Kim Davis - Kentucky's theocratic ruler

[maxparrish]

Folks seem to be stuck on the difference between conduct and effect.

Suppose under a new Constitutional 'discovery', it is found that juvenile offenders older than 8 years old can be executed for homicide. And then suppose some prison official and his assistant executioners refuse to sign the paperwork to execute some ten year olds . They will not participate in, or endorse via their signature, what they believe to be cruel and immoral punishment; but will not resist others from doing so.

Now imagine that some capital punishment cheerleaders shout out "hey they are imposing their beliefs and practices on others". Should we view it that way? Nope.

Why on earth not? This is exactly what they'd be doing.

Whether they'd be right or wrong to be doing it is another question, but it's clearly what they're doing. There is a law in effect that they're supposed to enact and they're refusing to do so. This is using their position of authority to impose their own beliefs and practices on others.

Clearly there remains a disconnect between the google dictionary definitions of the words impose and belief, and the overused cliche. I remain perplexed as to what you (and others) are REALLY trying to say.

Perhaps many of you are REALLY trying to say is "She is (take your choice): setting aside, violating, over-ridding, ignoring, impinging on, flaunting, abusing, the law. She is supplanting or superseding secular law with religious law. I agree that is the effect, regardless if that is, or is not, her intentions.

But she is not "imposing" (making others adopt) her religious beliefs and practices on others. She is, in fact, imposing on her own conduct that she not participate in any manner.

Here's an exercise for clarity: substitute the following sentence with one or two close synonyms.

"Davis and her staff are" FILL IN THE BLANK "their religious beliefs and practices on others".

 

[crazyfingers]

But she is not "imposing" (making others adopt) her religious beliefs and practices on others. She is, in fact, imposing on her own conduct that she not participate in any manner.

Of course she is. Way back when the supreme court ruled that laws that prohibited interracial marriage are unconstitutional they also stated that marriage is a constitutional right. It is a constitutional right for all people who are qualified to marry to get married. Qualifying factors being of legal age, not already married and not yet divorced). Same sex is not a disqualifying factor so it is now a constitutional right for gays to be able to marry. It's not a privilege but an iron-clad right. She has said she was refusing to give out marriage licenses because she objects to gay marriage. Therefore she is denying people what they have as a constitutional right and she's doing on account of her twisted religion and she ordered her staff to do likewise. She ordered her staff to deny what is a constitutional right because of her religious beliefs. That is imposing her religious beliefs onto others. How could it not be interpreted as imposing when she refuses to do the paperwork for which couples have a iron-clad constitutional right to get?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why on earth not? This is exactly what they'd be doing.

Whether they'd be right or wrong to be doing it is another question, but it's clearly what they're doing. There is a law in effect that they're supposed to enact and they're refusing to do so. This is using their position of authority to impose their own beliefs and practices on others.

Clearly there remains a disconnect between the google dictionary definitions of the words impose and belief, and the overused cliche. I remain perplexed as to what you (and others) are REALLY trying to say.

Perhaps many of you are REALLY trying to say is "She is (take your choice): setting aside, violating, over-ridding, ignoring, impinging on, flaunting, abusing, the law. She is supplanting or superseding secular law with religious law. I agree that is the effect, regardless if that is, or is not, her intentions.

But she is not "imposing" (making others adopt) her religious beliefs and practices on others. She is, in fact, imposing on her own conduct that she not participate in any manner.

Here's an exercise for clarity: substitute the following sentence with one or two close synonyms.

"Davis and her staff are" FILL IN THE BLANK "their religious beliefs and practices on others".

Da fuck?

I don't know what dictionary it is that you're using, but it doesn't seem to be the one which comes up in my google searches.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impose

She is doing #2 "to put or set by or as if by authority: to impose one's personal preference on others."

She is using her position to impose her personal preference that gays not get marriage licenses on gays who would like to get marriage licences.

While it's nice that you feel that any defence of her position would be so baseless that you're forced to resort to pedantic parsing of the exact definition of words in order to completely ignore the arguments being made so that you can put yourself on the other side of the criticisms against her without the need to actually mount a defence for her, but the definitions being used are pretty straightforward.

 

[Ford]

intentions.

But she is not "imposing" (making others adopt) her religious beliefs and practices on others. She is, in fact, imposing on her own conduct that she not participate in any manner.

You, like Davis, are consistently wrong.

She is (or was, depending on how she handles herself Monday) explicitly saying that if a citizen of Rowan County does not agree to the strictures of her personal religious beliefs, that person does not have the right to the services of the County Clerk's office - in particular marriage licenses.

She cannot make others believe her religion, but she attempted to impose the restrictions dictated by her religion upon others using the authority of her office.

 

[ZiprHead]

"Davis and her staff are" IMPOSING "their religious beliefs and practices on others", PARTICULARLY GAY PEOPLE, BY BLOCKING THEIR RIGHT TO OBTAIN MARRIAGE LICENSES.

Does that work for you?

 

[Shadowy Man]

That is imposing her religious beliefs onto others.

Because he has no substantive argument in defense of Kim Davis, maxparrish is playing a semantic game in which he is saying that "imposing" one's beliefs on others equals making them believe the same thing. Since the gay couples showing up to get marriage licenses don't walk out believing that gay marriage is a sin (like Kim Davis believes) then she hasn't *technically* imposed her belief on them.

I am willing to grant that he has won the puerile pedantic argument, but he has lost every other argument in her defense.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think I'm going to resurrect that 9/11 Conspiracy Theory thread with the guy who tried to model the collapse with washers and paper loops. I think I found that more fruitful.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I think I'm going to resurrect that 9/11 Conspiracy Theory thread with the guy who tried to model the collapse with washers and paper loops. I think I found that more fruitful.

I loved that thread!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And here we go again:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-expanded-order

Kim Davis -- the Kentucky clerk who stopped issuing all marriage licenses after the Supreme Court gay marriage ruling -- is taking another stab at stopping same-sex marriages in her county.

Her lawyers filed a petition Friday with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asking the court to halt an order by a district judge requiring that marriage licenses be issued to all couples seeking them, Buzzfeed reported.

And it is time to begin sanctioning the lawyers IMHO.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

MAX,

Davis is wrong.

She is also a hypocrite.

She is also a bigot.

She is also a media whore.

She is also short on bravery. (she appears to have about 24 hours worth and I am being generous)


But you keep on defending her, keep trying to make whatever point you think you are making.

We can use the entertainment.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think I'm going to resurrect that 9/11 Conspiracy Theory thread with the guy who tried to model the collapse with washers and paper loops. I think I found that more fruitful.

I loved that thread!

Yea, that was amazing. I loved that guy.

 

[maxparrish]

Clearly there remains a disconnect between the google dictionary definitions of the words impose and belief, and the overused cliche. I remain perplexed as to what you (and others) are REALLY trying to say.

Perhaps many of you are REALLY trying to say is "She is (take your choice): setting aside, violating, over-ridding, ignoring, impinging on, flaunting, abusing, the law. She is supplanting or superseding secular law with religious law. I agree that is the effect, regardless if that is, or is not, her intentions.

But she is not "imposing" (making others adopt) her religious beliefs and practices on others. She is, in fact, imposing on her own conduct that she not participate in any manner.

Here's an exercise for clarity: substitute the following sentence with one or two close synonyms.

"Davis and her staff are" FILL IN THE BLANK "their religious beliefs and practices on others".

Da fuck?

I don't know what dictionary it is that you're using, but it doesn't seem to be the one which comes up in my google searches..

You must have a different Google company. On mine you type "impose" in the search box and the first result is a box informing you of its meaning(s). All the links to other dictionary sites are listed below. That said, your use of the generic dictionary is fine.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impose

She is doing #2 "to put or set by or as if by authority: to impose one's personal preference on others."

She is using her position to impose her personal preference that gays not get marriage licenses on gays who would like to get marriage licences.

Look closely.

"Impose" is an action of "setting by or as if by authority" something tangible, ON something. More accurately to "force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place." EG The Congress "imposes" a tax (a tangible something) on Internet users (persons as objects). The employer imposes 'new wage deductions' on 'office workers'. The boss imposes 'new work rules' on employees.

You might even say, in this sense, that the County Clerk 'imposed' reduced license services "on" county citizens.

But I fail to grasp how one "imposes" a religious belief or practice on others WITHOUT ACTUALLY DOING SO.

Did she force or coerce any citizen to believe what she believed? No.
Did she force or coerce anyone to pursue her religious practice on any citizen? No.
Did she force something unwelcome (religious belief) to be accepted or put in place? No.

Even my most generous view does not suffice to save your argument - that she 'imposed' her desire to end marriage services 'on' county couples seeking such service from her office. (Even so, the decision to provide services was never in the hands of the specific couples, but it that of the State of Kentucky).

While it's nice that you feel that any defence of her position would be so baseless that you're forced to resort to pedantic parsing of the exact definition of words in order to completely ignore the arguments being made so that you can put yourself on the other side of the criticisms against her without the need to actually mount a defence for her, but the definitions being used are pretty straightforward.

I am not being pedantic. I am criticizing a phrase, a figure of speech, that is an imprecise cliche'...a emotion charged but intellectually dubious criticism.

If you want to know what "imposing" an ideological belief system is you might start reading the Gulag Archipelago or the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Not a news blurb about a nobody, in a nobody rural county, not wanting to put her name on marriage licenses.

 

[crazyfingers]

And here we go again:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-expanded-order

Kim Davis -- the Kentucky clerk who stopped issuing all marriage licenses after the Supreme Court gay marriage ruling -- is taking another stab at stopping same-sex marriages in her county.

Her lawyers filed a petition Friday with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asking the court to halt an order by a district judge requiring that marriage licenses be issued to all couples seeking them, Buzzfeed reported.

And it is time to begin sanctioning the lawyers IMHO.

I wonder if knowingly filing stupid appeals can be found to be a crime.

In any case, this is starting to smell more like it's the lawyers from the "Liberty Council", closely associated with Liberty University founded by Jerry Falwell, are now just trying to stay in the limelight so that those donations from the theocratic Christinists will keep coming in to pay their bill.

 

[bilby]

Da fuck?

I don't know what dictionary it is that you're using, but it doesn't seem to be the one which comes up in my google searches..

You must have a different Google company. On mine you type "impose" in the search box and the first result is a box informing you of its meaning(s). All the links to other dictionary sites are listed below. That said, your use of the generic dictionary is fine.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impose

She is doing #2 "to put or set by or as if by authority: to impose one's personal preference on others."

She is using her position to impose her personal preference that gays not get marriage licenses on gays who would like to get marriage licences.

Look closely.

"Impose" is an action of "setting by or as if by authority" something tangible, ON something. More accurately to "force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place." EG The Congress "imposes" a tax (a tangible something) on Internet users (persons as objects). The employer imposes 'new wage deductions' on 'office workers'. The boss imposes 'new work rules' on employees.

You might even say, in this sense, that the County Clerk 'imposed' reduced license services "on" county citizens.

But I fail to grasp how one "imposes" a religious belief or practice on others WITHOUT ACTUALLY DOING SO.

Did she force or coerce any citizen to believe what she believed? No.
Did she force or coerce anyone to pursue her religious practice on any citizen? No.
Did she force something unwelcome (religious belief) to be accepted or put in place? No.

Even my most generous view does not suffice to save your argument - that she 'imposed' her desire to end marriage services 'on' county couples seeking such service from her office. (Even so, the decision to provide services was never in the hands of the specific couples, but it that of the State of Kentucky).

While it's nice that you feel that any defence of her position would be so baseless that you're forced to resort to pedantic parsing of the exact definition of words in order to completely ignore the arguments being made so that you can put yourself on the other side of the criticisms against her without the need to actually mount a defence for her, but the definitions being used are pretty straightforward.

I am not being pedantic. I am criticizing a phrase, a figure of speech, that is an imprecise cliche'...a emotion charged but intellectually dubious criticism.

If you want to know what "imposing" an ideological belief system is you might start reading the Gulag Archipelago or the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Not a news blurb about a nobody, in a nobody rural county, not wanting to put her name on marriage licenses.

What you are doing is demonstrating that your belief in your own competence with regards to the use of the English language is massively greater than the reality.

The 'passive resistance' approach that you seem to believe KA was taking would in fact have comprised her resigning her position. Staying in place, and thereby blocking anyone else from doing the job she refused to do, is (whether you grasp it or not) an imposition.

Your choices at this point are either to accept that you were wrong, or to continue to be wrong. 'Persuade everyone that you are right' is not on the table, so if that's what you are trying for, you are wasting your time and effort in pursuit of a mirage.

 

[maxparrish]

MAX,

Davis is wrong.

She is also a hypocrite.

She is also a bigot.

She is also a media whore.

She is also short on bravery. (she appears to have about 24 hours worth and I am being generous)


But you keep on defending her, keep trying to make whatever point you think you are making.

We can use the entertainment.

You should have stopped at "Davis is wrong" - on that we agree.

If you wish to judge a book by its cover, her beastly size and tacky clothing does remind me of Madalyn Murray O'Hair - one of the nastiest, most narcissistic, crackpotty media whores to infect the public life of the 20th century. One can imagine all sorts of things about the physically repulsive Ms Davis - arrogance, self righteousness, unstable, etc.

But so far I see little evidence that, today, she is any of those things. There is no evidence of hypocrisy, bigotry, media whoring, or cowardice. Her courtroom behavior does not seem brazen or defiant, and in fact she has been in tears and, upon her release, looking rather frazzled, grateful, and shell shocked. And like anyone normally law abiding citizen who has survived the trauma of jail, she is enjoying the crowd's emotional support.

After leading a chaotic low-life (Davis has been divorced three times) her dying mother-in-law expressed her wish she attend church. She attending a Bible-believing church and she said: “There I heard a message of grace and forgiveness and surrendered my life to Jesus Christ.” She became a born-again Christian, remarried, became active in her church, and now leads a Bible study at the local jail.

Regarding homosexuals, Davis declares, “I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will.” On this controversy, “To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s Word. It is a matter of religious liberty,”.

She seems to be a devout, nervous, and lonely crusader. Beat up by just about everybody until she took heart in the crowds and visit by Huckabee.

I am, and have always been, either an agnostic or atheist. Since the age of 13 I have debated, mocked, poked and denounced fundamentalists. While they have entertained me in their homes (trying to convert me), taken me to revivals, and one became my lifelong childhood friend (a devout Jehovah's Witness who I "turned" to atheism), I have not found them the odious scum most here believe. In fact, some have been really nice people (shocking I know). (I even attended a Baptist University for a time).

There is, of course, a great deal of silly stupidity among her supporters. The crowd looks like a recasting of the yahoo's in "Inherit the Wind" (photo below) and ripe for an HL Mencken skewering of the "Coca-Cola" (or "Dr. Pepper") belt. Her overall clad husband is ripe for Hee-haw. And it is also sad to see so many benighted people carry dumb signs and rally for a cause they don't understand...rube rebels without a clue for a clause.

Yes, fools grow on trees (I live in the SF Bay Area) so it is not a shock. But being a fool is not the same as being intentionally evil. And so far, I don't see it.

The "Gimmie that Old Time Religion" :

 

[AthenaAwakened]

MAX,

Davis is wrong.

She is also a hypocrite.

She is also a bigot.

She is also a media whore.

She is also short on bravery. (she appears to have about 24 hours worth and I am being generous)


But you keep on defending her, keep trying to make whatever point you think you are making.

We can use the entertainment.

You should have stopped at "Davis is wrong" - on that we agree.

If you wish to judge a book by its cover, her beastly size and tacky clothing does remind me of Madalyn Murray O'Hair - one of the nastiest, most narcissistic, crackpotty media whores to infect the public life of the 20th century. One can imagine all sorts of things about the physically repulsive Ms Davis - arrogance, self righteousness, unstable, etc.

But so far I see little evidence that, today, she is any of those things. There is no evidence of hypocrisy, bigotry, media whoring, or cowardice. Her courtroom behavior does not seem brazen or defiant, and in fact she has been in tears and, upon her release, looking rather frazzled, grateful, and shell shocked. And like anyone normally law abiding citizen who has survived the trauma of jail, she is enjoying the crowd's emotional support.

After leading a chaotic low-life (Davis has been divorced three times) her dying mother-in-law expressed her wish she attend church. She attending a Bible-believing church and she said: “There I heard a message of grace and forgiveness and surrendered my life to Jesus Christ.” She became a born-again Christian, remarried, became active in her church, and now leads a Bible study at the local jail.

Regarding homosexuals, Davis declares, “I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will.” On this controversy, “To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s Word. It is a matter of religious liberty,”.

She seems to be a devout, nervous, and lonely crusader. Beat up by just about everybody until she took heart in the crowds and visit by Huckabee.

I am, and have always been, either an agnostic or atheist. Since the age of 13 I have debated, mocked, poked and denounced fundamentalists. While they have entertained me in their homes (trying to convert me), taken me to revivals, and one became my lifelong childhood friend (a devout Jehovah's Witness who I "turned" to atheism), I have not found them the odious scum most here believe. In fact, some have been really nice people (shocking I know). (I even attended a Baptist University for a time).

There is, of course, a great deal of silly stupidity among her supporters. The crowd looks like a recasting of the yahoo's in "Inherit the Wind" (photo below) and ripe for an HL Mencken skewering of the "Coca-Cola" (or "Dr. Pepper") belt. Her overall clad husband is ripe for Hee-haw. And it is also sad to see so many benighted people carry dumb signs and rally for a cause they don't understand...rube rebels without a clue for a clause.

Yes, fools grow on trees (I live in the SF Bay Area) so it is not a shock. But being a fool is not the same as being intentionally evil. And so far, I don't see it.

Actually there is a shit ton of evidence and it had been presented REPEATEDLY in these 30+ pages. You just dismissed it because it proves not Davis wrong BUT YOU.

And as being intentional evil, no Klansman at a lynching ever considered himself intentionally evil. No guard at a concentration camp considered himself intentionally evil. And yet evil is exactly what they did.

None who voted for Bull Connor thought themselves installing evil in office, but they were. None who write checks to tv preachers think they are supporting a lie that costs lives every year, but they are.

Most bigots, most hypocrites, don't see themselves as such, but they are.

Does this woman have sincerely held beliefs? I am sure she does, but she has yet to do them justice either by word or deed. She 's hanging out with clowns and turning her cause into a joke. All the while she looks into the cameras, snake-fascinated by it all.

But you keep plugging away MAX.

Keep up the good fight.

 

[credoconsolans]

It's pretty obvious Max is arguing just to be arguing.

A US District Court Judge does not agree with his argument or Davis', the Supreme Court did not deign to even hear Davis' appeals, legal precedent has already been set in several earlier cases where defendants argued that they had the right to act against another person because their religion gave them permission to (in one case it was rape). In every case, they lost. Yet max thinks he knows more law and constitutionality than those judges and a US district court judge with 24 years of legal experience under his belt.

Don't bother to keep arguing, max.

You do not have a legal leg to stand on and neither does Davis.

 

[Ford]

Regarding homosexuals, Davis declares, “I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will.” On this controversy, “To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s Word. It is a matter of religious liberty,”

With the notable exception of the Wesboro Baptists, just about every anti-gay religious outfit in this country will say "well of course we don't hate homosexuals! God says hate the sin, love the sinner, after all!."

Then they proceed to treat them as if they hated the sin, the sinner, and anyone defending those who dare to be born gay.

As for her claim it isn't a gay or lesbian issue, that demonstrates a level of ignorance that is hard to believe is not deliberate. When you've got a gay couple in front of you begging for a marriage license and you refuse because "God" told you that you can't give it to the gays, then there's just about no way you can claim you didn't understand what was going on.

I think we've covered the "religious liberty" aspect here quite thoroughly.

She seems to be a devout, nervous, and lonely crusader. Beat up by just about everybody until she took heart in the crowds and visit by Huckabee.

What was it you said about judging a book by it's cover? You're doing that, too. Her supporters - including the lawyers and politicians - have worked very hard to craft the image of this woman which you just described. That is the image they want you to see. "oh look at this poor woman...she's just fighting for her religious liberty!" The people who are building this narrative for her (and I'm guessing she's not in charge of the messaging) want you to propagate this idea that she's a devout victim, rather than a person wielding the power of her office in order to victimize others.

 

[maxparrish]

To warm the caring hearts of talkfreethought...

https://www.facebook.com/supportkimdavis

http://www.koreaboo.com/trending/siwon-confirms-stance-sex-marraige/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/north-carolina-magistrates-opt-out-performing-marriages

Food for thought:

First they came for the photographers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a photographer.

Then they came for the bakers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a baker.

Then they came for the County Clerks, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a County Clerk.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[bilby]

To warm the caring hearts of talkfreethought...

https://www.facebook.com/supportkimdavis

http://www.koreaboo.com/trending/siwon-confirms-stance-sex-marraige/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/north-carolina-magistrates-opt-out-performing-marriages

Food for thought:

First they told the photographers to grow up and behave like civilised human beings, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a photographer.

Then they told the bakers to grow up and behave like civilised human beings, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a baker.

Then they told the County Clerks to grow up and behave like civilised human beings, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a County Clerk.

Then they told me—and there was no one who wanted to listen to my tantrum at being told to grow up and become civilised.

FTFY.

Nobody's interested in picking up your toys anymore, Max. It's time to grow up and behave like a civilised human being.

People objecting to being persecuted are not persecuting you; you are not being oppressed by people demanding that you treat them equally.