Interjecting: There are a number of people on the religious right who are totally cool with evolution. I’m related to some of them, in fact.
Just pointing out that the religious right isn’t nearly as monolithic as a lot of us who aren’t part of it tend to think (or at least portray it in our rhetoric).
you guys know Kim Davis is a Democrat, right?
Democrat ≠ liberal
Republican ≠ conservative
Those terms do tend to correlate, yes, but they’re certainly not as linked in real life as people often think they are.
Kim Davis represents a typical configuration in some parts of the red states, where locally there is still the democratic hegonomy, whereas for major offices like rep, senate and president,they vote GOP. One of the problems with terms like 'liberal" and “conservative” is what do they mean? Is conservative the traditional conservative, the fiscally conservative but socially moderate to libertarian, or the conservative that is the religious fundamentalist/ tea party extremes ? With liberal, is that someone who is socially relatively liberal but fiscally might be a moderate, or someone out there like Bernie Sanders who is liberal on both ends? If you look at the parties on a national level, then if you compare the democrats and republicans you can make the argument that the democrats are liberal, in part because the GOP has swung so far to the right in terms of who runs the party. In reality, the democrats are not liberal, not in the sense of Bernie Saunders or George McGovern, but compared to the current GOP where the more moderate, northeastern traditional GOP has been replaced by the social and economic extremes that come out of the south and west, and thus that is a pretty good argument. Kim Davis represents mainstream democrats as much as the local GOP that dominates my county has to do with the national GOP.
Here’s an interesting editorial in today’s New York Times about this very topic, regarding certain factions trying to allege that discrimination toward gays is actually protecting religious freedom:
Those citing their first amendment right of freedom of religion always conveniently forget that the first amendment grants both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Meaning that you’re not free to force your religion on others, and government especially can’t establish or espouse religious views.
In 50 years this will period be viewed as another embarrassing episode of (mostly) Southern hysteria, like the period following school integration. Davis’ picture will be in wikipedia next to George Wallace.
@anomander: I hope you’re right. Because right now I’m very scared.
What religions are entitled to accommodations? Any religion? Can followers of the Jedi faith get one to avoid being exposed to the dark side of The Force?
In theory, religious accommodations are available for adherents of any religion. Not sure whether being a Jedi counts as a religion or what accommodations would prevent a Jedi from being exposed to the Dark Side, though.
“In 50 years this will period be viewed as another embarrassing episode of (mostly) Southern hysteria, like the period following school integration. Davis’ picture will be in wikipedia next to George Wallace.”
Amen (in a non-religious and inclusive way, of course).
I think most of us here will find this amusing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14C3TZg6NQM&feature=youtu.be
@anomander: What I really love is when they say “the first amendment is first among all amendments, therefore it takes precedence”. The reality of the first amendment is that it does not allow establishment of an official religion, but what the religious argue is that doesn’t mean religious views cannot be law, that the ‘seperation of church and state’ is limited to no official religion. What that leaves off, of course, is if religion is allowed to be made into law, then what you have is the government enforcing one religious view over another, which violates that separation, it is the government approving one view over another, government is supposed to be neutral.
Religious liberty laws were designed to stop the government from interfering in people’s religious beliefs where other rights were not involved, like a Sikh wearing a turban on the job, native Americans using peyote in rituals, someone asking for time to pray, it was not about religious belief trumping the rights of others, especially in the public sector, it was about reasonable accommodation, not religious belief uber alles, but that is what the extremists are trying to do. Kim Davis viewpoint is no different than ISIS in form, it is saying I believe this, so the government should function as I want.
You know, I’m completely pro-gay- marriage and completely anti-what’s going on with Kim Davis, but I think saying that her “viewpoint is no different than ISIS in form” is precisely the kind of rhetoric that makes the left seem out there. She’s not out advocating gay people be taken out and killed. She just doesn’t want to marry them. Again, I completely disagree, she needs to obey the law of the land and that is that, but an ISIS comparison is just a little too ludicrous.
And yeah, I get what you’re saying, but I think you’d be better advised to phrase it as talking about instituting a theocracy instead of ISIS in particular.
@pizzagirl: When I said form, that is exactly what I meant, that she is advocating theocracy, the same as ISIS and the like, how they act it out are different, but the fundamental belief is the same, that the law should reflect their religious belief As others have posted, Kim Davis and her supporters are no different than the “Shariah Law” they seem to claim is coming to the US, they want their religious beliefs put as law.
Kim Davis is the karmic balancer for Sandra Fluke. Both are/were used as tools and either didn’t know it or didn’t care. Once their political poster child status has wained…the next tool will be waiting in the wings.
“Kim Davis and her supporters are no different than the “Shariah Law” they seem to claim is coming to the US, they want their religious beliefs put as law.”
She doesn’t wish to participate in something she feels is wrong. That is different from advocating that gays, nowhere, should be allowed to be married. She may be trying to stop them in Kentucky, but she’s not marching in Massachusetts to prevent them being married there. Again, I am NOT condoning her at all, but there is a distinction between the two that I think is important to keep in mind.
@pizzagirl:
This isn’t just about her personal belief, if it were she would have done the honorable thing and tried to seek accommodation when the Supreme Court decision came down,but she didn’t, she simply decided to shut down her office from issuing marriage licenses,and she still has not totally said she will abide by the court decision. By shutting down her office (including tactics like claiming the computer system was broken so they couldn’t issue licenses) she was doing exactly what I am saying, forcing her religious beliefs on the office. In her latest appeal she isn’t saying that her name needs to be removed from the marriage licenses (which could be done pretty easily), she is trying to argue that the court had no right to try and force her office to issue those certificates. Plus there is no doubt that what she is doing is not just her doing this, there are all kinds of indications that the ‘religious liberty’ groups backing her probably got in touch with her and basically offered to back her if she would be the martyr, and part of all this is to try and literally carve out exemptions where basically a whole office can claim they don’t want to issue the certificates. It reminds me in some ways of the Scopes trial, where Scopes was used by progressives as a test of the law, they orchestrated him getting arrested with the deliberate goal of taking this higher and getting the law thrown out (that strategy failed, and that law stayed on the books in Tennessee from what I recall well after WWII).
If Kim Davis were in fact arguing about her personal beliefs, she would have sought accommodation from the beginning, but she didn’t, she shut down the office from issuing licenses, bullied employees into not issuing them and made no attempt to work around the problem until she was sent away, and suddenly we hear about the objection to her name being on that, and that again is not personal belief…ad there is little doubt that the people she is working for are seeking ways to prevent same sex couples from getting marriage licenses claiming ‘religious liberty’.Plus from what I have heard she is arguing that no county offices in Kentucky should issue same sex marriage licenses, because it violates the religious beliefs of so many people in Kentucky, not exactly individual belief.
The fundamental idea that Kim Davis is not the same as Shariah law is a matter of scope, not intent, and no, she isn’t marching to Massachusetts demanding they stop issuing the certificates, she is arguing Kentucky doesn’t have to do it, but she is still arguing that the government offices shouldn’t issue the licenses because of religious liberty, once she went beyond herself, it is no longer personal, it is a broad political campaign. More importantly, if she succeeds (which I doubt, but that doesn’t matter) in getting the right of her office not to issue them, or other offices in Kentucky, guess what, now every ‘religious’ person can claim the same thing all over the country, whether Mass or NJ or NY, and you end up with a mess, where offices are closed from issuing licenses because a religious bigot doesn’t want to adhere to the law. Once you start saying the law doesn’t have to be followed because of religious belief, you are doing the same thing that Shariah law and other bigotry does, you are putting religion above law, and it isn’t just about personal belief.
Can’t she just be fired for not doing her job and we move forward?
No, she can’t just be fired. She is an elected official.
She would have to be impeached by the state legislature, and that’s not about to happen.