Obedience without question, loyalty without deception

[TemplarKormac]

As we all know Kim Davis is supposedly "standing up for her beliefs" by not issuing marriage licenses to either gay or straight couples because she opposes Gay marriage. She has subsequently been thrown in jail for her refusal to do so. There are conservative leaders like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee declaring that she is being jailed because of her faith. Some are calling her a "martyr." They're all wrong, and I won't fall for that kind of rhetoric. As a Christian (emphasis added), I don't support gay marriage and endorse marriage between a man and a woman. But also as a Christian I don't agree with Kim Davis' behavior. I think under the law gays should be treated equally. She believes she is standing up for her faith, but in reality she is making a spectacle of it. She is putting everyone at a disadvantage.

She wants to take that stand, be a martyr, what have you; but there's a problem, both religious and legal. First, the religious aspect. Below are just two passages from the Bible which command followers to be obedient to government authority, and to authority in general:

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.

Titus 3:1

Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good.

1 Peter 2:13-14

Also, I will hear those quoting Acts 5:29 which they would say would trump (no trump jokes please) Paul's command in Romans, citing Peter's response to the Sanhedrin, by telling us "to obey God's law rather than that of men." Peter would go on to agree with Paul in the book of 1 Peter.

Paul wrote the book of Romans in 57 A.D. in one of the most perilous times for the Early Christian Church under the tyrannical rule of Roman Emperor Nero. Even then, Paul beseeched followers to "be subject to the governing authorities" in Romans 13:1-7. If Christians in that era, even in the face of persecution, could submit to the laws of Rome, one county clerk can do the same in America.

For those of you who say "well, Christians of that era were supposed to renounce their faith or die. I don't think that's what Paul meant by "respect the governing authorities." well, here's the thing.

The high priest (of the Sanhedrin) threw Peter and some of the other apostles in jail and ordered them not to preach in the name of Jesus. In jail an "angel of the Lord" visited and released them telling them to preach the message of the gospel in the temple courts. They immediately obeyed and were subsequently brought before the Sanhedrin and asked why they disobeyed the order not to preach. In reply, Peter and the other apostles stated, "we must obey God rather than men!" For this infraction the chief priests had the apostles flogged. The Sanhedrin, though made up of Jewish spiritual leaders, was a governing body authorized by Rome to pronounce sentences and laws for the Jewish people. It would almost certainly qualify as one of the "governing authorities" Paul calls for Christians to submit to in Romans chapter thirteen. In application, there can be tension between the biblical principles of obedience to God and submission to government, but this tension does not create inconsistency. One owes obedience to God at all times, as well as submission to the governing authorities.

http://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=ustlj

From the same link, this is an example of someone in an authoritative position exercising her power and putting this concept into practice:

Many of the characters of the Old Testament addressed this question in times of crises. In 479 B.C., while the nation of Israel was living in exile under Persian rule, the king of Persia chose a young Jew named Esther to be queen. During her reign, and without knowing her ethnicity, the king passed a law calling for the annihilation of every Jew in the province of Persia. Queen Esther revealed her identity to the king and petitioned him to reverse the decree. The king could not reverse the earlier decree, so instead he issued another edict permitting Jews to fight back against any who might come against them. Esther worked within the law and within her office to bring about change.

Lastly, there are those who will cite Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the book of Daniel, who rather than obeying a king's order to bow down before a statue, chose to be thrown into a fiery furnace where God protected them from being burned alive.

The issue is this:

Kim Davis' dilemma is nothing like that. She isn't being made to worship anything other than God, she is being forced to do a job she ran for and was elected to do.

And then the legal aspect:

As the First Amendment states, Government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit free exercise thereof."

What about the other half of that clause you ask? Well there's your problem. If this woman was allowed to refuse licenses based on her faith, that is a blatant endorsement of religion by her employer, the government. Therefore, as government complies with the "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" part, it nullifies the "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" part.

You cannot claim your right to free exercise of religion in order to use your government position to endorse religion by refusing a service based on your religious beliefs. It's the law, whether you or I like it or not.

When she refuses licenses based on her religious beliefs, and on government's behalf, government in general is essentially violating its promise not to endorse a specific religion over another.

I submit that If we are to expect lawful compliance from Obama, we must expect lawful compliance from this clerk. No double standards.

I will no doubt hear others say "But America was founded on Christian principles!" I agree, but those Christian principles also include obedience to God and the law.

I'm sure there are plenty of counterpoints one could make. But my opinion is that she obligated herself to be a steward of the Government, to a secular position. If she cannot abide by that, she should never have run for that position in the first place.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As we all know Kim Davis is supposedly "standing up for her beliefs" by not issuing marriage licenses to either gay or straight couples because she opposes Gay marriage. She has subsequently been thrown in jail for her refusal to do so. There are conservative leaders like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee declaring that she is being jailed because of her faith. Some are calling her a "martyr." They're all wrong, and I won't fall for that kind of rhetoric. As a Christian (emphasis added), I don't support gay marriage and endorse marriage between a man and a woman. But also as a Christian I don't agree with Kim Davis' behavior. I think under the law gays should be treated equally. She believes she is standing up for her faith, but in reality she is making a spectacle of it. She is putting everyone at a disadvantage.

She wants to take that stand, be a martyr, what have you; but there's a problem, both religious and legal. First, the religious aspect. Below are just two passages from the Bible which command followers to be obedient to government authority, and to authority in general:

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.

Titus 3:1

Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good.

1 Peter 2:13-14

Also, I will hear those quoting Acts 5:29 which they would say would trump (no trump jokes please) Paul's command in Romans, citing Peter's response to the Sanhedrin, by telling us "to obey God's law rather than that of men." Well, along with Peter would go on to agree with Paul in the book of 1 Peter.

Paul wrote the book of Romans in 57 A.D. in one of the most perilous times for the Early Christian Church under the tyrannical rule of Roman Emperor Nero. Even then, Paul beseeched followers to "be subject to the governing authorities" in Romans 13:1-7. If Christians in that era, even in the face of persecution, could submit to the laws of Rome, one county clerk can do the same in America.

For those of you who say "well, Christians of that era were supposed to renounce their faith or die. I don't think that's what Paul meant by "respect the governing authorities." well, here's the thing.

The high priest (of the Sanhedrin) threw Peter and some of the other apostles in jail and ordered them not to preach in the name of Jesus. In jail an "angel of the Lord" visited and released them telling them to preach the message of the gospel in the temple courts. They immediately obeyed and were subsequently brought before the Sanhedrin and asked why they disobeyed the order not to preach. In reply, Peter and the other apostles stated, "we must obey God rather than men!" For this infraction the chief priests had the apostles flogged. The Sanhedrin, though made up of Jewish spiritual leaders, was a governing body authorized by Rome to pronounce sentences and laws for the Jewish people. It would almost certainly qualify as one of the "governing authorities" Paul calls for Christians to submit to in Romans chapter thirteen. In application, there can be tension between the biblical principles of obedience to God and submission to government, but this tension does not create inconsistency. One owes obedience to God at all times, as well as submission to the governing authorities.

http://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=ustlj

Lastly, there are those who will cite Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the book of Daniel, who rather than obeying a king's order to bow down before a statue, chose to be thrown into a fiery furnace where God protected them from being burned alive.

The issue is this:

Kim Davis' dilemma is nothing like that. She isn't being made to worship anything other than God, she is being forced to do a job she ran for and was elected to do.

And then the legal aspect:

As the First Amendment states, Government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit free exercise thereof."

What about the other half of that clause you ask? Well there's your problem. If this woman was allowed to refuse licenses based on her faith, that is a blatant endorsement of religion by her employer, the government. Therefore, as government complies with the "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" part, it nullifies the "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" part.

You cannot claim your right to free exercise of religion in order to use your government position to endorse religion by refusing a service based on your religious beliefs. Its the law, whether you or I like it or not

When she refuses licenses based on her religious beliefs, and on government's behalf, government in general is essentially violating its promise not to endorse a specific religion over another.

I submit that If we are to expect lawful compliance from Obama, we must expect lawful compliance from this clerk. No double standards.

I will no doubt hear others say "But America was founded on Christian principles!" I agree, but those Christian principles also include obedience to God and the law.

I'm sure there are plenty of counterpoints one could make. But my opinion is that she obligated herself to be a steward of the Government, to a secular position. If she cannot abide by that, she should never have run for that position in the first place.

Well stated......For a brief moment, I was in support of Davis. Now I see a religious zealot who just cannot accept the fact that this is what SCOTUS has ruled.
See, originally Davis saw a fault in that the Commonwealth's Atty general was excused by the KY Governor from enforcing a particular law. Davis' original argument was the governor must apply the law equally to all government employees.
Now the argument has shifted to her religious convictions. On the surface, yes she has religious freedom. But as with any other freedom guaranteed us in the US Constitution, our rights are NOT absolute.
Davis took an oath. She set aside her beliefs to take that oath. She should either get back to work or cite her religious convictions and choose another occupation. She as with anyone else, cannot have it both ways.

 

[David_42]

Now you just need to inform the other rwers on here and get them to stop drooling over Kim davis..

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm truly impressed with your ability, in this one case, to see past right wing rhetoric. This is far better than what I have grown to expect from you. Kudos to you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now you just need to inform the other rwers on here and get them to stop drooling over Kim davis..

That's why I posted the thread. They can heed it or not.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This ought to last about a day or so.

 

[Wyatt earp]

As we all know Kim Davis is supposedly "standing up for her beliefs" by not issuing marriage licenses to either gay or straight couples because she opposes Gay marriage. She has subsequently been thrown in jail for her refusal to do so. There are conservative leaders like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee declaring that she is being jailed because of her faith. Some are calling her a "martyr." They're all wrong, and I won't fall for that kind of rhetoric. As a Christian (emphasis added), I don't support gay marriage and endorse marriage between a man and a woman. But also as a Christian I don't agree with Kim Davis' behavior. I think under the law gays should be treated equally. She believes she is standing up for her faith, but in reality she is making a spectacle of it. She is putting everyone at a disadvantage.

She wants to take that stand, be a martyr, what have you; but there's a problem, both religious and legal. First, the religious aspect. Below are just two passages from the Bible which command followers to be obedient to government authority, and to authority in general:

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.

Titus 3:1

Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good.

1 Peter 2:13-14

Also, I will hear those quoting Acts 5:29 which they would say would trump (no trump jokes please) Paul's command in Romans, citing Peter's response to the Sanhedrin, by telling us "to obey God's law rather than that of men." Peter would go on to agree with Paul in the book of 1 Peter.

Paul wrote the book of Romans in 57 A.D. in one of the most perilous times for the Early Christian Church under the tyrannical rule of Roman Emperor Nero. Even then, Paul beseeched followers to "be subject to the governing authorities" in Romans 13:1-7. If Christians in that era, even in the face of persecution, could submit to the laws of Rome, one county clerk can do the same in America.

For those of you who say "well, Christians of that era were supposed to renounce their faith or die. I don't think that's what Paul meant by "respect the governing authorities." well, here's the thing.

The high priest (of the Sanhedrin) threw Peter and some of the other apostles in jail and ordered them not to preach in the name of Jesus. In jail an "angel of the Lord" visited and released them telling them to preach the message of the gospel in the temple courts. They immediately obeyed and were subsequently brought before the Sanhedrin and asked why they disobeyed the order not to preach. In reply, Peter and the other apostles stated, "we must obey God rather than men!" For this infraction the chief priests had the apostles flogged. The Sanhedrin, though made up of Jewish spiritual leaders, was a governing body authorized by Rome to pronounce sentences and laws for the Jewish people. It would almost certainly qualify as one of the "governing authorities" Paul calls for Christians to submit to in Romans chapter thirteen. In application, there can be tension between the biblical principles of obedience to God and submission to government, but this tension does not create inconsistency. One owes obedience to God at all times, as well as submission to the governing authorities.

http://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=ustlj

From the same link, this is an example of someone in an authoritative position exercising her power and putting this concept into practice:

Many of the characters of the Old Testament addressed this question in times of crises. In 479 B.C., while the nation of Israel was living in exile under Persian rule, the king of Persia chose a young Jew named Esther to be queen. During her reign, and without knowing her ethnicity, the king passed a law calling for the annihilation of every Jew in the province of Persia. Queen Esther revealed her identity to the king and petitioned him to reverse the decree. The king could not reverse the earlier decree, so instead he issued another edict permitting Jews to fight back against any who might come against them. Esther worked within the law and within her office to bring about change.

Lastly, there are those who will cite Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the book of Daniel, who rather than obeying a king's order to bow down before a statue, chose to be thrown into a fiery furnace where God protected them from being burned alive.

The issue is this:

Kim Davis' dilemma is nothing like that. She isn't being made to worship anything other than God, she is being forced to do a job she ran for and was elected to do.

And then the legal aspect:

As the First Amendment states, Government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit free exercise thereof."

What about the other half of that clause you ask? Well there's your problem. If this woman was allowed to refuse licenses based on her faith, that is a blatant endorsement of religion by her employer, the government. Therefore, as government complies with the "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" part, it nullifies the "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" part.

You cannot claim your right to free exercise of religion in order to use your government position to endorse religion by refusing a service based on your religious beliefs. It's the law, whether you or I like it or not.

When she refuses licenses based on her religious beliefs, and on government's behalf, government in general is essentially violating its promise not to endorse a specific religion over another.

I submit that If we are to expect lawful compliance from Obama, we must expect lawful compliance from this clerk. No double standards.

I will no doubt hear others say "But America was founded on Christian principles!" I agree, but those Christian principles also include obedience to God and the law.

I'm sure there are plenty of counterpoints one could make. But my opinion is that she obligated herself to be a steward of the Government, to a secular position. If she cannot abide by that, she should never have run for that position in the first place.

No the homos made it mainstream news all they had to do is drive to a different county and shut the fuck up.

But faggots being me first drama queens like they are had to make a big deal about it.

 

[Ravi]

As we all know Kim Davis is supposedly "standing up for her beliefs" by not issuing marriage licenses to either gay or straight couples because she opposes Gay marriage. She has subsequently been thrown in jail for her refusal to do so. There are conservative leaders like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee declaring that she is being jailed because of her faith. Some are calling her a "martyr." They're all wrong, and I won't fall for that kind of rhetoric. As a Christian (emphasis added), I don't support gay marriage and endorse marriage between a man and a woman. But also as a Christian I don't agree with Kim Davis' behavior. I think under the law gays should be treated equally. She believes she is standing up for her faith, but in reality she is making a spectacle of it. She is putting everyone at a disadvantage.

She wants to take that stand, be a martyr, what have you; but there's a problem, both religious and legal. First, the religious aspect. Below are just two passages from the Bible which command followers to be obedient to government authority, and to authority in general:

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.

Titus 3:1

Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good.

1 Peter 2:13-14

Also, I will hear those quoting Acts 5:29 which they would say would trump (no trump jokes please) Paul's command in Romans, citing Peter's response to the Sanhedrin, by telling us "to obey God's law rather than that of men." Peter would go on to agree with Paul in the book of 1 Peter.

Paul wrote the book of Romans in 57 A.D. in one of the most perilous times for the Early Christian Church under the tyrannical rule of Roman Emperor Nero. Even then, Paul beseeched followers to "be subject to the governing authorities" in Romans 13:1-7. If Christians in that era, even in the face of persecution, could submit to the laws of Rome, one county clerk can do the same in America.

For those of you who say "well, Christians of that era were supposed to renounce their faith or die. I don't think that's what Paul meant by "respect the governing authorities." well, here's the thing.

The high priest (of the Sanhedrin) threw Peter and some of the other apostles in jail and ordered them not to preach in the name of Jesus. In jail an "angel of the Lord" visited and released them telling them to preach the message of the gospel in the temple courts. They immediately obeyed and were subsequently brought before the Sanhedrin and asked why they disobeyed the order not to preach. In reply, Peter and the other apostles stated, "we must obey God rather than men!" For this infraction the chief priests had the apostles flogged. The Sanhedrin, though made up of Jewish spiritual leaders, was a governing body authorized by Rome to pronounce sentences and laws for the Jewish people. It would almost certainly qualify as one of the "governing authorities" Paul calls for Christians to submit to in Romans chapter thirteen. In application, there can be tension between the biblical principles of obedience to God and submission to government, but this tension does not create inconsistency. One owes obedience to God at all times, as well as submission to the governing authorities.

http://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=ustlj

From the same link, this is an example of someone in an authoritative position exercising her power and putting this concept into practice:

Many of the characters of the Old Testament addressed this question in times of crises. In 479 B.C., while the nation of Israel was living in exile under Persian rule, the king of Persia chose a young Jew named Esther to be queen. During her reign, and without knowing her ethnicity, the king passed a law calling for the annihilation of every Jew in the province of Persia. Queen Esther revealed her identity to the king and petitioned him to reverse the decree. The king could not reverse the earlier decree, so instead he issued another edict permitting Jews to fight back against any who might come against them. Esther worked within the law and within her office to bring about change.

Lastly, there are those who will cite Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the book of Daniel, who rather than obeying a king's order to bow down before a statue, chose to be thrown into a fiery furnace where God protected them from being burned alive.

The issue is this:

Kim Davis' dilemma is nothing like that. She isn't being made to worship anything other than God, she is being forced to do a job she ran for and was elected to do.

And then the legal aspect:

As the First Amendment states, Government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit free exercise thereof."

What about the other half of that clause you ask? Well there's your problem. If this woman was allowed to refuse licenses based on her faith, that is a blatant endorsement of religion by her employer, the government. Therefore, as government complies with the "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" part, it nullifies the "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" part.

You cannot claim your right to free exercise of religion in order to use your government position to endorse religion by refusing a service based on your religious beliefs. It's the law, whether you or I like it or not.

When she refuses licenses based on her religious beliefs, and on government's behalf, government in general is essentially violating its promise not to endorse a specific religion over another.

I submit that If we are to expect lawful compliance from Obama, we must expect lawful compliance from this clerk. No double standards.

I will no doubt hear others say "But America was founded on Christian principles!" I agree, but those Christian principles also include obedience to God and the law.

I'm sure there are plenty of counterpoints one could make. But my opinion is that she obligated herself to be a steward of the Government, to a secular position. If she cannot abide by that, she should never have run for that position in the first place.

No the homos made it mainstream news all they had to do is drive to a different county and shut the fuck up.

But faggots being me first drama queens like they are had to make a big deal about it.

Why should they be forced to get married outside of the town they live in and pay taxes in?

 

[Wyatt earp]

As we all know Kim Davis is supposedly "standing up for her beliefs" by not issuing marriage licenses to either gay or straight couples because she opposes Gay marriage. She has subsequently been thrown in jail for her refusal to do so. There are conservative leaders like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee declaring that she is being jailed because of her faith. Some are calling her a "martyr." They're all wrong, and I won't fall for that kind of rhetoric. As a Christian (emphasis added), I don't support gay marriage and endorse marriage between a man and a woman. But also as a Christian I don't agree with Kim Davis' behavior. I think under the law gays should be treated equally. She believes she is standing up for her faith, but in reality she is making a spectacle of it. She is putting everyone at a disadvantage.

She wants to take that stand, be a martyr, what have you; but there's a problem, both religious and legal. First, the religious aspect. Below are just two passages from the Bible which command followers to be obedient to government authority, and to authority in general:

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.

Titus 3:1

Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good.

1 Peter 2:13-14

Also, I will hear those quoting Acts 5:29 which they would say would trump (no trump jokes please) Paul's command in Romans, citing Peter's response to the Sanhedrin, by telling us "to obey God's law rather than that of men." Peter would go on to agree with Paul in the book of 1 Peter.

Paul wrote the book of Romans in 57 A.D. in one of the most perilous times for the Early Christian Church under the tyrannical rule of Roman Emperor Nero. Even then, Paul beseeched followers to "be subject to the governing authorities" in Romans 13:1-7. If Christians in that era, even in the face of persecution, could submit to the laws of Rome, one county clerk can do the same in America.

For those of you who say "well, Christians of that era were supposed to renounce their faith or die. I don't think that's what Paul meant by "respect the governing authorities." well, here's the thing.

The high priest (of the Sanhedrin) threw Peter and some of the other apostles in jail and ordered them not to preach in the name of Jesus. In jail an "angel of the Lord" visited and released them telling them to preach the message of the gospel in the temple courts. They immediately obeyed and were subsequently brought before the Sanhedrin and asked why they disobeyed the order not to preach. In reply, Peter and the other apostles stated, "we must obey God rather than men!" For this infraction the chief priests had the apostles flogged. The Sanhedrin, though made up of Jewish spiritual leaders, was a governing body authorized by Rome to pronounce sentences and laws for the Jewish people. It would almost certainly qualify as one of the "governing authorities" Paul calls for Christians to submit to in Romans chapter thirteen. In application, there can be tension between the biblical principles of obedience to God and submission to government, but this tension does not create inconsistency. One owes obedience to God at all times, as well as submission to the governing authorities.

http://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=ustlj

From the same link, this is an example of someone in an authoritative position exercising her power and putting this concept into practice:

Many of the characters of the Old Testament addressed this question in times of crises. In 479 B.C., while the nation of Israel was living in exile under Persian rule, the king of Persia chose a young Jew named Esther to be queen. During her reign, and without knowing her ethnicity, the king passed a law calling for the annihilation of every Jew in the province of Persia. Queen Esther revealed her identity to the king and petitioned him to reverse the decree. The king could not reverse the earlier decree, so instead he issued another edict permitting Jews to fight back against any who might come against them. Esther worked within the law and within her office to bring about change.

Lastly, there are those who will cite Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the book of Daniel, who rather than obeying a king's order to bow down before a statue, chose to be thrown into a fiery furnace where God protected them from being burned alive.

The issue is this:

Kim Davis' dilemma is nothing like that. She isn't being made to worship anything other than God, she is being forced to do a job she ran for and was elected to do.

And then the legal aspect:

As the First Amendment states, Government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit free exercise thereof."

What about the other half of that clause you ask? Well there's your problem. If this woman was allowed to refuse licenses based on her faith, that is a blatant endorsement of religion by her employer, the government. Therefore, as government complies with the "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" part, it nullifies the "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" part.

You cannot claim your right to free exercise of religion in order to use your government position to endorse religion by refusing a service based on your religious beliefs. It's the law, whether you or I like it or not.

When she refuses licenses based on her religious beliefs, and on government's behalf, government in general is essentially violating its promise not to endorse a specific religion over another.

I submit that If we are to expect lawful compliance from Obama, we must expect lawful compliance from this clerk. No double standards.

I will no doubt hear others say "But America was founded on Christian principles!" I agree, but those Christian principles also include obedience to God and the law.

I'm sure there are plenty of counterpoints one could make. But my opinion is that she obligated herself to be a steward of the Government, to a secular position. If she cannot abide by that, she should never have run for that position in the first place.

No the homos made it mainstream news all they had to do is drive to a different county and shut the fuck up.

But faggots being me first drama queens like they are had to make a big deal about it.

Why should they be forced to get married outside of the town they live in and pay taxes in?

Ok ....
I pay taxes in my county, the law is no beer served on Sunday,, do I make a big deal about it?

No, If I am out of beer on a Sunday I just drive a few miles to the next county.

Simple as that, I don't hurt no ones feelings...were all good.

No fucking drama.

 

[Ravi]

As we all know Kim Davis is supposedly "standing up for her beliefs" by not issuing marriage licenses to either gay or straight couples because she opposes Gay marriage. She has subsequently been thrown in jail for her refusal to do so. There are conservative leaders like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee declaring that she is being jailed because of her faith. Some are calling her a "martyr." They're all wrong, and I won't fall for that kind of rhetoric. As a Christian (emphasis added), I don't support gay marriage and endorse marriage between a man and a woman. But also as a Christian I don't agree with Kim Davis' behavior. I think under the law gays should be treated equally. She believes she is standing up for her faith, but in reality she is making a spectacle of it. She is putting everyone at a disadvantage.

She wants to take that stand, be a martyr, what have you; but there's a problem, both religious and legal. First, the religious aspect. Below are just two passages from the Bible which command followers to be obedient to government authority, and to authority in general:

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.

Titus 3:1

Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good.

1 Peter 2:13-14

Also, I will hear those quoting Acts 5:29 which they would say would trump (no trump jokes please) Paul's command in Romans, citing Peter's response to the Sanhedrin, by telling us "to obey God's law rather than that of men." Peter would go on to agree with Paul in the book of 1 Peter.

Paul wrote the book of Romans in 57 A.D. in one of the most perilous times for the Early Christian Church under the tyrannical rule of Roman Emperor Nero. Even then, Paul beseeched followers to "be subject to the governing authorities" in Romans 13:1-7. If Christians in that era, even in the face of persecution, could submit to the laws of Rome, one county clerk can do the same in America.

For those of you who say "well, Christians of that era were supposed to renounce their faith or die. I don't think that's what Paul meant by "respect the governing authorities." well, here's the thing.

The high priest (of the Sanhedrin) threw Peter and some of the other apostles in jail and ordered them not to preach in the name of Jesus. In jail an "angel of the Lord" visited and released them telling them to preach the message of the gospel in the temple courts. They immediately obeyed and were subsequently brought before the Sanhedrin and asked why they disobeyed the order not to preach. In reply, Peter and the other apostles stated, "we must obey God rather than men!" For this infraction the chief priests had the apostles flogged. The Sanhedrin, though made up of Jewish spiritual leaders, was a governing body authorized by Rome to pronounce sentences and laws for the Jewish people. It would almost certainly qualify as one of the "governing authorities" Paul calls for Christians to submit to in Romans chapter thirteen. In application, there can be tension between the biblical principles of obedience to God and submission to government, but this tension does not create inconsistency. One owes obedience to God at all times, as well as submission to the governing authorities.

http://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=ustlj

From the same link, this is an example of someone in an authoritative position exercising her power and putting this concept into practice:

Many of the characters of the Old Testament addressed this question in times of crises. In 479 B.C., while the nation of Israel was living in exile under Persian rule, the king of Persia chose a young Jew named Esther to be queen. During her reign, and without knowing her ethnicity, the king passed a law calling for the annihilation of every Jew in the province of Persia. Queen Esther revealed her identity to the king and petitioned him to reverse the decree. The king could not reverse the earlier decree, so instead he issued another edict permitting Jews to fight back against any who might come against them. Esther worked within the law and within her office to bring about change.

Lastly, there are those who will cite Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the book of Daniel, who rather than obeying a king's order to bow down before a statue, chose to be thrown into a fiery furnace where God protected them from being burned alive.

The issue is this:

Kim Davis' dilemma is nothing like that. She isn't being made to worship anything other than God, she is being forced to do a job she ran for and was elected to do.

And then the legal aspect:

As the First Amendment states, Government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit free exercise thereof."

What about the other half of that clause you ask? Well there's your problem. If this woman was allowed to refuse licenses based on her faith, that is a blatant endorsement of religion by her employer, the government. Therefore, as government complies with the "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" part, it nullifies the "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" part.

You cannot claim your right to free exercise of religion in order to use your government position to endorse religion by refusing a service based on your religious beliefs. It's the law, whether you or I like it or not.

When she refuses licenses based on her religious beliefs, and on government's behalf, government in general is essentially violating its promise not to endorse a specific religion over another.

I submit that If we are to expect lawful compliance from Obama, we must expect lawful compliance from this clerk. No double standards.

I will no doubt hear others say "But America was founded on Christian principles!" I agree, but those Christian principles also include obedience to God and the law.

I'm sure there are plenty of counterpoints one could make. But my opinion is that she obligated herself to be a steward of the Government, to a secular position. If she cannot abide by that, she should never have run for that position in the first place.

No the homos made it mainstream news all they had to do is drive to a different county and shut the fuck up.

But faggots being me first drama queens like they are had to make a big deal about it.

Why should they be forced to get married outside of the town they live in and pay taxes in?

Ok ....
I pay taxes in my county, the law is no beer served on Sunday,, do I make a big deal about it?

No, If I am out of beer on a Sunday I just drive a few miles to the next county.

Simple as that, I don't hurt no ones feelings...were all good.

No fucking drama.

Beer is not marriage. There is no logical reason to force a couple to marry outside of their own community.

Btw, you can petition your county to do away with blue laws. And if they do, you can't pick to sell only to heterosexuals.

 

[Wyatt earp]

As we all know Kim Davis is supposedly "standing up for her beliefs" by not issuing marriage licenses to either gay or straight couples because she opposes Gay marriage. She has subsequently been thrown in jail for her refusal to do so. There are conservative leaders like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee declaring that she is being jailed because of her faith. Some are calling her a "martyr." They're all wrong, and I won't fall for that kind of rhetoric. As a Christian (emphasis added), I don't support gay marriage and endorse marriage between a man and a woman. But also as a Christian I don't agree with Kim Davis' behavior. I think under the law gays should be treated equally. She believes she is standing up for her faith, but in reality she is making a spectacle of it. She is putting everyone at a disadvantage.

She wants to take that stand, be a martyr, what have you; but there's a problem, both religious and legal. First, the religious aspect. Below are just two passages from the Bible which command followers to be obedient to government authority, and to authority in general:

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.

Titus 3:1

Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good.

1 Peter 2:13-14

Also, I will hear those quoting Acts 5:29 which they would say would trump (no trump jokes please) Paul's command in Romans, citing Peter's response to the Sanhedrin, by telling us "to obey God's law rather than that of men." Peter would go on to agree with Paul in the book of 1 Peter.

Paul wrote the book of Romans in 57 A.D. in one of the most perilous times for the Early Christian Church under the tyrannical rule of Roman Emperor Nero. Even then, Paul beseeched followers to "be subject to the governing authorities" in Romans 13:1-7. If Christians in that era, even in the face of persecution, could submit to the laws of Rome, one county clerk can do the same in America.

For those of you who say "well, Christians of that era were supposed to renounce their faith or die. I don't think that's what Paul meant by "respect the governing authorities." well, here's the thing.

The high priest (of the Sanhedrin) threw Peter and some of the other apostles in jail and ordered them not to preach in the name of Jesus. In jail an "angel of the Lord" visited and released them telling them to preach the message of the gospel in the temple courts. They immediately obeyed and were subsequently brought before the Sanhedrin and asked why they disobeyed the order not to preach. In reply, Peter and the other apostles stated, "we must obey God rather than men!" For this infraction the chief priests had the apostles flogged. The Sanhedrin, though made up of Jewish spiritual leaders, was a governing body authorized by Rome to pronounce sentences and laws for the Jewish people. It would almost certainly qualify as one of the "governing authorities" Paul calls for Christians to submit to in Romans chapter thirteen. In application, there can be tension between the biblical principles of obedience to God and submission to government, but this tension does not create inconsistency. One owes obedience to God at all times, as well as submission to the governing authorities.

http://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=ustlj

From the same link, this is an example of someone in an authoritative position exercising her power and putting this concept into practice:

Many of the characters of the Old Testament addressed this question in times of crises. In 479 B.C., while the nation of Israel was living in exile under Persian rule, the king of Persia chose a young Jew named Esther to be queen. During her reign, and without knowing her ethnicity, the king passed a law calling for the annihilation of every Jew in the province of Persia. Queen Esther revealed her identity to the king and petitioned him to reverse the decree. The king could not reverse the earlier decree, so instead he issued another edict permitting Jews to fight back against any who might come against them. Esther worked within the law and within her office to bring about change.

Lastly, there are those who will cite Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the book of Daniel, who rather than obeying a king's order to bow down before a statue, chose to be thrown into a fiery furnace where God protected them from being burned alive.

The issue is this:

Kim Davis' dilemma is nothing like that. She isn't being made to worship anything other than God, she is being forced to do a job she ran for and was elected to do.

And then the legal aspect:

As the First Amendment states, Government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit free exercise thereof."

What about the other half of that clause you ask? Well there's your problem. If this woman was allowed to refuse licenses based on her faith, that is a blatant endorsement of religion by her employer, the government. Therefore, as government complies with the "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" part, it nullifies the "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" part.

You cannot claim your right to free exercise of religion in order to use your government position to endorse religion by refusing a service based on your religious beliefs. It's the law, whether you or I like it or not.

When she refuses licenses based on her religious beliefs, and on government's behalf, government in general is essentially violating its promise not to endorse a specific religion over another.

I submit that If we are to expect lawful compliance from Obama, we must expect lawful compliance from this clerk. No double standards.

I will no doubt hear others say "But America was founded on Christian principles!" I agree, but those Christian principles also include obedience to God and the law.

I'm sure there are plenty of counterpoints one could make. But my opinion is that she obligated herself to be a steward of the Government, to a secular position. If she cannot abide by that, she should never have run for that position in the first place.

No the homos made it mainstream news all they had to do is drive to a different county and shut the fuck up.

But faggots being me first drama queens like they are had to make a big deal about it.

Why should they be forced to get married outside of the town they live in and pay taxes in?

Ok ....
I pay taxes in my county, the law is no beer served on Sunday,, do I make a big deal about it?

No, If I am out of beer on a Sunday I just drive a few miles to the next county.

Simple as that, I don't hurt no ones feelings...were all good.

No fucking drama.

Beer is not marriage. There is no logical reason to force a couple to marry outside of their own community.

Btw, you can petition your county to do away with blue laws. And if they do, you can't pick to sell only to heterosexuals.

Quit being a dumb ass, a law is a law, I have no desire to force my will on others, I respect them because they are right on morals...

But I like my budlights when I am watching football...


Again why did they have to be drama queens? For what purpose when they could just hop in a car go to the next county and get it anyways?

That's trying to shove it in your face.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What kind of idiot runs out of beer on a Sunday during football season?

 

[LoneLaugher]

We actually have a person here who thinks it is OK to force people to travel a distance in order to be afforded their civil rights. It's no big deal!

 

[Bonzi]

As we all know Kim Davis is supposedly "standing up for her beliefs" by not issuing marriage licenses to either gay or straight couples because she opposes Gay marriage. She has subsequently been thrown in jail for her refusal to do so. There are conservative leaders like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee declaring that she is being jailed because of her faith. Some are calling her a "martyr." They're all wrong, and I won't fall for that kind of rhetoric. As a Christian (emphasis added), I don't support gay marriage and endorse marriage between a man and a woman. But also as a Christian I don't agree with Kim Davis' behavior. I think under the law gays should be treated equally. She believes she is standing up for her faith, but in reality she is making a spectacle of it. She is putting everyone at a disadvantage.

She wants to take that stand, be a martyr, what have you; but there's a problem, both religious and legal. First, the religious aspect. Below are just two passages from the Bible which command followers to be obedient to government authority, and to authority in general:

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.

Titus 3:1

Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good.

1 Peter 2:13-14

Also, I will hear those quoting Acts 5:29 which they would say would trump (no trump jokes please) Paul's command in Romans, citing Peter's response to the Sanhedrin, by telling us "to obey God's law rather than that of men." Peter would go on to agree with Paul in the book of 1 Peter.

Paul wrote the book of Romans in 57 A.D. in one of the most perilous times for the Early Christian Church under the tyrannical rule of Roman Emperor Nero. Even then, Paul beseeched followers to "be subject to the governing authorities" in Romans 13:1-7. If Christians in that era, even in the face of persecution, could submit to the laws of Rome, one county clerk can do the same in America.

For those of you who say "well, Christians of that era were supposed to renounce their faith or die. I don't think that's what Paul meant by "respect the governing authorities." well, here's the thing.

The high priest (of the Sanhedrin) threw Peter and some of the other apostles in jail and ordered them not to preach in the name of Jesus. In jail an "angel of the Lord" visited and released them telling them to preach the message of the gospel in the temple courts. They immediately obeyed and were subsequently brought before the Sanhedrin and asked why they disobeyed the order not to preach. In reply, Peter and the other apostles stated, "we must obey God rather than men!" For this infraction the chief priests had the apostles flogged. The Sanhedrin, though made up of Jewish spiritual leaders, was a governing body authorized by Rome to pronounce sentences and laws for the Jewish people. It would almost certainly qualify as one of the "governing authorities" Paul calls for Christians to submit to in Romans chapter thirteen. In application, there can be tension between the biblical principles of obedience to God and submission to government, but this tension does not create inconsistency. One owes obedience to God at all times, as well as submission to the governing authorities.

http://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=ustlj

From the same link, this is an example of someone in an authoritative position exercising her power and putting this concept into practice:

Many of the characters of the Old Testament addressed this question in times of crises. In 479 B.C., while the nation of Israel was living in exile under Persian rule, the king of Persia chose a young Jew named Esther to be queen. During her reign, and without knowing her ethnicity, the king passed a law calling for the annihilation of every Jew in the province of Persia. Queen Esther revealed her identity to the king and petitioned him to reverse the decree. The king could not reverse the earlier decree, so instead he issued another edict permitting Jews to fight back against any who might come against them. Esther worked within the law and within her office to bring about change.

Lastly, there are those who will cite Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the book of Daniel, who rather than obeying a king's order to bow down before a statue, chose to be thrown into a fiery furnace where God protected them from being burned alive.

The issue is this:

Kim Davis' dilemma is nothing like that. She isn't being made to worship anything other than God, she is being forced to do a job she ran for and was elected to do.

And then the legal aspect:

As the First Amendment states, Government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit free exercise thereof."

What about the other half of that clause you ask? Well there's your problem. If this woman was allowed to refuse licenses based on her faith, that is a blatant endorsement of religion by her employer, the government. Therefore, as government complies with the "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" part, it nullifies the "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" part.

You cannot claim your right to free exercise of religion in order to use your government position to endorse religion by refusing a service based on your religious beliefs. It's the law, whether you or I like it or not.

When she refuses licenses based on her religious beliefs, and on government's behalf, government in general is essentially violating its promise not to endorse a specific religion over another.

I submit that If we are to expect lawful compliance from Obama, we must expect lawful compliance from this clerk. No double standards.

I will no doubt hear others say "But America was founded on Christian principles!" I agree, but those Christian principles also include obedience to God and the law.

I'm sure there are plenty of counterpoints one could make. But my opinion is that she obligated herself to be a steward of the Government, to a secular position. If she cannot abide by that, she should never have run for that position in the first place.

Yet, Paul and the Apostles broke laws all the time.... standing up for God and preaching about Jesus.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As we all know Kim Davis is supposedly "standing up for her beliefs" by not issuing marriage licenses to either gay or straight couples because she opposes Gay marriage. She has subsequently been thrown in jail for her refusal to do so. There are conservative leaders like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee declaring that she is being jailed because of her faith. Some are calling her a "martyr." They're all wrong, and I won't fall for that kind of rhetoric. As a Christian (emphasis added), I don't support gay marriage and endorse marriage between a man and a woman. But also as a Christian I don't agree with Kim Davis' behavior. I think under the law gays should be treated equally. She believes she is standing up for her faith, but in reality she is making a spectacle of it. She is putting everyone at a disadvantage.

She wants to take that stand, be a martyr, what have you; but there's a problem, both religious and legal. First, the religious aspect. Below are just two passages from the Bible which command followers to be obedient to government authority, and to authority in general:

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.

Titus 3:1

Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good.

1 Peter 2:13-14

Also, I will hear those quoting Acts 5:29 which they would say would trump (no trump jokes please) Paul's command in Romans, citing Peter's response to the Sanhedrin, by telling us "to obey God's law rather than that of men." Peter would go on to agree with Paul in the book of 1 Peter.

Paul wrote the book of Romans in 57 A.D. in one of the most perilous times for the Early Christian Church under the tyrannical rule of Roman Emperor Nero. Even then, Paul beseeched followers to "be subject to the governing authorities" in Romans 13:1-7. If Christians in that era, even in the face of persecution, could submit to the laws of Rome, one county clerk can do the same in America.

For those of you who say "well, Christians of that era were supposed to renounce their faith or die. I don't think that's what Paul meant by "respect the governing authorities." well, here's the thing.

The high priest (of the Sanhedrin) threw Peter and some of the other apostles in jail and ordered them not to preach in the name of Jesus. In jail an "angel of the Lord" visited and released them telling them to preach the message of the gospel in the temple courts. They immediately obeyed and were subsequently brought before the Sanhedrin and asked why they disobeyed the order not to preach. In reply, Peter and the other apostles stated, "we must obey God rather than men!" For this infraction the chief priests had the apostles flogged. The Sanhedrin, though made up of Jewish spiritual leaders, was a governing body authorized by Rome to pronounce sentences and laws for the Jewish people. It would almost certainly qualify as one of the "governing authorities" Paul calls for Christians to submit to in Romans chapter thirteen. In application, there can be tension between the biblical principles of obedience to God and submission to government, but this tension does not create inconsistency. One owes obedience to God at all times, as well as submission to the governing authorities.

http://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=ustlj

From the same link, this is an example of someone in an authoritative position exercising her power and putting this concept into practice:

Many of the characters of the Old Testament addressed this question in times of crises. In 479 B.C., while the nation of Israel was living in exile under Persian rule, the king of Persia chose a young Jew named Esther to be queen. During her reign, and without knowing her ethnicity, the king passed a law calling for the annihilation of every Jew in the province of Persia. Queen Esther revealed her identity to the king and petitioned him to reverse the decree. The king could not reverse the earlier decree, so instead he issued another edict permitting Jews to fight back against any who might come against them. Esther worked within the law and within her office to bring about change.

Lastly, there are those who will cite Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the book of Daniel, who rather than obeying a king's order to bow down before a statue, chose to be thrown into a fiery furnace where God protected them from being burned alive.

The issue is this:

Kim Davis' dilemma is nothing like that. She isn't being made to worship anything other than God, she is being forced to do a job she ran for and was elected to do.

And then the legal aspect:

As the First Amendment states, Government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit free exercise thereof."

What about the other half of that clause you ask? Well there's your problem. If this woman was allowed to refuse licenses based on her faith, that is a blatant endorsement of religion by her employer, the government. Therefore, as government complies with the "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" part, it nullifies the "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" part.

You cannot claim your right to free exercise of religion in order to use your government position to endorse religion by refusing a service based on your religious beliefs. It's the law, whether you or I like it or not.

When she refuses licenses based on her religious beliefs, and on government's behalf, government in general is essentially violating its promise not to endorse a specific religion over another.

I submit that If we are to expect lawful compliance from Obama, we must expect lawful compliance from this clerk. No double standards.

I will no doubt hear others say "But America was founded on Christian principles!" I agree, but those Christian principles also include obedience to God and the law.

I'm sure there are plenty of counterpoints one could make. But my opinion is that she obligated herself to be a steward of the Government, to a secular position. If she cannot abide by that, she should never have run for that position in the first place.

No the homos made it mainstream news all they had to do is drive to a different county and shut the fuck up.

But faggots being me first drama queens like they are had to make a big deal about it.

Don't you people read? Why aren't you upset that she's denying straight couples their licenses too? Or are we always going to be focused on the gay couples? Very one sided some of you are.

They are citizens of that county, and are entitled to get licenses at that clerks office. Why drive to the county next door?

What part of "do your job" do people not understand?

 

[Wyatt earp]

We actually have a person here who thinks it is OK to force people to travel a distance in order to be afforded their civil rights. It's no big deal!

What you and your husband don't/ can't even afford a buss pass?

Why the fuck do you disrespect others?

For what purpose? Why do you have to be such a drama queen?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yet, Paul and the Apostles broke laws all the time

Yet they also preached obedience of the law. The Sanhedrin were puppets of the Roman empire, so he and the Apostles had every right to break their laws. They weren't true representatives of God or his will.

Now, is anyone going to address the fact that she's doing this to straight couples? You know, the ones doing it the right way? No? Why not? Standing up for "God's law" does not involve also breaking a fully legitimate law which is in line with "God's law" because of your opposition to gay marriage. You know, the one that recognizes the union between a man and a woman?

 

[LoneLaugher]

We actually have a person here who thinks it is OK to force people to travel a distance in order to be afforded their civil rights. It's no big deal!

What you and your husband don't/ can't even afford a buss pass?

Why the fuck do you disrespect others?

For what purpose? Why do you have to be such a drama queen?

Pipsqueak nutters often assign their personal attributes to others as you have done here.

 

[Bonzi]

Yet, Paul and the Apostles broke laws all the time

Yet they also preached obedience of the law. The Sanhedrin was a puppet of the Roman empire, so he and the Apostles had every right to break their laws. They weren't true representatives of God or his will.

Now, is anyone going to address the fact that she's doing this to straight couples? You know, the ones doing it the right way? No? Why not? Standing up for "God's law" does not involve also breaking a fully legitimate law which is in line with "God's law." You know, the one that recognizes the union between a man and a woman?

I'm not saying Kim Davis is standing up for Christ or God. I don't know her intentions. She may think she is doing the right thing by God and, she may be doing it for the publicity/attention. Figuring she will get interviews book deals etc.

I'm just saying, breaking the law in and of itself is not sinful. If there is a conflict between man's laws and God's laws, God's laws always will take precedence.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm just saying, breaking the law in and of itself is not sinful. If there is a conflict between man's laws and God's laws, God's laws always will take precedence.

Breaking a legitimate law is in fact sinful, that's where asking forgiveness comes in. I don't disagree with the fact that if the law breaks God's law that we should disobey, but apparently Davis and I have different ideas about what "God's Law" is.

In her defense of Christianity, she is breaking part of the law that does in fact align with God's law. That's where I draw the line.