Oh **** yes.
Random Politics & Religion #00 |
||
Random Politics & Religion #00
Asura.Kingnobody said: » You are happy that a district court judge denies to toss out contributions from a Super PAC? Oh **** yes. Garuda.Chanti said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » You are happy that a district court judge denies to toss out contributions from a Super PAC? Oh **** yes. Remember, the senator in this case was soliciting for (your article said so) the Super PAC, they never received the money from the contributions, the Super PAC did. (It's amazing what a word can do to change one's viewpoint) How is that bribery again? Quote: The Vatican on Wednesday confirmed that controversial Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis met with Pope Francis last Thursday during his U.S. visit. Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said he would not deny that the meeting took place but declined further comment. The pope was in Washington for most of Thursday, flying to New York later in the day. Davis, the clerk of courts for Rowan County, and her husband, Joe Davis, met the pope at the Vatican Embassy in Washington, lawyer Mat Staver told USA TODAY. Davis made national news after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, claiming it would have conflicted with her Christian beliefs. She spent five nights in jail and was allowed to return to work when she agreed not to interfere with the issuance of licenses. Davis said in a news release that she was humbled by the meeting. “I never thought I would meet the pope,” she said. “Who am I to have this rare opportunity? I am just a county clerk who loves Jesus and desires with all my heart to serve him. Pope Francis was kind, genuinely caring and very personable.” Francis touched on the issue during a press conference as he flew back to Rome on Sunday, the Associated Press reported. He told reporters that he wasn’t familiar with details of the case but called conscientious objection a human right, even for government officials. John Thavis, a former Catholic News Service reporter and author of The Vatican Prophecies, noted that the pope meets with many people during his foreign visits. "If meeting Kim Davis was the pope's idea, then it has some significance and I think he's sending a message," Thavis said. "But if this was simply another of the meet-and-greet variety of encounters, arranged by someone else, then I think we shouldn't read too much into it." Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas now seeking the GOP presidential nominee, tweeted that the pope appreciated that Davis "followed her conscience & convictions." Huckabee also tweeted: "While the media elites were slobbering b/c @Pontifex commented on climate change, he held a quiet & powerful meeting w/ a humble KY clerk." The Vatican reached out to Davis through other parties who contacted Staver, the lawyer said. Staver said he was there when a car picked up the Davises to take them to the embassy. The couple was at the embassy for two hours, but the actual visit with the pope lasted 15 minutes, Staver said. "He held out his hands and he asked Kim to pray," Staver said. "He thanked her for her courage. He said these words, 'Stay strong,' and they embraced and hugged." The pope spoke in English during the meeting, Staver said. The pontiff also gave Davis two rosaries that he personally blessed, according to Staver. "Kim's mother and father are both lifelong Catholics so Kim will present those rosaries to them," he said. Afterward, Davis was "overwhelmed," Staver said. "She was amazed that she was able to meet with Pope Francis," the lawyer said. "She never imagined in her life that she would meet with the pope and that itself was just an experience that she will never forget." The meeting "sends a worldwide message that the pope stands on the side of religious Vatican confirms pope met with Kim Davis Assuming it's true, that's a great way to undo the positive PR he accomplished over his trip. Not that the Church's explicit bigotry is a surprise to anyone, but siding with a person that many people view as a fundamentalist lunatic is pretty low.
Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
She was probably and correctly introduced to him as a woman imprisoned for her religious beliefs.
*hand shake* "Pray for me." End of meeting. Onto the next set of hands. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Assuming it's true, that's a great way to undo the positive PR he accomplished over his trip. Not that the Church's explicit bigotry is a surprise to anyone, but siding with a person that many people view as a fundamentalist lunatic is pretty low. She was imprisoned for knowingly breaking the law, she tried to use religion as an excuse and she failed. I guess this entitles her to a meeting with the Pope. Whatever. Her "crusade" has had no effect on the law.
Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
She was imprisoned because a judge was trying to force her do something against her religious faith. There is no question about this.
Imprisonment was absolutely ridiculous. If you want anything done to Kim Davis other than being removed from her job through due process, then you are a psycho that likes to hurt people that you disagree with. Religious faith is not a excuse to commit crimes. Your insults are amusing tho.
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » There is no question about this. Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
Shiva.Viciousss said: » Religious faith is not a excuse to commit crimes. Your insults are amusing tho. I made no insult. It is fact. Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
What crime did she commit other than disobeying a judge's order on religious grounds?
So now we are trying to downplay her crime? Defying a Supreme Court order as a public official sworn to carry out the law is in fact, a crime. There is no grey area, there are no exceptions or in her case, excuses. Notice how no other county clerks anywhere in the country have had a problem. There is nothing special about this woman. Find a new career.
Offline
Posts: 1682
I understand if they fired her over it, but putting her in jail was absurd.
It also shows the true intent of the gay marriage fiasco: namely its trying to destroy freedom of religion and probably Christianity in particular. Except the highest law of this land is the Constitution, and any order given by any authority in this country which violates the bill of rights is illegal. The same rationale you usento attack her could be used to make homosexuality illegal. Offline
Posts: 1682
Shiva.Viciousss said: » Religious faith is not a excuse to commit crimes. Your insults are amusing tho. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Garuda.Chanti said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » You are happy that a district court judge denies to toss out contributions from a Super PAC? Oh **** yes. Remember, the senator in this case was soliciting for (your article said so) the Super PAC, they never received the money from the contributions, the Super PAC did. (It's amazing what a word can do to change one's viewpoint) How is that bribery again? The money does not go to the candidate true, but the candidate benefits from the money. We have a quid, is there a pro quo? That is the question the judge will not dismiss out of hand. But more important, he directly calls into question Robert's specious reasoning that there can never be the appearance of corruption as long as a PAC is involved. Shiva.Viciousss said: » Religious faith is not a excuse to commit crimes.... Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
It is called "conscientious objection" and there are many cases of it. It is extremely important to have this in America to not force people to doing things against their faith. The law changed while she was in office. Her County needs to find and out and make an accommodation and/or replace her through due process.
The Pope met with prisoners in Philly charged or guilty of crimes the likes of murder and rape. So naturally this means he supports those crimes. Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
Back to just denying huh? I know its illegal for a public official to violate the law, hence why she was jailed. Conscientious objection does not apply at all, its just an excuse she tried to use and it failed because it has no relevance. She committed a crime, she was jailed, if her deputies had not agreed to issue licenses she could still be in jail. She has no right to violate the law.
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Of course not, but she has told us that it's Christianity and no part of Christianity forbids that. Not to mention that she can't claim a religious exemption on this. It's not hard to understand why. That's not ven getting into that she's a complete hypocrite. Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
Shiva.Viciousss said: » Back to just denying huh? I know its illegal for a public official to violate the law, hence why she was jailed. Conscientious objection does not apply at all, its just an excuse she tried to use and it failed because it has no relevance. She committed a crime, she was jailed, if her deputies had not agreed to issue licenses she could still be in jail. She has no right to violate the law. What law did she violate? Phoenix.Amandarius said: » She defied a court order. Civil servants do not have the right to object on religious grounds. It's literally the same law that grants them religious freedom in the first place. Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
Jassik said: » Phoenix.Amandarius said: » She defied a court order. Civil servants do not have the right to object on religious grounds. It's literally the same law that grants them religious freedom in the first place. There ya go. She defied a court order where a judged ordered her to do something against her faith. Imprisonment for this is absurd and an accomodation should be made until she is replaced. I don't even agree with her but I guess this is the curse that I have of clear thinking a being level headed. I have to argue with people that make emotional, vengeful decisions. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Shiva.Viciousss said: » Back to just denying huh? I know its illegal for a public official to violate the law, hence why she was jailed. Conscientious objection does not apply at all, its just an excuse she tried to use and it failed because it has no relevance. She committed a crime, she was jailed, if her deputies had not agreed to issue licenses she could still be in jail. She has no right to violate the law. What law did she violate? Obergefell v. Hodges is the exact order that she was in violation of. Its a crime, there is no grey area. If she doesn't like it she can resign. Jail was the last resort, she was offered the opportunity to let her deputies issues the licenses but she refused to comply so off she went. That was the only accomodation she deserved. Also you playing the victim card is pathetic. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » There ya go. She defied a court order where a judged ordered her to do something against her faith. Imprisonment for this is absurd and an accomodation should be made until she is replaced. I don't even agree with her but I guess this is the curse that I have of clear thinking a being level headed. I have to argue with people that make emotional, vengeful decisions. She was in contempt of court, she was held in contempt to compel her to comply with the order. The court order wasn't some kind of religious prosecution, it was in response to her refusal to issue marriage licenses, which her position as clerk requires her to do. There is no ambiguity here. Civil servants do not have the right to object on religious grounds. That would be the state sponsoring a religious institution. If she was earnest in her beliefs, she was welcome to resign her position. If religious conviction gave a civil servant the right to object to the requirements of their jobs, we'd have mail carriers objecting to delivering letters but still wanting to get a paycheck. If religious conviction gave people the right to defy court orders, we'd have people refusing to repay loans but expecting to be allowed to keep their property. Sorry, bubba, it doesn't work that way, and no amount of "WAAAAAAH" or internet forum trolling makes it a good idea to grant that level of protection to individual religious beliefs. Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
Shiva.Viciousss said: » Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Shiva.Viciousss said: » Back to just denying huh? I know its illegal for a public official to violate the law, hence why she was jailed. Conscientious objection does not apply at all, its just an excuse she tried to use and it failed because it has no relevance. She committed a crime, she was jailed, if her deputies had not agreed to issue licenses she could still be in jail. She has no right to violate the law. What law did she violate? Obergefell v. Hodges is the exact order that she was in violation of. Its a crime, there is no grey area. If she doesn't like it she can resign. Jail was the last resort, she was offered the opportunity to let her deputies issues the licenses but she refused to comply so off she went. That was the only accomodation she deserved. Also you playing the victim card is pathetic. How was I playing the victim card lol? I enjoy arguing with angry, spiteful liberals. |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|