Kim Davis - even Fox News thinks her case is fruityloopy
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Pope Francis has been trying to give people the impression that he is a liberal dude. In fact, as was tolerably plain all along, he is just as much of a hatey medieval fruitloop as the last two Popes. He met with Davis and offered her his support. Catholicism, the hatey death cult that just keeps on giving!
Disappointing.Very disappointing.
He's said a lot of apparently laudable things since becoming Pope but this was a poor decision.
Even this new supposedly people and PR friendly Pope is a nut bag. His comments on Charlie Hebdo, cynically saying "God weeps" at child abuse which seems little better than trolling rape victims ,and now meeting another fruit loop to continue the 'we hate gays' stance without actually having much ability to openly just say it in 2015.
I preferred the last one. At least he looked like the nasty piece of work he was. This one is fooling more with appearing to talk some sense on climate change and winning people over that way.
I preferred the last one. At least he looked like the nasty piece of work he was. This one is fooling more with appearing to talk some sense on climate change and winning people over that way.
http://newsthump.com/2015/09/28/god-weeps-at-child...
"Our Lord weeps when he thinks of your suffering, but not like how you weep when you care enough to want to take action.”
“It’s more like when you’re watching a sad film and you go ‘Oh, that’s sad’, grab a tissue, but then get on with your day and forget about it.”
“It’s not that God doesn’t love you, it’s just that he has more important things to be doing than taking direct action to stop priests fiddling with children.”
“You know that ‘mysterious ways’ thing we use to excuse the inexcusable? Well this is one of those.”
“Direct intervention in human activities on Earth is not something God is willing to do – unless it’s for something really important, you know, like putting his son’s face in some toast, or making a statue cry.”
“That takes a lot of energy, and he doesn’t have much energy left to think about ending any human suffering once the toast and statues are finished.”
“Anyway, the donation plate is over there, please give generously.”
"Our Lord weeps when he thinks of your suffering, but not like how you weep when you care enough to want to take action.”
“It’s more like when you’re watching a sad film and you go ‘Oh, that’s sad’, grab a tissue, but then get on with your day and forget about it.”
“It’s not that God doesn’t love you, it’s just that he has more important things to be doing than taking direct action to stop priests fiddling with children.”
“You know that ‘mysterious ways’ thing we use to excuse the inexcusable? Well this is one of those.”
“Direct intervention in human activities on Earth is not something God is willing to do – unless it’s for something really important, you know, like putting his son’s face in some toast, or making a statue cry.”
“That takes a lot of energy, and he doesn’t have much energy left to think about ending any human suffering once the toast and statues are finished.”
“Anyway, the donation plate is over there, please give generously.”
Breadvan72 said:
Pope Francis has been trying to give people the impression that he is a liberal dude. In fact, as was tolerably plain all along, he is just as much of a hatey medieval fruitloop as the last two Popes. He met with Davis and offered her his support. Catholicism, the hatey death cult that just keeps on giving!
We only have her word as to what was actually said.Unfortunately America is pretty split on the issue of gay marriage and she's a hero to many. You have to live here to understand how religious this country is compared to the UK.
Breadvan72 said:
The Vatican has comnfirmed the meeting and has not denied the report that the Pope told Davis to "stay strong". Is it really conceivable that he met Davis in order to tell her not to be so silly and to get on with her job? Watcha reckon?
Let me give you a clue why he might not have said that.The clue is that the Catholic Church regards homosexuality as a sin and are not prepared to marry same sex couples.
News.Mic said:
On his flight back to Rome, Francis told a reporter he felt government officials had a right to conscientious objection when fulfilling the duties of their office violated their religious convictions. The original question specifically cited marriage equality as an example.
"Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right," said Francis. "And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."
This is crazy stuff. No one conscripted Davis into an army and ordered her to shoot people. If the Pope wants the principle of conscientious objection to apply to all laws, what of the anarchist who conscientiously believes that a law against theft is a bad law? What of the libertarian who conscientiously believes that a tax law is immoral? What of the Satanist who conscientiously believes that human sacrifice is not murder?"Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right," said Francis. "And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."
Breadvan72 said:
This is crazy stuff. No one conscripted Davis into an army and ordered her to shoot people. If the Pope wants the principle of conscientious objection to apply to all laws, what of the anarchist who conscientiously believes that a law against theft is a bad law? What of the libertarian who conscientiously believes that a tax law is immoral? What of the Satanist who conscientiously believes that human sacrifice is not murder?
You have your tin foil well and truly glued on there. Izzarding in this particular situation doesn't work. Everyone can think of extreeme examples which would make a rule break. It still doesn't detract from the moral rights a person has when they go about their life.What you are advocating is the end of religious beliefs, or at least religious belief that can be turned off like a switch from 9am to 5pm weekdays.
As an athiest I see religion as a form of disability, and perhaps as an athiest you could try to look at it in the same way. Under employment law the employer has a duty to try an accomodate disabilities within the working environment. Part of the problem here is that the employer has put this person in a position where their disability is highlighted as an inability to do her job in a way that is acceptable with most people expectations. Rather like an employer asking a wheelchair bound person to become a postman.
There are many ways her employer could have organised her work where her diability would never have posed such a problem.
Davis chose her job. In fact, she was elected to do that job. She was not placed in a difficult position by an unthinking employer. She placed herself there. Now she wants her job description to read "martyr". You would privilege her elective attribute (belief) above the non elective attributes of others (sexual orientation). The law (in the UK as well as in the US) disagrees with you, and places non elective attributes above elective attributes in the hierarchy of legal protection.
As for tinfoilery, the examples of the anarchist and the libertarian are real world examples, and the more extreme Satanist example is merely a further step along the path that the Pope, Huckabee and others propose that we should follow. If citizens can choose to disregard laws that they disagree with, then the law has no universality, and society reverts to the atomised state that Hobbes, Locke and others warn us against.
If someone says what of the racist laws of the Old South pre Civil Rights, of Nazi Germany, and of Apartheid South Africa, and what of the brutalities of Sharia law, those so called laws can be said to lack legitimacy, being instruments of tyranny, not of civil society. Locke guided the American Founding Fathers on lawful resistance to tyranny, but Locke did not advocate an opt in and opt out system of law, any more than his disciple Jefferson did.
As for tinfoilery, the examples of the anarchist and the libertarian are real world examples, and the more extreme Satanist example is merely a further step along the path that the Pope, Huckabee and others propose that we should follow. If citizens can choose to disregard laws that they disagree with, then the law has no universality, and society reverts to the atomised state that Hobbes, Locke and others warn us against.
If someone says what of the racist laws of the Old South pre Civil Rights, of Nazi Germany, and of Apartheid South Africa, and what of the brutalities of Sharia law, those so called laws can be said to lack legitimacy, being instruments of tyranny, not of civil society. Locke guided the American Founding Fathers on lawful resistance to tyranny, but Locke did not advocate an opt in and opt out system of law, any more than his disciple Jefferson did.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 2nd October 09:16
Breadvan72 said:
David chose her job. In fact, she was elected to do that job. She was not placed in a difficult position by an unthinking employer. She placed herself there. Now she wants her job description to read "martyr". You would privilege her elective attribute (belief) above the non elective attributes of others (sexual orientation). The law (in the UK as well as in the US) disagrees with you, and places non elective attributes above elective attributes in the hierarchy of legal protection.
As for tinfoilery, the examples of the anarchist and the libertarian are real world examples, and the more extreme Satanist example is merely a further step along the path that the Pope, Huckabee and others propose that we should follow. If citizens can choose to disregard laws that they disagree with, then the law has no universality, and society reverts to the atomised state that Hobbes, Locke and others warn us against.
If someone says what of the racist laws of the Old South pre Civil Rights, of Nazi Germany, and of Apartheid South Africa, and what of the brutalities of Sharia law, those so called laws can be said to lack legitimacy, being instruments of tyranny, not of civil society. Locke guided the American Founding Fathers on lawful resistance to tyranny, but Locke did not advocate an opt in and opt out system of law, any more than his disciple Jefferson did.
But she works in America. A land where they have just legitimised her point of view by the way they have recieved the pope. At best for these sort of people that is a mixed message, and at worst it strengthens the idea that she is right. I didn't see the two house of congress comming together to challenge the pope on some of his more outlandish views vs the american statues. I saw them using his statements as political footballs and point scoring. If you are going to reach for your uptopian world of order at least you need to show your people a consistent face.As for tinfoilery, the examples of the anarchist and the libertarian are real world examples, and the more extreme Satanist example is merely a further step along the path that the Pope, Huckabee and others propose that we should follow. If citizens can choose to disregard laws that they disagree with, then the law has no universality, and society reverts to the atomised state that Hobbes, Locke and others warn us against.
If someone says what of the racist laws of the Old South pre Civil Rights, of Nazi Germany, and of Apartheid South Africa, and what of the brutalities of Sharia law, those so called laws can be said to lack legitimacy, being instruments of tyranny, not of civil society. Locke guided the American Founding Fathers on lawful resistance to tyranny, but Locke did not advocate an opt in and opt out system of law, any more than his disciple Jefferson did.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 2nd October 08:35
Even if that were possible in such a religious country as the US, I stand by the statement that the law was never, and will never be the main reason people do things, and to be honest I'm quite thankful for that. A world where people had no moral compass beyond that which was written in law would be a dire place indeed.
Lastly I would say, I'm pretty sure this woman is a fruitloop, but she isn't the problem.
This puts a slightly different perspective on it.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/kim-davis-pope/in...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/kim-davis-pope/in...
So, the Pope goes to the US, has some high level meetings, does some walkabouts and conducts some big Masses, addresses the UN and then visits, of all the people in the USA, a usually obscure individual who isn't even a Catholic but who is embroiled in a big issue of church vs state and gay rights, and that isn't an endorsement of that individual. Yeah, right. Remind me again how many private meetings the Pope had with ordinary citizens whose views he might not necessarily agree with? A gay couple unable to marry in Davis' bailliwick, maybe? Errrrm....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff