Kim Davis gets out of jail

[AGBF]

Gotta agree with VR - I do not feel compelled to defend her merely to support the "sisterhood". That's not enough of a reason to get behind someone. Women can get it wrong, too, and she is flat out wrong.

I wouldn't ask anyone to defend Kim Davis due to "sisterhood". I would ask sensible women to oppose misogyny due to "sisterhood", however. And to oppose misogyny due to common sense, of course. Because we are all in this together.

As I said above, I do not defend (or "stand behind") Kim Davis, whose position on same sex marriage is different from mine and conflicts with my understanding of the separation of Church and State in this country. I do defend her from attacks on her appearance and her chastity based on her worth as a woman. Because those attacks are lodged in misogyny and if I allow men to run roughshod over her, they'll run roughshod over me.

Bring back JaneSmith.

AGBF

 

[NonieMarie]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/14/how-kim-davis-violated-the-first-amendment.html

Check this out. George Takei wrote a wonderful piece that explains the second part of the 1st Amendment, The Establishment Clause.
I hope that one of the moderators, during the debate tonight, will ask if any of the candidates truly understands the 1st Amendment.
I really liked his apples to apples comparison of a clerk that would be required to issue firearm licenses. How many of the Fox watching, far right leaning Republicans, would be defending that? You know darn well they would be saying....Get another job!!!!

 

[NonieMarie]

Matata-

I very strongly support same sex marriage and women's rights, two of the causes lauded by the ACLU website on the page to which you provided a link. I am having a problem in this thread seeing a real, sisterly concern for women from some of the women who support gay marriage, though. It is as if as soon as one woman takes what is (in my eyes) an atavistic position about gay rights, that it is all right to to subject her to misogynistic taunts (such as that she needs a makeover).

I think Kim Davis' position is backward and wrong, but that does not make me ready to use her being a woman as a stick with which I can beat her, implying that she is not what a woman should be: pretty, desirable, chaste, virtuous. If I sit back and let her be attacked for being a woman, I am not living up to the ideals espoused by that ACLU website you supposedly support.

The ACLU is fighting hard for women's rights. I don't want to give any up.So I am left defending Kim Davis, although I will never defend her position on gay marriage, because she is a woman in the public eye being abused for her appearance and her lack or chastity. (Move over, Hester Prynne. Where's her scarlet letter?) I think the other women on this forum should be joining me in defending her. And I am glad JaneSmith led the way and that DiamondSeeker spoke up.

AGBF

I agree, lets just look at the law.

 

[ennui]

In today's day and age it is not OK to impose anyone's belief system on anyone else, this is common knowledge and widely accepted amongst theists and atheists alike (a basic tenet of the secularism that the USA was built on). I'm deeply disturbed that not only are people doing this, but they're also being hailed as heroes.

Just to play devil's advocate ... everywhere in the world, someone is imposing their beliefs on someone else. Anytime you have refugees, you have people who don't want to be imposed upon. The Middle East is ripe with groups imposing their beliefs, and ISIS has no problem recruiting young people.

It seems to me that atheists are often imposing their beliefs on the religious folks.

To go back on subject ... aren't the pro-gay marriage folks imposing their beliefs on Kim Davis? It all depends which side of the argument you are on.

(Personally, I don't care either way. I often wonder why anyone wants to get married, at all.)

 

[AGBF]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/14/how-kim-davis-violated-the-first-amendment.html

Check this out. George Takei wrote a wonderful piece that explains the second part of the 1st Amendment, The Establishment Clause.
I hope that one of the moderators, during the debate tonight, will ask if any of the candidates truly understands the 1st Amendment.
I really liked his apples to apples comparison of a clerk that would be required to issue firearm licenses. How many of the Fox watching, far right leaning Republicans, would be defending that? You know darn well they would be saying....Get another job!!!!

Thank you for posting this, NonieMarie. I really enjoyed it. I have posted that I have been co-teaching a citizenship class with another woman (she is an attorney) to immigrants since November of last year. Once, eons ago, I taught high school history. Teaching the citizenship class has been a refresher for me. Both my co-teacher and I feel we could not have passed the citizenship test if we had taken it "cold" (without having used the extensive materials we have at our disposal for teaching over the course of several months). There is always more to learn about our own history and how the documents upon which our republic was founded can be interpreted. It is refreshing to see something so thoughtful posted here.

My parents were Quakers. I loved the example about one taking a job in sporting goods store, then refusing to sell guns.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Matata]

In today's day and age it is not OK to impose anyone's belief system on anyone else, this is common knowledge and widely accepted amongst theists and atheists alike (a basic tenet of the secularism that the USA was built on). I'm deeply disturbed that not only are people doing this, but they're also being hailed as heroes.

Just to play devil's advocate ... everywhere in the world, someone is imposing their beliefs on someone else. Anytime you have refugees, you have people who don't want to be imposed upon. The Middle East is ripe with groups imposing their beliefs, and ISIS has no problem recruiting young people.
If you want to play devil's advocate, do it without faulty logic. There has been a total disruption of society by armed groups who have overthrown weak governments and imposed religious law/beliefs on a helpless society. Darn those refugees for fleeing their countries because they don't want the imposition of starvation, murder, and rape.

It seems to me that atheists are often imposing their beliefs on the religious folks. Specific examples, please. How have religious people been imposed on by atheists outside of the argument for separation of church and state? I don't see how you can even make such a statement considering all of the hoopla about America being a christian nation, yanno, one nation under god.

To go back on subject ... aren't the pro-gay marriage folks imposing their beliefs on Kim Davis? It all depends which side of the argument you are on.
Uh no, it's a matter of the Constitution and the law. They are not asking her to accept them or adopt their beliefs, they are asking that she follow the law and recognize a Constitutional right.

(Personally, I don't care either way. I often wonder why anyone wants to get married, at all.)

 

[Matata]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/14/how-kim-davis-violated-the-first-amendment.html

Thanks for the link!

 

[VRBeauty]

Just to play devil's advocate ... everywhere in the world, someone is imposing their beliefs on someone else. Anytime you have refugees, you have people who don't want to be imposed upon. The Middle East is ripe with groups imposing their beliefs, and ISIS has no problem recruiting young people.

It seems to me that atheists are often imposing their beliefs on the religious folks.

To go back on subject ... aren't the pro-gay marriage folks imposing their beliefs on Kim Davis? It all depends which side of the argument you are on.

(Personally, I don't care either way. I often wonder why anyone wants to get married, at all.)

I think the distinction here is that the courts have ruled that this isn't a question of beliefs, but of civil rights. The Supreme Court has held that people who (in most cases) happen to have been born gay have the right to marry the partner of their choosing, and that to prevent that is to discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation. The Court is not forcing churches to sanction homosexual marriage, but is telling the states - governmental entities - that they cannot discriminate against gay couples who want to get married. Ms Davis is objecting in her role of a governmental official. If the court were forcing her to perform weddings for gay couples in her role (hypothetically) as an ordained minister, your argument would have weight.

The reason I do feel for her is that she was already in the Clerk's position when the law changed, so asking her to quit is also asking her to give up her livelihood. But... she could have allowed her deputies to issue the licenses and chose not to until her hand was forced... so I don't feel too badly for her. In some jurisdictions her stand would prevent her from being re-elected. I'm guessing that's not the case in Kentucky... not for the foreseeable future, anyway.

 

[AGBF]

Matata...Thank you. I would say, "Bless you", but I do not know if it would offend you. I simply didn't have the energy.


Big hugs,
Deb (who cannot abide faulty reasoning)

 

[jordyonbass]

In today's day and age it is not OK to impose anyone's belief system on anyone else, this is common knowledge and widely accepted amongst theists and atheists alike (a basic tenet of the secularism that the USA was built on). I'm deeply disturbed that not only are people doing this, but they're also being hailed as heroes.

Just to play devil's advocate ... everywhere in the world, someone is imposing their beliefs on someone else. Anytime you have refugees, you have people who don't want to be imposed upon. The Middle East is ripe with groups imposing their beliefs, and ISIS has no problem recruiting young people.
If you want to play devil's advocate, do it without faulty logic. There has been a total disruption of society by armed groups who have overthrown weak governments and imposed religious law/beliefs on a helpless society. Darn those refugees for fleeing their countries because they don't want the imposition of starvation, murder, and rape.

It seems to me that atheists are often imposing their beliefs on the religious folks. Specific examples, please. How have religious people been imposed on by atheists outside of the argument for separation of church and state? I don't see how you can even make such a statement considering all of the hoopla about America being a christian nation, yanno, one nation under god.

To go back on subject ... aren't the pro-gay marriage folks imposing their beliefs on Kim Davis? It all depends which side of the argument you are on.
Uh no, it's a matter of the Constitution and the law. They are not asking her to accept them or adopt their beliefs, they are asking that she follow the law and recognize a Constitutional right.

(Personally, I don't care either way. I often wonder why anyone wants to get married, at all.)

Ennui,

Matata has basically said it better than I could, it comes down to civil liberties and not religious belief systems. The fact that some belief systems allow it also indicates that a or a number of religions has tyranny over another, a problem that the US founding fathers sought to remove when they built the government but has since been reintroduced by the people.

Also regarding atheists imposing their beliefs on others; what beliefs were you referring to Ennui? Because it can't be any kind of religious belief per the definition of the word.

 

[telephone89]

Just to play devil's advocate ... everywhere in the world, someone is imposing their beliefs on someone else. Anytime you have refugees, you have people who don't want to be imposed upon. The Middle East is ripe with groups imposing their beliefs, and ISIS has no problem recruiting young people.

It seems to me that atheists are often imposing their beliefs on the religious folks.

To go back on subject ... aren't the pro-gay marriage folks imposing their beliefs on Kim Davis? It all depends which side of the argument you are on.

(Personally, I don't care either way. I often wonder why anyone wants to get married, at all.)

Athiests aren't forcing Kim Davis to marry another woman. Athiests aren't preventing Kim Davis from marrying the Man/Men she wants to.

Religious folk/Kim Davis are trying to prevent gay folk from marrying the Man/woman they want.

How you think this is even close to an adequate argument I'm really baffled. What beliefs are being pushed onto religious folk/Kim Davis?

Not even going to touch your isis argument...

 

[Calliecake]

Sorry Deb, I can't get behind this woman.

I could care less how many times she has been married, how many children she had out of wedlock. That is her business and no one else's. She is breaking the law and she needs to stop or step down from her position.

I am not "behind this woman". I am behind women. I hate the position Kim Davis has taken on same sex marriage and think she should have been held in contempt of court as she was. I think that jail was a perfectly appropriate sentence for her being in contempt. I would not be sad if she were to be impeached, but I see that as an unrealistic possibility given her electorate.

HOWEVER, I remain committed to the notion that no one should criticize Kim Davis, no matter how wrong she is on the issue of separation of Church and State, for her appearance or the number of sexual partners she has had. This is an important principle and one which JaneSmith keeps making. (Thank you, Jane.) I also remain committed to the notion that all children are legitimate children, whether or not their parents are married when they are born.

AGBF

I couldn't not agree with you more Deb.

 

[kenny]

Since ennui brought it up, I'd like to post my understanding of atheism (small a).
Atheists simply do not accept the proposition that there is a god (or are gods).
That's it, nothing more.

Extraordinary claims like gods, or that Leonardo DaVinci lives in your basement, require proof.
The beauty of nature, the complexity of the human body, "but he speaks to me", or holy book X or Y is not proof.

When someone makes an extraordinary claim the burden of proof is on them, not on those who do not accept the extraordinary claim.

Another fine, but actually not so fine, point ... being an atheist does not mean believing there is no god.
Atheist just means not accepting the claim that there is/are god(s).
This may seem contradictory, till you think about it more.

There is no central doctrine or guidelines in atheism.
There are probably as many different kinds of atheists as there are variations of that very popular-in-America religion, not to mention many variations of individuals from the same denomination.
Sure, groups of atheists may clump together to do this or that, but that's not atheism itself; it's the this or that they are doing.

Atheism is not a religion, so discussion does not violate PS rules.
If you'd like to learn more about atheism I'd google up theatheistexperience
It's a local cable-broadcast call-in TV show that's been running in Austin TX for 18 years.
Many episodes are now on Youtube and other hosting sites.
Very informative, and hours of fun.

My favorite host it Matt Dillahunty.
He can be a real @-hole at times, but he's a pretty sharp pencil.

 

[jordyonbass]

Spot on Kenny!

I'd like to point out that there are branches of Buddhism that do not believe in any kind of god or afterlife, they actually qualify as being atheist as per the definition of the word. I believe that scientology may be another but could be wrong as I don't exactly know what their belief system consists of.

 

[Matata]

Extraordinary claims like gods, or that Leonardo DaVinci lives in your basement, require proof.
The beauty of nature, the complexity of the human body, "but he speaks to me", or holy book X or Y is not proof.

When someone makes an extraordinary claim the burden of proof is on them, not on those who do not accept the extraordinary claim.

Kenny, you've brought up the issue of proof before. Proof is required only for those who don't believe. To believe requires faith which is the foundation of most, if not all, religions. Faith is a mystery wrapped in an enigma inside a conundrum. Faith is confidence or trust in someone or something not based on proof. A good argument can be made that faith is proof of deity. I don't believe in deity. I believe in faith. Faith is demonstrated in the actions of myriad people in myriad ways not associated with religion. It is not a viable argument to demand that someone provide quantifiable proof for one side of a dispute and not the other. You and I are as compelled to prove there isn't a deity as we would compel others to prove there is.