if they are legal.