Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis

[KnightofChrist]

The end result of all this is simple: Faithful Christians are to be segregated, forbidden, or banned from Government or face arrest and imprisonment.

[Peace]

As for Davis - I think the only real argument she has is that the terms of her job changed after she started. To an extent, I think that she can argue that the job she signed up for (the one that she took an oath for) did not entail the immoral actions . . .

Edited September 5, 2015 by Peace

[Peace]

 

What if you accept the hundred dollars for the express purpose of feeding the homeless, and on your way home from the soup kitchen you get a call from your employer telling you to direct a pornographic film?

I would say "that was not in the contract I signed".

I think that Davis has an argument, but one that fails. Davis is a public employee. The problem is that the contract Davis signed is not one that said "I will only perform XYZ task or execute the laws that were in effect on the day I took office." The oath that she took is one that says, essentially "I will execute the current laws of the state when I take office, and as long as I continue to hold that office, I will also execute new laws, and laws that are changed". It's not as though she can plead ignorance - laws change every day and anyone taking a public position knows and accepts that.

When you take a public office in a democracy you agree to execute the laws currently in effect and future/changed laws as well. If the laws change such that you have an ethical conflict - then you must resign.

I don't think I am the only person that concludes that - if you read the article I posted above from Justice Scalia - for the most part he says the same thing - and I think he is someone that has thought about how to properly balance the requirements of one's faith and a public office (shameless appeal to authority - I know . . .)

[Nihil Obstat]

I would say "that was not in the contract I signed".

I think that Davis has an argument, but one that fails. Davis is a public employee. The problem is that the contract Davis signed is not one that said "I will only perform XYZ task or execute the laws that were in effect on the day I took office." The oath that she took is one that says, essentially "I will execute the current laws of the state when I take office, and as long as I continue to hold that office, I will also execute new laws, and laws that are changed". It's not as though she can plead ignorance - laws change every day and anyone taking a public position knows and accepts that.

When you take a public office in a democracy you agree to execute the laws currently in effect and future/changed laws as well. If the laws change such that you have an ethical conflict - then you must resign.

I don't think I am the only person that concludes that - if you read the article I posted above from Justice Scalia - for the most part he says the same thing - and I think he is someone that has thought about how to properly balance the requirements of one's faith and a public office (shameless appeal to authority - I know . . .)

But as we established, an unjust law is not a law and has no weight. No, of course the state is not going to accept that. We would not expect them to. But as far as the law is truly and justly concerned, this person in question is doing only what is actually within the law. Issuing licences for homosexual unions is not a binding law because it is a grave evil and an error, and as such has no moral standing. If public authority is likewise in error, it must be opposed - and publicly, in accordance with the public nature of its crimes. According to God's law, this clerk is doing what is legal and the courts are in grave contradiction of the law. 

We cannot imbibe the Americanist and modernist errors. The Church absolutely does have temporal authority, and God's law is what we must obey and what we must bring into the public sphere. We would be gravely mistaken to think that just because the courts of the civil authority have ruled otherwise that the moral law can be barred from public life.

[Peace]

I am not sure if what she is doing is “actually within the law” as you put it. If one is operating under God’s law then I do not see how one can take an oath that says, in effect “I will issue marriages to gay couples”. That is the pledge that she makes by taking a public office in a democratic country, holding the office, and continuing to receive a paycheck from the state after the law has been changed so as to require gay marriage licenses. Can one make an appeal to God’s law when one has already violated it by agreeing to take action that is contrary to it?  It kind of seems like the pornography hypothetical again. You cannot agree to direct a porno for a set fee, have a change of heart, and then say “well - pornography is illegal so I get to keep the money!” She is keeping the money in my view.

LOL. We are going in circles aren’t we? I do see your point though. I think what you are saying has merit.

I suppose what I am suggesting is that a Catholic cannot take a job or pledge an oath for a public office that by it’s express terms requires him to sin - even if he intends to ultimately deceive his employer (or the public) by not abiding with the terms of the job or public office. If the terms of the job require sin before employment has begun, then the job cannot be taken in the first place. If the terms of the job change during the course of employment such that sin is required I do not see why the result should change - the employment cannot continue. You are receiving money that has been allocated for a sinful purpose (LOL. New argument.)

You seem to want to return to the days where the church was the state. That's fine, but I don’t think you can say “I want to live in a democracy except that any law or public oath shall be nullified if it is inconsistent with the Catholic faith." That is not a democracy - that is Church rule, I think.

But “I desire Church rule instead of a democracy" is a perfectly acceptable position to take, if that is the crux of your argument. I can’t really argue against that, if your desire is have the Church be the government. . .

[Guest]

I'll pass on the Church being the government. It seems like convert or die follows shortly after. No thanks.

[AccountDeleted]

I'll pass on the Church being the government. It seems like convert or die follows shortly after. No thanks.

I agree with this - let's keep Church and state separate so we don't end up with Inquisitions and Crusades! I think the early Church was more spiritual, when it was being persecuted and before it became the official religion. Once it started having secular power, it seemed to get corrupt. It's that old 'power corrupts' thing.

As for this clerk, her beliefs are admirable but she shouldn't be working for the government if she can't fulfill the law of the government she works for. 

[Benedictus]

 

Your examples only go so far because all of them involve false and inferior religions. Catholicism, being the one true faith, also possesses authority both moral and temporal above and beyond other false religions. That is why talking about conscience rights is a red herring. It is not really a matter of conscience so much as a matter of objective truth. Error has no rights, so basing a conscience decision on the false beliefs of a false religion is likewise evil, culpability notwithstanding.

But the state doesn't make those distinctions regarding religion though. The reality is that there will always be those who don't see the benefit of secular separation of the government and the protection that provides people, including Catholics.

The conscience argument is important for Davis though, as a non Catholic, because it's all she seems to have. I believe her views are sincere and that she has made efforts to follow them through without being rude etc to the people who oppose her. However, she had the choice to resign or seek a reassignment. I think that's what she should have done as a government employee. She is being paid by all the people, not just those who have the same beliefs as her!

She also had the choice to allow her staff to perform the functions, even if she didn't. She found reasons to object to that too, even though at least two of her deputy clerks were happy to issue licenses to same sex couples all along.

I still find it weird she had no conscience issues about giving licenses to a long list of people who were sinful: adulterers, serial divorcee's etc. But maybe logic has little to do with it. Seems to me she decided to get all moral when it suited her and it weakens her position.

She has the freedom of religion: she can worship and believe what she likes. However, she shouldn't use her religion to seek exceptions or privileges in her place of work and use it as a means to not do her job. The views and beliefs of one person also doesn't trump the beliefs and rights of other people. Davis was trying to misuse the power of her work position to supress the freedom of others.

She doesn't work for herself or a private employer. She is a state official and she should provide services to all with neutrality. If she can't then she needs a new job that fit with her beliefs.

If an owner of a vegetarian restaurant decides to change track and have meat meals on the menu then an employee can't decide to refuse to process meat orders from customers because it's against their personal beliefs. Maybe if they were Muslim or Jewish they'd decide to not process pork orders, but would consider other orders if they were halal or kosher meat

Equally, If a Muslim (or maybe an anti alcohol Methodist) was employed in a sweet shop and the owner decided to start selling alcohol, and this employee refuses on religious grounds, then should they be able to refuse customers at the till?

I think many of the people supporting Davis would be the first to say these people should comply with the employer or get out of the way. Same goes for Davis as the logic of the case flows the same way. Will she get her pension and benefits now if she is sacked and has a criminal record? I hope she thinks it's worth it when all the media dies away and the mob move on to the next battle in a culturel war that's already lost. I don't believe she, or anyone who does such actions, will help push back the decline of Christinaity in the US. She, if anything, probably plays into the hands of those who'd like to see it decline even faster and be dismissed as the place for fundies, bigots, and fools.

[Gabriela]

@Peace: I've propped a lot of Nihil's posts, so I just wanted to say that, while I don't agree with your position on this issue, I deeply admire your ability to argue it in a civil and intelligent fashion. 

[AccountDeleted]

@Peace: I've propped a lot of Nihil's posts, so I just wanted to say that, while I don't agree with your position on this issue, I deeply admire your ability to argue it in a civil and intelligent fashion. 

I second Gabriela's point that you handle your disagreements with civility and and intelligence. Plus.I do agree with your position!  

[AccountDeleted]

@Peace: I've propped a lot of Nihil's posts, so I just wanted to say that, while I don't agree with your position on this issue, I deeply admire your ability to argue it in a civil and intelligent fashion. 

I second Gabriela's point that you handle your disagreements with civility and and intelligence. Plus.I do agree with your position!  

[Nihil Obstat]

I am not sure if what she is doing is “actually within the law” as you put it. If one is operating under God’s law then I do not see how one can take an oath that says, in effect “I will issue marriages to gay couples”. That is the pledge that she makes by taking a public office in a democratic country, holding the office, and continuing to receive a paycheck from the state after the law has been changed so as to require gay marriage licenses. Can one make an appeal to God’s law when one has already violated it by agreeing to take action that is contrary to it?  It kind of seems like the pornography hypothetical again. You cannot agree to direct a porno for a set fee, have a change of heart, and then say “well - pornography is illegal so I get to keep the money!” She is keeping the money in my view.

LOL. We are going in circles aren’t we? I do see your point though. I think what you are saying has merit.

I suppose what I am suggesting is that a Catholic cannot take a job or pledge an oath for a public office that by it’s express terms requires him to sin - even if he intends to ultimately deceive his employer (or the public) by not abiding with the terms of the job or public office. If the terms of the job require sin before employment has begun, then the job cannot be taken in the first place. If the terms of the job change during the course of employment such that sin is required I do not see why the result should change - the employment cannot continue. You are receiving money that has been allocated for a sinful purpose (LOL. New argument.)

You seem to want to return to the days where the church was the state. That's fine, but I don’t think you can say “I want to live in a democracy except that any law or public oath shall be nullified if it is inconsistent with the Catholic faith." That is not a democracy - that is Church rule, I think.

But “I desire Church rule instead of a democracy" is a perfectly acceptable position to take, if that is the crux of your argument. I can’t really argue against that, if your desire is have the Church be the government. . .

What can I say.

 21. There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favour of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies. Christian Europe has subdued barbarous nations, and changed them from a savage to a civilized condition, from superstition to true worship. It victoriously rolled back the tide of Mohammedan conquest; retained the headship of civilization; stood forth in the front rank as the leader and teacher of all, in every branch of national culture; bestowed on the world the gift of true and many-sided liberty; and most wisely founded very numerous institutions for the solace of human suffering. And if we inquire how it was able to bring about so altered a condition of things, the answer is-beyond all question, in large measure, through religion, under whose auspices so many great undertakings were set on foot, through whose aid they were brought to completion.

 

I would not necessarily want the Church to be the state, but I would like the civil authorities to recognize and revere the Church's legitimate authority, as they ought. A Catholic confessional state, in some sense.

33. To wish the Church to be subject to the civil power in the exercise of her duty is a great folly and a sheer injustice. Whenever this is the case, order is disturbed, for things natural are put above things supernatural; the many benefits which the Church, if free to act, would confer on society are either prevented or at least lessened in number; and a way is prepared for enmities and contentions between the two powers, with how evil result to both the issue of events has taught us only too frequently.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

I think we are nearing the end of our discussion. It has mainly been a good one.

I would agree that a Catholic cannot take a job which explicitly requires the commission of evil. To do so would be a witness against truth. However I do think this clerk acted justly with what small power she had in rejecting the evil which was foisted upon her. One should not have to expect, when taking a job, that at some point in the future your employer will require you to commit grave evil. As a government official, whatever capacity that was, I think her resistance was both just and in some sense required. Those who punish her for it know to whom they will have to justify themselves.

[Ice_nine]

What can I say.

 

I would not necessarily want the Church to be the state, but I would like the civil authorities to recognize and revere the Church's legitimate authority, as they ought. A Catholic confessional state, in some sense.

 

But that is never going to happen any time in the near future barring something cataclysmic and/or miraculous, you must know this. And part of this I think is because the Church's leaders have given too much deference to the state. I think the modern state is inimical to the church. It's different in a communist nation where the church and the state are more open enemies whereas in a capitalist democracy/corporatitst oligarchy both sides have somehow deluded themselves into thinking they can work together. But one party has to be the top dog. The state sees itself as the top dog and it seems like most bishops (just from my perspective lest I be accuse of "attacking" bishops) seem to give way too much deference to the state and therefore give the impression that its authority is the ultimate arbiter of law and social mores.

So now I think the church lends to much credence to man's law, whereas there were times in the past when popes. priests etc way abused their power. There needs to be some type of balance.

I think we may have to adapt to a model that mirrors the early church. It had authority but it was separate from the world. It is no longer the middle ages where the church can just assert her authority by force or by strongly worded documents. It's just not going to work. Jabbering on about how Catholicism is the superior religion and how error has no rights, well all well and true, is not a solution. The world community at large will just think you're cute and deluded at best and a smug, power-hungry militant at worst.

Both options which will force you into the separation I was talking about earlier so, why not pre-empt that by building a rival society instead of offering incense to the modern states?

[Guest]

That's enough. - Ash

Edited September 5, 2015 by Guest