Pope Francis backs Kim Davis

[dude]

Well, the 'Rock Star' pope has meddled again, this time into the US Constitution backing County clerk Kim Davis' refusal to carry out the duties of her office.

This pope has finally been revealed to be just what he is... a ruthless, manipulative politician with delusions of grandeur. May he never show his double face on American soil again!

[Cole Parker]

There's another way to look at it. He said everyone has the right to be a conscientious objector. He didn't say she was right to break the laws of the land. I know, it's a fine line with her, but I had the impression he was talking more about her having a right to her beliefs than he was advocating civil disobedience. I doubt he's in favor of that.

C

[FreeThinker]

This is what happens when large segments of society are guided by mysticism, superstition, and wishful thinking rather than by logic, reason, and empirical data. Will we forever be controlled by the Bronze Age mythology of an insignificant tribe of goat-herders in the Middle Eastern desert?

[larkin]

One of the aspects rarely mentioned when people like Ms Davis objects to tolerance towards homosexuality in defense of a religious conviction, is that it was these very same prejudges that were used to destroy lives in prison, insane asylums and often overlooked, the German extermination camps.

Many people subscribing to Ms Davis' religious beliefs actually approve of these remedies that justify the religious freedom to oppress others.

Ask yourself why this idiot receives so much encouragement and support?

[Nigel Gordon]

A couple of points. First the meeting was not secret, it was private, there is a difference. It was listed on the list of the Popes engagements for that date as one of a number of private audiences. Second, as Cole pointed out what the Pope has said is that everybody has the right to conscientious objection - this does not mean she has the right to break the law of the land. The papal position, so far as it has been made clear, is that if a person finds that their duty in a specific role is contrary to their conscience then they have right absent themselves from that role. They do not have the right to act in a manner which stops others from undertaking that role.

[Chris James]

I think most of us are disgusted at this woman who seems to think she can ignore the laws and go on sucking off the taxpayers tit. But since she is elected by the ignorance of her country's residents then she needs to be tried in a court of law for malfeasance in office and found guilty which will vacate her position.

Since she seems to find a position as conscientious objector quite comfortable and in line with her religious beliefs then perhaps a demotion to dog catcher or meter maid would suit her better. I totally get the argument that there was no gay marriage when she was put in office and in her ignorance she didn't see that coming. But if government officials cannot adapt to changing laws then they have no place in the system. Jesus doesn't sign her paycheck.

[Nigel Gordon]

It is clearly established in common law from the 16th century that if a conscientious objector cannot reconcile his or her legal duties under the office they hold with the beliefs they hold, then they must step down from the office. As this piece of common law predates the Declaration of Independence, it holds just as much in the States as it does in the UK. Failure to step down amounts to malfeasance in public office.

[ChrisR]

Almost 50 years ago, the men of the Stonewall riots took up the mantle of civil disobedience to change something they felt was unjust. Many of them paid a fearsome price, but in the long run we all share in the rewards that are (gradually) coming forth from their sacrifice. Seems that people who have benefited from things like that should be the first to understand -- and yes, vehemently disagree with -- this woman. But it can be done without the vitriol and malice expressed so far.

She will pay the price for her actions, as is right and proper. In the video she even acknowledges that she recognizes this fact and it is worth it to her. Fine. So let the law take its course.

And keep in mind that it is adherents to the laws of ancient middle east goat herders who have changed these laws. Modernized, if you will. Nothing wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with a man who disagrees with those changes for whatever reasons to console a person who shares his views in a private meeting. It is, pardon the expression, their right.

[colinian]

Kim Davis is a tool of the devil.

Colin

[Nigel Gordon]

Kim Davis is a tool of the devil.

Colin

I can assure you the Devil has better taste!

[Nigel Gordon]

It seems that it was not only Kim Davis who had a private audience with the Pope in the Washington Embassy. Another were a gay couple:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2015/10/Screen_Shot_2015_10_02_at_1.24.27_PM/lead_large.jpg?1443806943

[colinian]

Kim must be turning in her grave.

Colin

[Chris James]

Finally...the mainstream media is wising up to Kim Davis and her legal representatives. The gay media has been on to Matt Staver and his ilk for years.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/law-firm-labeled-hate-group-leading-davis-crusade/ar-AAf5HJh?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=LENDHP

[TalonRider]

That's the bad thing about pictures. They can be taken to mean one thing when taken and then later on, used for something totally different.