Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted September 5, 2015 Moderators Share Posted September 5, 2015 The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention has issued an important statement which may be read at: http://erlc.com/article/need-we-jail-each-other-over-marriage-licenses Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted September 5, 2015 Author Moderators Share Posted September 5, 2015 An important section of the above document is the following: Fourth, we must recognize the crucial difference between the religious liberty claims of private citizens and government officials. Let us be clear: Government employees are entitled to religious liberty, but religious liberty is never an absolute claim, especially when it comes to discharging duties that the office in question requires. While government employees don’t lose their constitutional protection simply because they work for the government, an individual whose office requires them to uphold or execute the law is a separate matter than the private citizen whose conscience is infringed upon as a result of the law. It means the balancing test is different when it comes to government officials because of their roles as agents of the state. Government officials have a responsibility to carry out the law. When an official can no longer execute the laws in question due to an assault on conscience, and after all accommodating measures have been exhausted, he or she could work for change as a private citizen, engaging the democratic process in hopes of changing the questionable law. We must be very clear about the distinctions here between persons acting as an agent of the state and persons being coerced by the state in their private lives. If the definition becomes so murky that we cannot differentiate between the freedom to exercise one’s religion and the responsibility of agents of the state to carry out the law, religious liberty itself will be imperiled. rudywoofs (Pam) and GayatfootofCross 2 Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted September 5, 2015 Author Moderators Share Posted September 5, 2015 NOTE: I have previously locked two threads on this subject. I will continue to lock threads if the discussion goes as it was going in those threads. I have started this thread because I believe that the entire statement at tht URL above contains important items to consider. I hope that any discussion will be appropriate. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted September 5, 2015 Members Share Posted September 5, 2015 quote: Fourth, we must recognize the crucial difference between the religious liberty claims of private citizens and government officials. Let us be clear: Government employees are entitled to religious liberty, but religious liberty is never an absolute claim, especially when it comes to discharging duties that the office in question requires. While government employees don’t lose their constitutional protection simply because they work for the government, an individual whose office requires them to upholdor execute the law is a separate matter than the private citizen whose conscience is infringed upon as a result of the law. It means the balancing test is different when it comes to government officials because of their roles as agents of the state. Government officials have a responsibility to carry out the law. When an official can no longer execute the laws in question due to an assault on conscience, and after all accommodating measures have been exhausted, he or she could work for change as a private citizen, engaging the democratic process in hopes of changing the questionable law. We must be very clear about the distinctions here between persons acting as an agent of the state and persons being coerced by the state in their private lives. If the definition becomes so murky that we cannot differentiate between the freedom to exercise one’s religion and the responsibility of agents of the state to carry out the law, religious liberty itself will be imperiled. I believe that's been the exact consideration that some of us here have been trying to point out. It's good to see it coming from a Christian denomination's official statement. CoAspen 1 Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted September 5, 2015 Members Share Posted September 5, 2015 from a FB friend, on the controversy: On the Kentucky County Clerk: My take on it is that the Supreme Court issued a ruling that same-sex marriage is constitutional and that under our system of government, they get to define what is and isn't constitutional. Kim Davis, however well-meaning she is, doesn't have a mechanism under the Constitution to do what she has tried to do, and therefore she is acting contrary to the law. The only way she can get out from under the law is if the law changes. Practically speaking, it would be horrible form for a public officials to ignore laws that could benefit you just because they don't like the law. Imagine if an official was an atheist and they wouldn't give your church zoning rights because of their beliefs. That would be outrageous. But if Kim Davis were to win her case, that is the right that she would be giving to every other elected official. Religious freedom is a two-way street. Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 I suppose to follow along, a Muslim, Jew or Adventist should, if they work in a grocery store refuse to let people purchase pork or other unclean products. Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 I suppose to follow along, a Muslim, Jew or Adventist should, if they work in a grocery store refuse to let people purchase pork or other unclean products. But it has happened frequently that knowing in advance of hire part of their responsibilty would be to handle those products. Then after hire they refuse on religious grounds and if not accommodated they sue Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Lambert Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 I suppose to follow along, a Muslim, Jew or Adventist should, if they work in a grocery store refuse to let people purchase pork or other unclean products. Stan, God told the Jews that it was OK for them to provide unclean foods or anything that "dies of itself" to Gentiles. "You may give it to the alien who is in your town, so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner, for you are a holy people to the Lord your God." (Deut. 14:21) The problem with the Marriage issue, is consenting to what constitutes a direct and official rebellion against the authority of God who is the One who defined Marriage as being between one man and one woman. This was one of the two institutions by God prior to the entrance of sin. It is significant that official rebellion against God's authority to define Marriage could lead to official rebellion against divine authority to sanctify the Sabbath. I maintain that since homosexuality is not the unpardonable sin, God can pardon or show some tolerance for same-sex unions (just as He does for divorce without Biblical grounds) if they were called anything other than Marriage. That is the problem. Call such unions partnerships, or whatever, and that would be tolerable. Specific laws can address the problems some same-sex couples claim for some hospital and insurance situations. It does not have to be called Marriage. Even divorce shows some respect for God's authority in ordaining Marriage, since divorce recognizes the need for an open, official renunciation of past vows that were made. It is calling anything other than the union of one man and one woman Marriage that is the whole problem. This is the subtle, clever way that Satan is seducing millions of people to separate themselves and all of society from God's favor and protection. When catastrophes and human-caused troubles increase exponentially, then it will become the cry of millions to require everyone to go to church for moral instruction--on Sunday. That is how Satan is sneaking us into the Time of Troubles. The Time of the End has already begun. Wait and see: Not only will wars and revolutions and terrorist attacks and economic travail increase many times more than ever before, but there will be earthquakes and volcanic eruptions more than ever before, and even meteoroid strikes in populated areas unleashing power equivalent to nuclear bombs. When you see these things, you will know that the Time of the End has begun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Amnsn Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 The Baptist statement is interesting. It states, an individual whose office requires them to uphold or execute the law is a separate matter than the private citizen whose conscience is infringed upon as a result of the law. Earlier in the statement they allude to some problems regarding the manner in which "the law" came into being. But then here they assume that a ruling by the Supreme Court creates new "law" that must be upheld or executed by those in public office. When we ask someone to show the County Clerk the actual "law" which she supposedly must uphold, what does that law actually say? From what I've read, the County Clerk in Kentucky is actually upholding the laws that were created in the way that laws are supposed to be created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Lambert Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 But Ron Amnsn, the Supreme Court does not have the power to create law. Read the brilliant minority dissent written by Scalia. He predicted that some officials would refuse to obey what the Supreme Court majority said. Remember, the judgment was 5-4. One person has the right to change law throughout America, on something that has been understood one way for centuries? Just wait until the Supreme Court rules you have to keep Sunday, and are commiting a crime if you keep the Biblical Sabbath. Will the issue be clear to you then? Or will it be too late? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Amnsn Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 But Ron Amnsn, the Supreme Court does not have the power to create law. I agree completely. That is my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Lambert Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Oh, right Ron--that is what you said. OK, I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackdiamond Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 My personal belief is that a government official is obligated to fulfill their duties and if they feel compelled to not then they should willingly step down. It is not appropriate to make a stand by not performing the duties required by the job. bonnie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackdiamond Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 This is a good article on the subject. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/revangelical/2015/09/03/how-kim-daviss-imprisonment-is-a-win-for-religious-liberty.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B/W Photodude Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 3 Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Dismiss Kim Davis as a “Hypocrite” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchrevolution/2015/09/03/three-reasons-not-to-call-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-a-hypocrite/ Quote >>>Texts in blue type are quotes<<< ***************************************************************************** And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. --Shakespeare from Hamlet ***************************************************************************** Bill Liversidge Seminars The Emergent Church and the Invasion of Spiritualism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Amnsn Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 This is a good article on the subject. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/revangelical/2015/09/03/how-kim-daviss-imprisonment-is-a-win-for-religious-liberty.html This article would make sense if a person can define "rule of law" any way they please.When the various states agreed to join together as states under the constitution of the United States, the powers of the new Federal government were intentionally limited to specific areas of law. All the rest of the rights and powers that were not specifically named as granted to the Federal government were to remain in the hands of the individual states and citizens. The marriage certificates that the county clerk refused to issue were issued under the authority of the Kentucky government, not the authority of the Federal government. Is there a Kentucky law that Kim Davis violated? This is a matter of Kentucky law. All the states and citizens should be concerned that the Federal judges are supposedly creating laws outside the jurisdiction that the Constitution gives to the Federal government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) This article would make sense if a person can define "rule of law" any way they please.When the various states agreed to join together as states under the constitution of the United States, the powers of the new Federal government were intentionally limited to specific areas of law. All the rest of the rights and powers that were not specifically named as granted to the Federal government were to remain in the hands of the individual states and citizens. The marriage certificates that the county clerk refused to issue were issued under the authority of the Kentucky government, not the authority of the Federal government. Is there a Kentucky law that Kim Davis violated? This is a matter of Kentucky law. All the states and citizens should be concerned that the Federal judges are supposedly creating laws outside the jurisdiction that the Constitution gives to the Federal government. Can the Supreme Court now make law? Or can they only offer a ruling on a existing law? Has Congress passed a law allowing for same sex marriage or has Congress been by passed? If the Supreme Court cannot make a law and can only rule on a existing law,what law passed by Congress has been broken? In the short term I am not so convinced the gay community hasn't shot themselves in the foot. While they have a lot of clout and support,even among christians that don't believe gay marriage wrong or if it is no big deal,it sounds like a lot of people are getting really angry over the gay push and are prepared to push back. Edited September 5, 2015 by bonnie Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackdiamond Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Her stated objection seems to be based only on her religious beliefs and not whether or not Kentucky state law allows same sex marriage. I don't honestly know if the official state law has been changed, but her religious beliefs should be separate from her government office as the article explains. If she were refusing to issue marriage licenses until the state law changed then you would have a good point, but I don't see her changing even if the state law formally changes or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Her stated objection seems to be based only on her religious beliefs and not whether or not Kentucky state law allows same sex marriage. I don't honestly know if the official state law has been changed, but her religious beliefs should be separate from her government office as the article explains. If she were refusing to issue marriage licenses until the state law changed then you would have a good point, but I don't see her changing even if the state law formally changes or not. I only asked some questions,didn't make a point of the legal standoff at all. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 In the short term I am not so convinced the gay community hasn't shot themselves in the foot. While they have a lot of clout and support,even among christians that don't believe gay marriage wrong or if it is no big deal,it sounds like a lot of people are getting really angry over the gay push and are prepared to push back. This hasn't anything to do with the legal aspects. Because of my business interests I belong to several forums. Some with membership in the thousands. It has been interesting to see the shift,going from majority support for gay marriage to the majority expressing complete disgust with their behavior and desire to force everyone to bend to their will. Some have been asked to deal with this group personally in their business and have refused and have been taught the true meaning of "loving tolerance and kindness" Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Amnsn Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Her stated objection seems to be based only on her religious beliefs and not whether or not Kentucky state law allows same sex marriage. I don't honestly know if the official state law has been changed, but her religious beliefs should be separate from her government office as the article explains. If she were refusing to issue marriage licenses until the state law changed then you would have a good point, but I don't see her changing even if the state law formally changes or not. Yes. As a devout religious person, her religion affects her whole life. That is where she feels the gay marriage issue impinging on her life. She is not a lawyer. It is people, like the Baptists, who are issuing opinions on the matter who should recognize that the County Clerk is upholding the laws that she is required to uphold, rather than some implied law instituted by Federal judges who have no jurisdiction in the matter. I wonder if she took her oath of office with her hand on a Bible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackdiamond Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Yes. As a devout religious person, her religion affects her whole life. That is where she feels the gay marriage issue impinging on her life. She is not a lawyer. It is people, like the Baptists, who are issuing opinions on the matter who should recognize that the County Clerk is upholding the laws that she is required to uphold, rather than some implied law instituted by Federal judges who have no jurisdiction in the matter. I wonder if she took her oath of office with her hand on a Bible? I think she has every right to be against gay marriage, I just think her solution as a government employee is to step away. On a somewhat related topic I had a neighbor tell me that he was considerng going off grid because he couldn't morally pay taxes knowing that the money was going towards abortions. I offered that the Bible teaches to give to Caeser and that I don't think we are personally responsible for how that money is used. I know a military guy that has told me that he serves knowing that at some point he may be forced to refuse to continue depending on the current mission and his Christian calling. The case of the clerk is a little more tricky because of the federal vs. state law issue, but I don't think that matters to her. It is just a legal detail and not the point in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Lambert Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 When I vote for any candidate for any office, I inquire whether this person will vote according to right values. I especially note if the person has Bible-based values. That is the kind of person I want in office--to protect us all from the tyranny of a corrupt group who do not know God or respect His authority. That means that the person will not blindly follow whatever may suddenly become politically correct because five judges out of nine--a mere one person majority--decided to rule that laws explictly defining Marriage as meaning one man and one woman were unconstitutional--even though those laws merely spelled out explictly what has always been believed throughout Western Civilization for two thousand years or more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Amnsn Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 I think she has every right to be against gay marriage, I just think her solution as a government employee is to step away. You think she should step away from an elected position because the law that she is upholding was supposedly annulled during her term in office? There was no conflict between her religious convictions and her duties when she accepted her position as County Clerk. Yet you don't think her employer has any responsibility to accommodate her religious beliefs in such a case? And you want her to step down before the state lawmakers have had a chance to replace the laws that the Supreme Court struck down? Personally, I don't think anyone needs a license to do what God has already given permission to do. And the government has no authority to license or sanction that which God has forbidden. If the five Supreme Court justices want the United States to officially rebel against God, the matter should at least be voted on by the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 So you think this country should not have separation of church and state? Whose interpretation of the Bible should be enforced? GayatfootofCross 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.