Freedom Of Religious Expression: Myth, Misinterpretation & Legal Framework

[Silhouette]

From a conversation with g5000 where he exposes the fallacy in thinking with regards to sin and how Christians aren't immune to it. The point being the IDEALS are more important than the individual failings; which might be used as a legal argument to nullify the ideals.

New Precedent: Federal Court Upholds Christians' Rights To Refuse. Kim Davis Has Case.

Most Republicans would be shocked to death if they learned how many Republican staffers on Capitol Hill are gay.

DC is as queer as San Francisco.

Even if that was true, it has no bearing on law. The majority decides. And, 1st Amendment Rights to exercise of religion were upheld in federal courts.

A man's shortcomings don't set the trend of law. For that matter, all homo sapiens are predisposed not only to ingrained self or otherwise trained/habitual sexual perversions, but we also have a penchant for killing or brutalizing each other when we're angry. Should we make those behaviors promoted/legal as well, in spite of the majority's wishes/ideals for itself, just because they are very prevalent?

Your logic is asinine.

The Christian Bible speaks out against adultery more than it does homosexuality. Jesus even specifically condemns adultery and divorce:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Jesus never addresses homosexuality.

Jesus never addresses ANYTHING in the New Testament, idiot. You might remember that Jesus was crucified before he could put pen to papyrus? The Christian mandate (The New Testament) is made up of witnesses to what Jesus taught. That being said, Jude, Jesus's daily companion and servant, spoke on behalf of his master and friend saying in Jude 1 that homosexual spread...the spread of the idea as an IDEAL, was forbidden under pain of eternal damnation. It is a mortal sin to do nothing to stop the spread of a homosexual culture like Sodom, or worse, to give it a leg up or participate in it. You might also want to read Roman's 1 for more of the Biblical New Testament view on homosexuality in general; in case you're still unclear about whether Christians should 1. Promote it or 2. Resist it. (No matter what their own personal failings are with regards to abstaining from it).

This is less about keeping individuals on track than it is about keeping entire cultures on track. Apparently God gets really pissed off when sin becomes an inescapable norm in his earthly societies. So from the Bible we see that when a society becomes saturated to a certain point with monkey-see, monkey-do sin behaviors, that society has to be rubbed out and started over from square one. What child could escape or even have a point of reference on a sin, if that sin is taught to him since day one by everything and everyone he sees as a "virtue" instead?

The sin of adultery isn't associated with eternal damnation as far as I remember. There are mortal sins, and venial ones. Jude 1 says to not damn the individual homosexual, but rather to hate his sin and reach out to him 'making a difference'. And if you don't, you yourself face eternal peril. That's different than "say a few hail Marys and it's all good", at confession. The destruction of two perverse cultures (Sodom and Gomorrah) and the promise of eternal damnation for anyone who helps (actively or passively) to create new cities, states or societies like them is the worst punishment anyone could face at the hands of God.

*******

So the points I made here ^^ underscore why Christians most especially (who have been informed and know better) are loathe to, indeed cannot support any type of behavior, act or law that mainstreams homosexuality. "Gay marriage" would be PARAMOUNT to that mandate. Kim Davis was absolutely correct in choosing jail over putting her name on a "gay marriage" certificate. That is her CIVIL RIGHT to refuse to participate in any way, shape or form. That she was jailed for exercising her civil right is fodder for a massive lawsuit. But that topic is addressed on the thread in the link at the top of this post.

Every other Christian from the Kleins in Oregon to the nuns in any adoption agency have the same right to not do anything which might teach or perpetuate the spread of homosexuality throughout the culture. If they fail to do so, they might as well start drawing Pentagrams on their basement floor and worshiping the Devil for all the hope they might entertain from that point on in getting into Heaven.

Remember: refusing to participate is a PASSIVE act of those peoples' civil rights. The Kleins didn't assault the two lesbians. They just said "no, we can't help you there". That's their right.

 

[g5000]

From a conversation with g5000 where he exposes the fallacy in thinking with regards to sin and how Christians aren't immune to it. The point being the IDEALS are more important than the individual failings; which might be used as a legal argument to nullify the ideals.

New Precedent: Federal Court Upholds Christians' Rights To Refuse. Kim Davis Has Case.

Most Republicans would be shocked to death if they learned how many Republican staffers on Capitol Hill are gay.

DC is as queer as San Francisco.

Even if that was true, it has no bearing on law. The majority decides. And, 1st Amendment Rights to exercise of religion were upheld in federal courts.

A man's shortcomings don't set the trend of law. For that matter, all homo sapiens are predisposed not only to ingrained self or otherwise trained/habitual sexual perversions, but we also have a penchant for killing or brutalizing each other when we're angry. Should we make those behaviors promoted/legal as well, in spite of the majority's wishes/ideals for itself, just because they are very prevalent?

Your logic is asinine.

The Christian Bible speaks out against adultery more than it does homosexuality. Jesus even specifically condemns adultery and divorce:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Jesus never addresses homosexuality.

Jesus never addresses ANYTHING in the New Testament, idiot. You might remember that Jesus was crucified before he could put pen to papyrus? The Christian mandate (The New Testament) is made up of witnesses to what Jesus taught. That being said, Jude, Jesus's daily companion and servant, spoke on behalf of his master and friend saying in Jude 1 that homosexual spread...the spread of the idea as an IDEAL, was forbidden under pain of eternal damnation. It is a mortal sin to do nothing to stop the spread of a homosexual culture like Sodom, or worse, to give it a leg up or participate in it. You might also want to read Roman's 1 for more of the Biblical New Testament view on homosexuality in general; in case you're still unclear about whether Christians should 1. Promote it or 2. Resist it. (No matter what their own personal failings are with regards to abstaining from it).

This is less about keeping individuals on track than it is about keeping entire cultures on track. Apparently God gets really pissed off when sin becomes an inescapable norm in his earthly societies. So from the Bible we see that when a society becomes saturated to a certain point with monkey-see, monkey-do sin behaviors, that society has to be rubbed out and started over from square one. What child could escape or even have a point of reference on a sin, if that sin is taught to him since day one by everything and everyone he sees as a "virtue" instead?

The sin of adultery isn't associated with eternal damnation as far as I remember. There are mortal sins, and venial ones. Jude 1 says to not damn the individual homosexual, but rather to hate his sin and reach out to him 'making a difference'. And if you don't, you yourself face eternal peril. That's different than "say a few hail Marys and it's all good", at confession. The destruction of two perverse cultures (Sodom and Gomorrah) and the promise of eternal damnation for anyone who helps (actively or passively) to create new cities, states or societies like them is the worst punishment anyone could face at the hands of God.

*******

So the points I made here ^^ underscore why Christians most especially (who have been informed and know better) are loathe to, indeed cannot support any type of behavior, act or law that mainstreams homosexuality. "Gay marriage" would be PARAMOUNT to that mandate. Kim Davis was absolutely correct in choosing jail over putting her name on a "gay marriage" certificate. That is her CIVIL RIGHT to refuse to participate in any way, shape or form. Every other Christian from the Kleins in Oregon to the nuns in any adoption agency have the same right to not do anything which might teach or perpetuate the spread of homosexuality throughout the culture.

Once again, dipshit: The Bible addresses adultery more often than homosexuality.

It also address hypocrisy quite a bit.

Kim Davis has run through several husbands, and she has signed hundreds of biblically-defined adulterers' marriage certificates. This is how we know she is not at all concerned about the Bible. This is how we know she and YOU are raging hypocrites.

You might be willfully blind, but I'm not. I can see you hypocrites for exactly what you are.

This isn't about God or religion. You are deceiving yourselves. It's all about hate.


James 1 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

 

[g5000]

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Kentucky Divorce Rate Among Highest in Nation

Kim Davis has no problem signing marriage certificates for adulterers. She herself has been married four times to three men.


Hypocrite.

James 1 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

 

[dblack]

The first amendment isn't an exemption clause for religious nuts. It's a recognition that government has no business dictating our religious views.

 

[Silhouette]

Kim Davis has no problem signing marriage certificates for adulterers. She herself has been married four times to three men.


Hypocrite.

The hypocrite argument doesn't work in nullifying religious IDEALS. Re-read the OP. Kim Davis may have married 20 men, but that doesn't excuse adultery (venial sin) or aiding the spread of homosexuality (mortal sin). Those societal-ideals are allowed to be striven towards by any Christian, regardless of their individual other personal failings.

All Christians by definition are sinners. Saying "you have sinned, therefore you have no rights to object to sins." is a misinterpretation of Christianity.

 

[Moonglow]

Kim Davis has no problem signing marriage certificates for adulterers. She herself has been married four times to three men.


Hypocrite.

The hypocrite argument doesn't work in nullifying religious IDEALS. Re-read the OP. Kim Davis may have married 20 men, but that doesn't excuse adultery (venial sin) or aiding the spread of homosexuality (mortal sin). Those societal-ideals are allowed to be striven towards by any Christian, regardless of their individual other personal failings.

All Christians by definition are sinners. Saying "you have sinned, therefore you have no rights to object to sins." is a misinterpretation of Christianity.

How is it you are not Catholic yet use Catholic term on sins?

 

[g5000]

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Every time Kim Davis signs a marriage certificate allowing someone to commit adultery, she is proving the Bible doesn't mean a thing to her.

Hypocrite.

 

[Silhouette]

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Every time Kim Davis signs a marriage certificate allowing someone to commit adultery, she is proving the Bible doesn't mean a thing to her.

Hypocrite.

"Except for sexual immorality." How is it that Kim Davis would know the cause of most divorce (sexual immorality) has the exception sitting before her? Does it say on marriage certificates "was the cause of your previous divorce sexual immorality, or another reason?" No. But when two men apply to be married, or two women, Kim Davis has immediate, undeniable physical knowledge that to approve isn't merely a venial sin, it's a mortal sin: eternity in the slammer down under.

How is it you are not Catholic yet use Catholic term on sins?

I don't have to be a chemist to know that if you read directions on a label that says "don't combine this with that", that it has a basis in truth. I know how to read. And I've read Jude 1 and Romans 1. Eternal damnation = mortal sin Confession and Hail Marys = venial sin. Plus, I grew up around scores of devout Catholics who keyed me in on the lingo from a young age.

Promotion of a homosexual culture or values system in any society by active or passive means is a mortal sin. How do I know that? I know how to read and have read Jude 1 and Romans 1.

 

[Silhouette]

The first amendment isn't an exemption clause for religious nuts. It's a recognition that government has no business dictating our religious views.

Exactly. Which is why if your cult was recognized for what it is...a cult of deviant behaviors...we'd no longer have to take your dictation on what marriage means to the majority in the states.

 

[dblack]

The first amendment isn't an exemption clause for religious nuts. It's a recognition that government has no business dictating our religious views.

Exactly. Which is why if your cult was recognized for what it is...a cult of deviant behaviors...we'd no longer have to take your dictation on what marriage means to the majority in the states.

WTF?? oh, yeah. It's you. Heh.

 

[Skylar]

From a conversation with g5000 where he exposes the fallacy in thinking with regards to sin and how Christians aren't immune to it. The point being the IDEALS are more important than the individual failings; which might be used as a legal argument to nullify the ideals.

New Precedent: Federal Court Upholds Christians' Rights To Refuse. Kim Davis Has Case.

Most Republicans would be shocked to death if they learned how many Republican staffers on Capitol Hill are gay.

DC is as queer as San Francisco.

Even if that was true, it has no bearing on law. The majority decides. And, 1st Amendment Rights to exercise of religion were upheld in federal courts.

A man's shortcomings don't set the trend of law. For that matter, all homo sapiens are predisposed not only to ingrained self or otherwise trained/habitual sexual perversions, but we also have a penchant for killing or brutalizing each other when we're angry. Should we make those behaviors promoted/legal as well, in spite of the majority's wishes/ideals for itself, just because they are very prevalent?

You're *still* obsessed with gay people? This has consumed your life, Sil. That's assinine.

We're not stripping a single right from gay people, we're not denying them a single marriage, adoption, anything......because of your personal obsession.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

The first amendment isn't an exemption clause for religious nuts. It's a recognition that government has no business dictating our religious views.

Exactly. Which is why if your cult was recognized for what it is...a cult of deviant behaviors...we'd no longer have to take your dictation on what marriage means to the majority in the states.

You're obviously confused. Being gay doesn't make you part of any church or cult. You've imagined the church. You've imagined the cult. Its just a sexual orientation. Your logic is asinine.

Worse, you've based your entire argument on your imagination.

 

[Skylar]

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Every time Kim Davis signs a marriage certificate allowing someone to commit adultery, she is proving the Bible doesn't mean a thing to her.

Hypocrite.

"Except for sexual immorality." How is it that Kim Davis would know the cause of most divorce (sexual immorality) has the exception sitting before her? Does it say on marriage certificates "was the cause of your previous divorce sexual immorality, or another reason?" No. But when two men apply to be married, or two women, Kim Davis has immediate, undeniable physical knowledge that to approve isn't merely a venial sin, it's a mortal sin: eternity in the slammer down under.

If her job requires her to be eternally damned per her own beliefs, she's responsible to find another job.

She does not have the authority to impose her religion on unwilling people by denying them government services they have every right to. Which is why she lost.

 

[Skylar]

Kim Davis has no problem signing marriage certificates for adulterers. She herself has been married four times to three men.


Hypocrite.

The hypocrite argument doesn't work in nullifying religious IDEALS. Re-read the OP. Kim Davis may have married 20 men, but that doesn't excuse adultery (venial sin) or aiding the spread of homosexuality (mortal sin). Those societal-ideals are allowed to be striven towards by any Christian, regardless of their individual other personal failings.

All Christians by definition are sinners. Saying "you have sinned, therefore you have no rights to object to sins." is a misinterpretation of Christianity.

She has every right to object to sins. What she doesn't have the right to do is use the government to impose her religion on unwilling people. Which is what she attempted. And what she failed spectacularly to do.

As gays and lesbians are getting marriage licenses out of her office on a regular basis.....despite Kim's best efforts to mandate these unwilling citizens abide her personal religious beliefs.

Sorry, Sil.....but Christian Sharia doesn't cut it. Get used to the idea.

 

[Silhouette]

If her job requires her to be eternally damned per her own beliefs, she's responsible to find another job.

She does not have the authority to impose her religion on unwilling people by denying them government services they have every right to. Which is why she lost.

She actually won the case with the ACLU . Now, marriage licenses to gays in Kentucky do not bear her name because the federal court found that it was her right per 1st Amendment to not participate in gay marriage by the use of her name. Where have you been?

Judge rebuffs demand for clerk's name on 'gay' marriage licenses...Dismisses ACLU fretting as moot in Kim Davis case
Published: 02/09/2016 at 8:48 PM...The same federal judge that earlier ordered Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis to jail for refusing to violate her faith and issue same-sex “marriage” licenses under her name has had time to rethink, and now has rebuffed a demand from the ACLU that her name be included on those documents....He said it was sufficient that others in Davis’ office were issuing the licenses when requested, and there was no need to fight over whether Davis’ name and title were on the documents or not....That issue actually had been taken out of his hands, when a new governor, Matt Bevin, after only a week in office, issued an order that removed from marriage licenses the names of clerks whose religious beliefs are violated by same-sex “marriage.” Judge rebuffs demand for clerk’s name on ‘gay’ marriage licenses

 

[Skylar]

If her job requires her to be eternally damned per her own beliefs, she's responsible to find another job.

She does not have the authority to impose her religion on unwilling people by denying them government services they have every right to. Which is why she lost.

She actually won the case with the ACLU . Now, marriage licenses to gays in Kentucky do not bear her name because the federal court found that it was her right per 1st Amendment to not participate in gay marriage by the use of her name. Where have you been?

Her office is issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Kim lost.

 

[Silhouette]

Her office is issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Kim lost.

Not if you consider her goal was to not have anything to do with gay marriage herself. She took her job before the mistrial "Obergefell" (due process demands it be re-heard). I'd say gay couples applying for a marriage license who receive one that doesn't have a clerk's stamp of approval are the ones who lost this battle.

"To ensure that the sincerely held religious beliefs of all Kentuckians are honored, Executive Order 2015-048 directs the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives to issue a revised marriage license form to the offices of all Kentucky County Clerks. The name of the County Clerk is no longer required to appear on the form," the governor's office said Tuesday. Kentucky governor removes clerk names from marriage licenses - CNNPolitics.com

"no longer required"...but may be by choice. If a hetero couple apply, Davis and other Christian Clerks in KY can and would put their names on the license. If a gay couple, then no.

 

[mdk]

Her office is issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Kim lost.

Not if you consider her goal was to not have anything to do with gay marriage herself. She took her job before the mistrial "Obergefell" (due process demands it be re-heard). I'd say gay couples applying for a marriage license who receive one that doesn't have a clerk's stamp of approval are the ones who lost this battle.

"To ensure that the sincerely held religious beliefs of all Kentuckians are honored, Executive Order 2015-048 directs the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives to issue a revised marriage license form to the offices of all Kentucky County Clerks. The name of the County Clerk is no longer required to appear on the form," the governor's office said Tuesday. Kentucky governor removes clerk names from marriage licenses - CNNPolitics.com

If a hetero couple apply, Davis and other Christian Clerks in KY can and would put their names on the license. If a gay couple, then no.

Her goal was to uphold "God's law" and to allow clerks the right to deny marriages licenses to gay couples. She failed miserably.

 

[Skylar]

Her office is issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Kim lost.

Not if you consider her goal was to not have anything to do with gay marriage herself. She took her job before the mistrial "Obergefell" (due process demands it be re-heard). I'd say gay couples applying for a marriage license who receive one that doesn't have a clerk's stamp of approval are the ones who lost this battle.

Obergefell wasn't a 'mistrial'. You're again offering your pseudo-legal gibberish as the law. And, of course, it isn't.

The Supreme Court ruling coming after Kim Davis had her job is irrelevant. As her obligation to follow the law has nothing to do with how long she's had her job. As demonstrated by the judge in the case holding Kim in contempt until her office began issuing the marriage licenses.

Kim lost. You're still basing your entire argument on meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense that has no relevance to the law or the outcome of any court case. As all the same sex marriage licenses out of Kim's office demonstrates elegantly.

 

[Skylar]

Her office is issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Kim lost.

Not if you consider her goal was to not have anything to do with gay marriage herself. She took her job before the mistrial "Obergefell" (due process demands it be re-heard). I'd say gay couples applying for a marriage license who receive one that doesn't have a clerk's stamp of approval are the ones who lost this battle.

"To ensure that the sincerely held religious beliefs of all Kentuckians are honored, Executive Order 2015-048 directs the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives to issue a revised marriage license form to the offices of all Kentucky County Clerks. The name of the County Clerk is no longer required to appear on the form," the governor's office said Tuesday. Kentucky governor removes clerk names from marriage licenses - CNNPolitics.com

If a hetero couple apply, Davis and other Christian Clerks in KY can and would put their names on the license. If a gay couple, then no.

Her goal was to uphold "God's law" and to allow clerks the right to deny marriages licenses to gay couples. She failed miserably.

Laughably. Even the pope distanced himself from that hypocrite.