News Article: Kentucky Clerk Is Due In Federal Court For Contempt Hearing

[81usaf92]

straight up BS

Who does Davis work for again?

Who does the 1st amendment protect citizens from?


Did she let her team issue licenses that they were comfortable with and she wasn't?


Did she deny rights to people that had them?

You already know the answers to all these questions and know you are wrong. I challenged you on it pages ago, saying something to the effect of "ah, you just don't like gay people" which you have yet to deny.

Jefferson would LOL at you as he was chiefly concerned about a Government that would deny individual freedoms by codifying any religious code. This is exactly what Davis and her supporters want to do.

sometimes I hope people like you end up desperately needing a blood transfusion and the only hospital within safe travel distance for you is run by the Jehovahs Witnesses perhaps then you'll see the dangers of this "freedom" you are pushing for

Whoa now. Lol

 

[Tidewater]

As I said...in or out of context, this is my guy...


I do not see how anyone reading the full text would conclude that he is trying to limit religious freedom. IMO after reading this, he is speaking out against a religion established by the State of VA pointing out the existence of individual religious freedom and that it be protected as a natural right.

This may be apropos of nothing, but Virginia, up until 1776 had the Church of England as its established church. Everyone was expected to attend CoE services, who were the only ones authorized to perform baptisms, marriages and funerals. This, of course grated on Virginians of other demonstrations, who were taxed to pay the salaries of clergymen they did not support philosophically, buy the glebes, pay for the building and maintenance of churches, etc. There were large numbers of Baptists and Methodists on the eastern part of the state and Presbyterians and Brethren in the western parts that hated this arrangement. Indeed, five miles from where I am typing this is a church built by Scotch-Irish Presbyterians in 1740 precisely because the nearest Church of England was one hundred miles away.
The CoE refused to build a seminary in the colonies, so the colonies had to get English clergymen to be their vicars.
This is what Virginians like Madison and Jefferson was rebelling against. Not Christianity or religion per se, but an Church of England "established" in Virginia.

 

[TRUTIDE]

So if the president doesn't believe in something then he shouldn't enforce the law of the land?

That is a foregone conclusion. See immigration, drug laws, treaties, IRS,, classified info etc, etc

 

[cbi1972]

Nor have I. But you are reading into much more than I do. Looking back to the history of Jefferson, he is a proponent of individual religious freedom. One of his biggest concerns was the establishment of religion as a state (government). This document protected individual religious freedom fro be infringed upon by the state. He also sets forth the highest protections for individual religious freedom. To quote him goes against what you and others are insinuating. That our religious freedom is limited and only protected in certain places. That the government can set aside this right for newly created rights of others. Some might say infringement. I do not believe that anyone can force their religion or beliefs onto others in any circumstance. I do believe that our religious freedom should always be protected and the government should not force anyone to do anything against those beliefs. Kim Davis did not commit an act against anyone. She withdrew from committing an act that she says went against her religious beliefs. The words being thrown around like invoke and force are inconsequential here. She did no such thing.

If her religious convictions prevent her from doing her job, she needs to resign, not use the power of her office to project her view of morality on others. If she doesn't want to sign the papers that let same-sex couples enjoy the rights they are entitled to, she needs to get out of the way and have her clear conscience somewhere else.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Nor have I. But you are reading into it much more than I do. Looking back to the history of Jefferson, he is a proponent of individual religious freedom. One of his biggest concerns was the establishment of religion as a state (government). This document protected individual religious freedom from be infringed upon by the state. He also sets forth the highest protections for individual religious freedom. To quote him goes against what you and others are insinuating. That our religious freedom is limited and only protected in certain places. That the government can set aside this right for newly created rights of others. Some might say infringement. I do not believe that anyone can force their religion or beliefs onto others in any circumstance. I do believe that our religious freedom should always be protected and the government should not force anyone to do anything against those beliefs. Kim Davis did not commit an act against anyone. She withdrew from committing an act that she says went against her religious beliefs. The words being thrown around like invoke and force are inconsequential here. She did no such thing.

And, in doing so, she clearly breached the principle of separation of state and church (any kind of religious belief). The personal religion of a particular civil servant doesn't belong in the issuance of any kind of license. It makes every bit as much sense as an Amish DMV refusing to issue driving licenses to automobiles or an Islamic woman refusing to issue driving licenses to women. If you can clearly explain the difference, then do so...

 

[TRUTIDE]

If her religious convictions prevent her from doing her job, she needs to resign, not use the power of her office to project her view of morality on others. If she doesn't want to sign the papers that let same-sex couples enjoy the rights they are entitled to, she needs to get out of the way and have her clear conscience somewhere else.

I respect that to be your opinion but I do not think she has any requirement to quit. she does hold an elected position. The voters of KY will ultimately decide her fate.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

This may be apropos of nothing, but Virginia, up until 1776 had the Church of England as its established church. Everyone was expected to attend CoE services, who were the only ones authorized to perform baptisms, marriages and funerals. This, of course grated on Virginians of other demonstrations, who were taxed to pay the salaries of clergymen they did not support philosophically, buy the glebes, pay for the building and maintenance of churches, etc. There were large numbers of Baptists and Methodists on the eastern part of the state and Presbyterians and Brethren in the western parts that hated this arrangement. Indeed, five miles from where I am typing this is a church built by Scotch-Irish Presbyterians in 1740 precisely because the nearest Church of England was one hundred miles away.
The CoE refused to build a seminary in the colonies, so the colonies had to get English clergymen to be their vicars.
This is what Virginians like Madison and Jefferson was rebelling against. Not Christianity or religion per se, but an Church of England "established" in Virginia.

Respectfully disagree. I understand the COE situation in England and in Virginia. However, I feel the founders knew exactly what the prohibition of an established church would mean. Many of them were not believers, anyway. JMO...

 

[TRUTIDE]

This may be apropos of nothing, but Virginia, up until 1776 had the Church of England as its established church. Everyone was expected to attend CoE services, who were the only ones authorized to perform baptisms, marriages and funerals. This, of course grated on Virginians of other demonstrations, who were taxed to pay the salaries of clergymen they did not support philosophically, buy the glebes, pay for the building and maintenance of churches, etc. There were large numbers of Baptists and Methodists on the eastern part of the state and Presbyterians and Brethren in the western parts that hated this arrangement. Indeed, five miles from where I am typing this is a church built by Scotch-Irish Presbyterians in 1740 precisely because the nearest Church of England was one hundred miles away.
The CoE refused to build a seminary in the colonies, so the colonies had to get English clergymen to be their vicars.
This is what Virginians like Madison and Jefferson was rebelling against. Not Christianity or religion per se, but an Church of England "established" in Virginia.

Good info and well said.

 

[cbi1972]

I respect that to be your opinion but I do not think she has any requirement to quit. she does hold an elected position. The voters of KY will ultimately decide her fate.

What she has is a requirement to fulfill the duties of county court clerk. If she does not wish to perform the duties of county court clerk, she is free to no longer be county court clerk. And no, the voters in her county will not decide this issue.

 

[Tide1986]

And no, the voters in her county will not decide this issue.

Please clarify your meaning.

 

[Tidewater]

Respectfully disagree. I understand the COE situation in England and in Virginia. However, I feel the founders knew exactly what the prohibition of an established church would mean. Many of them were not believers, anyway. JMO...

True, depending on how one defines "Founders."
Many of the more famous of the Founders (e.g. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine) were either atheists, deists or some form of skeptic.
If one defines Founders as member of the state ratification conventions of 1787-190, then I would say (without having counted noses on the issue) the percentage of atheists or even deists drops.

Jefferson and Madison were keen to disestablish the CoE in Virginia. Jefferson was so proud of Virginia Statue on Religious Liberty that it was one of three accomplishments he wanted on his gravestone (the DoI & UVa are the other two). Madison was justifiably proud of his "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments."

When it comes to the Federal level, however, the Founders would have found a Federal prohibition against state establishment odd. In fact, if the Founders suspected that such an interpretation would be put to the Constitution, the Constitution would not have been ratified in Congregationalist Massachusetts and Connecticut.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I am continually reminded how much I enjoy your posts.

Not being in blue font, I must say 'thank you' sincerely.

I enjoy yours most of the time, too. I don't take stuff personal even when I disagree, but yours are often challenging as are those of my 'doppleganger' jthomas666.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

True, depending on how one defines "Founders."
Many of the more famous of the Founders (e.g. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine) were either atheists, deists or some form of skeptic.
If one defines Founders as member of the state ratification conventions of 1787-190, then I would say (without having counted noses on the issue) the percentage of atheists or even deists drops.

Jefferson and Madison were keen to disestablish the CoE in Virginia. Jefferson was so proud of Virginia Statue on Religious Liberty that it was one of three accomplishments he wanted on his gravestone (the DoI & UVa are the other two). Madison was justifiably proud of his "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments."

When it comes to the Federal level, however, the Founders would have found a Federal prohibition against state establishment odd. In fact, if the Founders suspected that such an interpretation would be put to the Constitution, the Constitution would not have been ratified in Congregationalist Massachusetts and Connecticut.

This part is really pretty speculative and perhaps a bit colored by bias...

 

[cbi1972]

Please clarify your meaning.

Same sex marriage is coming regardless of what the people in that county want. Just like Alabama schools got integrated.

 

[Tidewater]

This part is really pretty speculative and perhaps a bit colored by bias...

Maybe. In defense, I would point to Exhibit A: the fact that Connecticut and Massachusetts did not disestablish their state-sponsored religion (Congregationalism) until 1818 and 1835, respectively. If the Constitution had already done that, they would have simply pointed to the I Amendment and said, "We have already disestablished religion, through the Federal Constitution's I Amendment. There is no need for us to do so through a state statute."
Or the case of South Carolina, which disestablished the CoE in 1790, immediately after the ratification of the I Amendment.

I did find this from the Massachusetts debates"

I think, that the rulers ought to believe in God or Christ, and that, however a test may be prostituted in England, yet he thought, if our public men were to be of those who had a good standing in the church, it would be happy for the United States, and that a person could not be a good man without being a good Christian

Note, however, that he is discussing Federal officeholders here, since this debate was over the Federal Constitution.
On the other side, there was this, also from Massachusetts:

It has been objected that the Constitution provides no religious test by oath, and we may have in power unprincipled men, atheists and pagans. No man can wish more ardently than I do that all our public offices may be filled by men who fear God and hate wickedness; but it must remain with the electors to give the government this security. An oath will not do it. Will an unprincipled man be entangled by an oath? Will an atheist or a pagan dread the vengeance of the Christian's God, a being, in his opinion, the creature of fancy and credulity? It is a solecism in expression. No man is so illiberal as to wish the confining places of honor or profit to any one sect of Christians; but what security is it to government, that every public officer shall swear that he is a Christian? For what will then be called Christianity? One man will declare that the Christian religion is only an illumination of natural religion, and that he is a Christian; another Christian will assert that all men must be happy hereafter in spite of themselves; a third Christian reverses the image, and declares that, let a man do all he can, he will certainly be punished in another world; and a fourth will tell us that, if a man use any force for the common defence, he violates every principle of Christianity. Sir, the only evidence we can have of the sincerity of a man's religion is a good life; and I trust that such evidence will be required of every candidate by every elector. That man who acts an honest part to his neighbor, will, most probably, conduct honorably towards the public.

It does not support my argument, but it is interesting. He would like to see God-fearing men in office, but he finds that an oath would be useless, since an unscrupulous man could take an oath dishonestly.

And one more that sounds like an Alabama Republican of today:

I know not whether this Convention will vote a ratification of this Constitution, or not. If they should do it, and have the concurrence of the other states, may that God, who has always, in a remarkable manner, watched over us and our fathers for good, in all difficulties, dangers, and distresses, be pleased to command his almighty blessing upon it, and make it instrumental of restoring justice, honor, safety, support, and salvation, to a sinking land! But I hope it will be considered, by persons of all orders, ranks, and ages, that, without the prevalence of Christian piety and morals, the best republican constitution can never save us from slavery and ruin. If vice is predominant, it is to be feared we shall have rulers whose grand object will be (slyly evading the spirit of the Constitution) to enrich and aggrandize themselves and their connections, to the injury and oppression of the laborious part of the community; while it follows, from the moral constitution of the Deity, that prevalent iniquity must be the ruin of any people. The world of mankind have always, in general, been enslaved and miserable, and always will be, until there is a greater prevalence of Christian moral principles.

None of this is an argument in favor of religious tests on my part or today, just that the Founders viewed the matter in the way represented here.

 

[Tide1986]

Same sex marriage is coming regardless of what the people in that county want. Just like Alabama schools got integrated.

Ah...when the poster you quoted referred to it being up to the local voters to decide, I assumed he was referring to the fate of the county clerk, not the establishment of alternative marriages.

 

[92tide]

Ah...when the poster you quoted referred to it being up to the local voters to decide, I assumed he was referring to the fate of the county clerk, not the establishment of alternative marriages.

there are no alternative marriages. gay people's marriages are the same as everyone else's

 

[Tide1986]

Whoa now. Lol

Yeah, I caught that bit of hyperbole too. It seems like a stretch to me to equate the issuance of no licenses (equal treatment by the way) with codifying any religious code. Moreover, the "no issuance" practice would only survive her term of office since in fact the "no issuance" policy is not codified and does not bind future holders of the office.

Regarding the performance of her job, I don't know if it's been discussed herein, but given the flexibility many jurists exhibit in interpreting the Constitution, it would be interesting to hear an explanation of how the third clause of Article 6, in conjunction with the 1st Amendment, might apply to this case. That clause reads as follows:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The "but" is somewhat conspicuous, especially since it follows the requirement of an Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution.

Again, maybe this has already been discussed, so my apologies if that is the case.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I realize it's fun, but most our discussions on these topics revolve around how the courts should have decided on constitutional questions. However, it's important to remember that what really counts is the jurisprudential interpretation, no matter how much we may disagree with it...

 

[Tidewater]

I realize it's fun, but most our discussions on these topics revolve around how the courts should have decided on constitutional questions. However, it's important to remember that what really counts is the jurisprudential interpretation, no matter how much we may disagree with it...

Oh, I agree. I believe the woman should issue the licenses or step down. That is the way the law is interpreted now. Apply the law or pay the piper. This woman is a religious version of Cliven Bundy.

I found what I was looking for in the North Carolina debates on the relationship between the state, the Federal constitution and religion.
Gov. Johnston of North Carolina was a delegate to the Convention.
He said this:

Great apprehensions have been raised as to the influence of the Eastern States (i.e. New England). When you attend to circumstances, this will have no weight. I know but two or three states where there is the least chance of establishing any particular religion. The people of Massachusetts and Connecticut are mostly Presbyterians. In every other state, the people are divided into a great number of sects. In Rhode Island, the tenets of the Baptists, I believe, prevail. In New York, they are divided very much: the most numerous are the Episcopalians and the Baptists. In New Jersey, they are as much divided as we are. In Pennsylvania, if any sect prevails more than others, it is that of the Quakers. In Maryland, the Episcopalians are most numerous, though there are other sects. In Virginia, there are many sects; you all know what their religious sentiments are. So in all the Southern States they differ; as also in New Hampshire. I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will see there is no cause of fear that any one religion shall be exclusively established.

This is where I take my view that the Founders acknowledged that while it was permissible (however ill-advised) at the state level, but that the Federal level, they simply could not agree on which church to establish, so they avoided establishing any religion.