Regarding Kentucky's own Kim Davis and her many zany religious right defenders:
Friends, it's just not that hard.
I
We have religious liberties in this nation. And that is a very good thing. No one can take away our right to worship or follow God as we see fit, the government can not come in and force you to have an abortion against your will, or force you guys to marry a guy if you don't want, or force you to abandon your religious beliefs in any way. That is not happening in this country.
II
To those who whine and worry about "losses" of religious liberties because of cases like Davis, stop it. It makes you appear whiny, impotent and irrational. We're all embarrassed for you. Just stop it, for your own sake. If you truly believe what you believe, then learn to say it in a different way, you're undermining your own case by presenting yourself as whiny, irrational and immoral. Make your case on a respectful adult level, not appealing to false demons and socialist tyrant boogety-men.
III
We have religious liberties in this nation. Those who are saying that Davis needs to do her job are defending religious liberties. Do you understand this? Because it appears you don't (see point II).
IV
Your religious freedom is something you rightly enjoy. You ARE FREE to make your own decisions for yourself based upon your personal values and beliefs. Congratulations. We live in a free nation.
BUT (and this is the vital point), your religious freedoms end at you getting to make your own decisions for yourself. You do NOT have the religious "liberty" to tell other people how they must act and what they can and cannot do. IF your religious views insist that you get to tell other people how to live, well, in that case, you do not have that specific religious liberty. Sorry, but you don't (as long as the others' behavior is not causing harm, anyway).
V
Illustrations
So, if you are in a job whose responsibilities involving providing alcohol licenses and you don't believe in alcohol being available: YOU DO NOT GET TO REFUSE TO PROVIDE ALCOHOL LICENSES. If you don't believe in selling alcohol, you do have the religious liberty to step down from that job (or not take it in the first place), but you do not have the religious liberty to make that call for others. You just don't.
If you enroll in the army and you are a Quaker or Amish or other Peace Religion, you do NOT GET TO SAY, "I WON'T DO THIS JOB." You are free to resign from the army as an CO, but you don't get to keep the job and simultaneously refuse to do the job. You just don't have that religious liberty.
IF you are in a job that, initially, you could perform the duties within your religious belief system, but the job changes (or your views change), you have the religious liberty to resign from the job so you don't have to do what is against your beliefs, but you don't have the religious liberty to keep the job and refuse to perform the duties of that job. You just don't have that religious liberty.
VI
In conclusion:
It's just not that difficult.
You DO have religious liberty.
You are NOT being oppressed.
Don't claim that you are being oppressed, it makes you look wimpy and irrational.
You have religious liberty to make decisions for yourself, but not for others.
If your job has duties that conflict with your religious values, you have the freedom to NOT perform those duties. You do this by finding other work, not by insisting the world should bend to your religious idiosyncrasies.
It's just not that difficult. Now that it's been explained, I hope you understand and we can just move on in peace and neighborly community.
God bless you.
58 comments:
It seems as though you are identifying Kim Davis as a member of the "religious right", is this correct?
Are you aware that many on the "religious right" are not defending her, but in fact are doing just the opposite?
Yes, I am identifying Kim Davis as part of the religious right and I do that because she IS, by self-declaration and by the company she keeps, a part of the religious right. As a point of fact.
Do you disagree?
Yes, I am aware that there are some on the religious right who disagree with her. Stan's friend, Glenn, for instance. And, there are many, many on the religious right who are supporting her, like the hundreds who have come out to protest her "persecution." This includes at least two religious right presidential candidates and the GOP candidate for governor.
Does this mean that you think the right thing for her to do, if she can't issue licenses in good faith, is to step down?
Does this mean that you agree that she is in no way being persecuted? That those asking her to do her job ARE defending religious liberty?
I certainly had many conservative, traditional baptists in my upbringing who I am sure would agree with those who say that this is not a case of persecution in the least. God bless ethical, consistent conservatives!
Yes, I would disagree on several counts.
1. The "religious right" is a term that identifies people who identify as Christian (primarily) and who are politically conservative (the right side of the US political spectrum). It seems exceedingly rare that you find people from the left side of the US political spectrum who fit in the "religious right" category.
2. I have not seen any indication that she has "self declared" as part of the "religious right", perhaps a source that demonstrates her doing this would help to clarify.
3. I am unaware of how one would identify with any precision "the company she keeps" in such a way as to make any sort of generalization of her affiliation with the "religious right"
Are you aware that there are more than "some" on the religious right that do not support her? If Glenn is the only specific example you can provide maybe you should look a little harder before making sweeping generalizations.
My personal opinion is that if she can't follow the law as it exists today, then she should step down.
In a world where persecution of Christians is a real thing, I would suggests that anyone who labels what she is going through as persecution are demeaning those who are actually persecuted. No, she is not a victim of persecution.
Having said that, I see no way in which those who want her to do her job are "defending religious freedom". I ( and many others on the "religious right") don't even see this as a "religious freedom" issue. She was found in contempt of court for refusing to do the job she was elected to do, period. I don;t see where her reasons even enter into it.
BTW, you do realize that Mrs Davis (as well as the other favorite bogeyman representing the "religious right", Fred Phelps), are both democrats and therefore more accurately part of the "religious left", don't you?
According to Pew...
"Pentecostals express socially conservative views on both abortion and homosexuality. More than seven-in-ten evangelical Pentecostals say that abortion should be illegal in all (35%) or most (38%) cases. They are joined in this view by two-thirds of members of black Pentecostal churches (38% say abortion should be illegal in all cases, 28% say it should be illegal in most cases). By comparison, evangelicals (61% of whom oppose abortion) and members of historically black churches (46% oppose) generally are somewhat less likely to oppose abortion."
"Evangelical Pentecostals tend to favor the Republican Party; when surveyed in the summer of 2007, 45% described themselves as Republicans or said they lean toward the Republican Party, while 35% favored the Democratic Party."
http://www.pewforum.org/2008/09/12/palin-vp-nomination-puts-pentecostalism-in-the-spotlight/
What I know about Davis is that she is Pentecostal and opposed to marriage rights for gay folk. Pentecostals tend overwhelmingly to be religiously and politically conservative. The Pentecostals I've known (and that has been quite a few) would never vote Obama, Clinton or other similarly progressive Democrats. They would, in fact, express a great deal of disdain for liberal politicians and even suggest they're of the devil, not of God.
This does not mean that they don't hold some more progressive values. The folk I've known (and studies I've read) have suggested that many Pentecostals are more (or at least, in the past, have been more) open to pacifism vs war. They also often have a deep concern for the poor and may be more open to gov't programs to help the poor.
But by and large, in my experience and in the studies I've read, Pentecostals definitely fall on the religious right side of the spectrum. Now, COULD it be the case that Davis is an Obama-supporting, abortion-rights-defending progressive Christian who happens to disagree with other progressives on this one point? Sure, it's possible. But I've seen nothing at all in the real world to support that claim. If she is a typical Pentecostal, the odds are very much against it and she is most likely a political and religious conservative.
Other than her Democrat-status, do you have any data to support the rather hard-to-believe claim that she is a political and religious liberal/on the left? Are you aware that there are huge numbers of conservative Democrats, especially here in Kentucky? If that is your sole defense for that hunch, I'd respectfully suggest it is ill-informed and just not supported by the data.
Are you seriously suggesting she IS a political and religious liberal? Or are you merely suggesting, maybe she is, maybe she isn't? The claim defies credibility in my estimation.
Craig...
If Glenn is the only specific example you can provide maybe you should look a little harder before making sweeping generalizations.
Religious Right/Conservatives who support Kim Davis...
Tony Perkins and the ultra conservative Family Research Council are awarding her with a leadership award...
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/14/kim_davis_wins_her_bigot_medal_conservative_summit_will_honor_anti_gay_kentucky_clerk/
Presidential religious right candidates, Huckabee, Rand Paul and Cruz (at least) - I am unaware of any of the GOP candidates coming out to disagree with her/this crusade. As noted, the GOP candidate for governor here in KY has thrown support her way.
Of course, the right wing Liberty Counsel law group (started by Jerry Falwell and others) is supporting her.
Right wing Christian media guy Erick Erickson has predicted it may be time for a civil war to start over this!
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/05/erick-erickson-predicts-civil-war-fake-christians-persecute-gays.html
Al Mohler is giving sort of a wishy washy half support to Davis and is certainly not condemning her actions...
http://www.albertmohler.com/2015/09/03/in-this-world-you-will-have-trouble-welcome-to-rowan-county/
Billy's son, Franklin Graham, has come out in support of her, saying she is "fighting for religious freedom..."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/franklin-graham-kim-davis-kentucky-county-clerk/2015/09/04/id/673603/
and so it goes.
As I stated, I know of at least a few conservative Christians who disagree with her, but that has been mostly "Joe Citizens" like Glenn and other unknown conservatives of the sort that I grew up with. Good for them.
But other than Rod Dreher at the American Conservative, I don't know that I've heard any prominent conservatives actively disagreeing with her. I would be interested in knowing who out there has disagreed with her and what they said, if you'd like to/be able to cite a few. Do ANY of the GOP presidential candidates disagree with her?
http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/09/04/republicans-rally-around-kim-davis-for-the-most-part/
By all means, educate me.
I am suggesting that to automatically label her as part of the "religious right" may be a bit of a stretch givn that she ran and was elected as a democrat. As a general rule its rare to refer to Democrats as being on the political right in this country.
I am aware that there are a number of folks on the right who at one point or another defender her. But that doesn't suggest any sort of consensus on the right. It also ignores the large numbers on the right that have been critical of her.
Personally I think she's a terrible poster child for "religious persecution", and that view is not unusual. By the same token a black youth shot while trying to run over a cop is a bad poster child for BLM, but it didn't stop them from using him that way.
I don't know or care about Davis, but the fact that you are willing to make assumptions about her specific political views as well as broad brush a large and diverse " group" based on a few individuals, seems to suggest a lack of research on your part.
It interesting that we agree, yet you seem determined to prove me wrong about something.
Thanks.
Well, we don't agree that she is politically and religiously liberal. You appear willing to make that leap with a dearth of evidence. As noted, in Kentucky, it is not unusual to have very conservative Democrats. Perhaps it is just from you not being aware of that reality.
There is no evidence here, Craig, that she is anything but conservative. Provide some actual data to support the claim (and "democrat" is not enough), then we can begin talking. Until then, you have made a suggestion that is not credible, given the real world data.
Further, you appear to chastise me for making a sweeping generalization and not being informed enough to know that "more than some" conservatives disagree with her, yet you can't cite any prominent conservatives who are disagreeing with her publicly. So, perhaps you can understand how it seems that prominent conservatives do sweepingly appear to at least tepidly support her, not disagree with her.
I am glad you agree that the right thing to do is to step down in such instances and that this is not persecution.
"We see that Kentucky is right up near the top of the graph, right under West Virginia. Its placement indicates that the average voter in Kentucky is more socially conservative than voters in all other states except for West Virginia, Missouri, and Oklahoma...
In a separate analysis, Gelman also shows that Kentucky Democrats are more socially conservative than Democrats in just about every other state..."
https://informationknoll.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/political-ideology-of-kentucky-voters/
Do you agree (or mostly agree) with this critical point...?
BUT (and this is the vital point), your religious freedoms end at you getting to make your own decisions for yourself. You do NOT have the religious "liberty" to tell other people how they must act and what they can and cannot do. IF your religious views insist that you get to tell other people how to live, well, in that case, you do not have that specific religious liberty.
As I've stated, in my opinion, this is not a religious liberty issue. Davis ran for office as a democrat, was elected as a democrat, and should abide by the law as it exists at the current time. I see no religious component at all.
As for the rest, I've made only two points, and neither of them is rationally debatable. In the US political system the Democrat party is the left party, while the Republican party is the party on the right. To suggest that a democrat somehow represents the political right just doesn't fit. It is also unhelpful to extrapolate the views a of a limited number of people to represent a large and diverse group. Anything beyond those two is your invention, not my position. Feel free to argue against your version of what you think I mean if you like.
It seems as though you are suggesting that elected officials should be expected and required to abide by and enforce the laws that exist and are in force in the jurisdiction in which they hold elective office, is this your position?
neither of them is rationally debatable. In the US political system the Democrat party is the left party, while the Republican party is the party on the right. To suggest that a democrat somehow represents the political right just doesn't fit.
Of course it is debatable. To suggest that a person who registers with a party makes them totally align with that party is nonsense, easily demonstrated to be false in the real world. If I registered as a Republican, that does not mean that suddenly, I MUST believe conservative beliefs. Don't be silly.
What makes one more conservative or more liberal are the values one holds, not the party they belong to or the church they attend. Do you really think that holds even one drop of water?
A person who holds conservative values, or religious right values is, by definition, a conservative value holder. To suggest otherwise is nonsensical. Agreed?
It seems as though you are suggesting that elected officials should be expected and required to abide by and enforce the laws that exist and are in force in the jurisdiction in which they hold elective office, is this your position?
Glad to answer once you answer some of my questions.
For instance...
Do you agree (or mostly agree) with this critical point (and a main point of this post)...?
BUT (and this is the vital point), your religious freedoms end at you getting to make your own decisions for yourself. You do NOT have the religious "liberty" to tell other people how they must act and what they can and cannot do. IF your religious views insist that you get to tell other people how to live, well, in that case, you do not have that specific religious liberty.
Davis ran for office as a democrat, was elected as a democrat, and should abide by the law as it exists at the current time. I see no religious component at all.
Her party has nothing to do with that reasoning. And if someone is holding views/creating and enforcing policies based upon their religious views, or denying others their religious liberty, yes, of course it has a religious component. This is exactly about religious liberties, whether you think so or not. Your thoughts don't affect reality.
OK, why are you countering arguments I have not made. My claim was that as a general proposition in US politics democrat=left and republicans=right. I can't believe you would dispute this fact.
Since I didn't make any claims about where specific individuals fall on the political continuum, I don't see why you keep arguing as if I did.
I see you changed the subject to conservative/liberal rather than left/right. This would be fine had you not claimed that Davis falls on the political right, but you did. Now, you can argue that she is a conservative democrat, but it doesn't follow that she is automatically part of the "religious right". Had you used more precision and less sweeping generalization, you would have had no disagreement from me. I merely attempted to determine what caused you to brand her as part of the 'religious right', and point out that as someone from the left of the political spectrum, is unlikely to support the right side of the political spectrum.
"Do you agree (or mostly agree) with this critical point (and a main point of this post)...?"
Since I don't agree that this is an issue of "religious liberty", I'm not sure what exactly you want me to agree with? I've explained this several times, but will try again if you don't understand. I guess I would disagree with your premise that she is attempting to force anyone to do anything based on her "religious beliefs". It seems to me that she is using her "religious beliefs" as an excuse to make a political statement. As a general premise, I would agree that it is not appropriate to use ones elected office to force people to do anything based on the beliefs of the office holder.
Thank you for a) suggesting that my opinion on this subject has no validity, and b) acknowledging that I already answered the question you claimed I didn't. Look, we disagree, I'm not suggesting that you are wrong about the underlying issue, I simply disagree with you, but I'm not suggesting that your views don't reflect reality. Thanks for the grace and tolerance.
So, I've dealt with your question twice now (in addition to every other question you asked), will you do as you said and answer my final question? It's just a simple yes or no answer, so please?
"It seems as though you are suggesting that elected officials should be expected and required to abide by and enforce the laws that exist and are in force in the jurisdiction in which they hold elective office, is this your position?"
To be clear, as I believe that our elected officials have a duty and responsibility to abide by current law, the political p[arty she represents is relevant at least to the extent that I would suspect that democrats who voted for her would have expected that she would have agreed with them on this as it is has certainly been a hot button partisan issue over the last few years. I'd suspect that had she been upfront about this particular position her support from democrats would have been less.
OK, why are you countering arguments I have not made. My claim was that as a general proposition in US politics democrat=left and republicans=right. I can't believe you would dispute this fact.
I don't dispute that tendency, as a general proposition.
Since I didn't make any claims about where specific individuals fall on the political continuum, I don't see why you keep arguing as if I did.
Because we are speaking of a specific individual. You suggested I was wrong to characterize her as religious right. That is a specific individual. I dispute that claim as having no validity and being ridiculous to the point of idiocy. I repeat: You can't make a sweeping claim that IF a person is a Democrat, THEN they are not religious right. It's a ridiculous claim that is easily disproven with actual data.
Do you understand now?
The answer to your question is, of course, yes, I expect elected officials to do their job, as a general rule. Unless and until their job causes them to do harm, then they should rightly not do their job.
I see you changed the subject to conservative/liberal rather than left/right. This would be fine had you not claimed that Davis falls on the political right, but you did. Now, you can argue that she is a conservative democrat, but it doesn't follow that she is automatically part of the "religious right".
How do you define "religious Right..."? If she opposed abortion and marriage equity, if she voted against Obama twice and loves Reagan, if she takes the Bible literally (in the sense that conservatives claim to do) and believes in a six day creation, would that, to you, make her legitimately religious right? Or are you saying that no Democrats are welcome in the Religious Right, regardless of what they believe politically and religiously?
How are you defining religious right?
I am saying that it is almost certain that she belongs in the religious right much more than there being any chance in hell she aligns with the religious left, given measures like the ones I cited for you. But maybe you are defining "religious right" in some odd manner, so what is your definition?
I merely attempted to determine what caused you to brand her as part of the 'religious right', and point out that as someone from the left of the political spectrum, is unlikely to support the right side of the political spectrum.
So, it appears that your answer to my question about Kentucky Democrats is, "Yes, I am speaking from a place of ignorance about something I do not know..." Yes, sadly it is true: By and large, Kentucky Democrats DO support/favor conservative causes more common to the political right. Now you know better.
Thank you for agreeing with the actual point I made.
Thank you for answering the question I asked.
The problem is that my question was an attempt to determine what evidence you used to define Davis as a representative of the "religious right", not whether she is correctly identified as such. You made some broad sweeping vast generalizations with little or no specific support, it seems reasonable to respectfully ask what led you to make those generalizations.
It seems rational to me that if (in general) that democrat=left and republican =right, that to call someone who is a democrat part of the "right", that there should be some overwhelming evidence to counter the obvious fact with which you agree.
"How do you define "religious Right..."?" Conservative Evangelical Christians who vote Republican.
"Christian right or religious right is a term used mainly in the United States to describe right-wing Christian political factions that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies." Wikipedia agrees.
Again, had you called her a conservative democrat, I would have not had an issue with your terminology as it is more specific and accurate that the broad, vague and loaded term "religious right".
I am suggesting that a democrat (which you agree=left) by definition cannot be accurately described as on the political "right". Again, there are conservative democrats who's positions overlap with the political right, but that's as far as it goes it seems.
Since your "If she opposed abortion..." "question" is mere hypothetical speculation, I see no reason to speculate further on something that vague and hypothetical.
As an aside you seem to be saying that opposition to abortion is definitionally a position position of the political right, thank you for your admission that support of abortion is therefore must be definitially a position of the left.
Do you really think that asking me to define the term "religious right" THREE TIMES before I have a chance to respond to the comment in which you ask for the definition is in any way helpful? Or do you really expect THREE definitions.
As to your last statement, I haven't made any sweeping general comments regarding KY democrats, therefore you suggesting otherwise does not agree with the reality of what I actually said.
Again, had you not used the term "religious right", but used "conservative democrat" we wouldn't have had the vast majority of this conversation.
As I have answered all of your questions, and you did answer my final question, I see no point in continuing to argue about things I didn't say.
Again, thank you for answering, for clarifying some things, and as always for your grace filled winsome responses.
My apologies, but would you possibly be willing to clarify some things?
You said that elected officials should "do their job", Does that mean that you believe that they should uphold, abide by, and enforce all of the laws that apply to their jurisdiction? I ask because my question was not "Should they do their job?" it was should they abide by (etc) the laws of their jurisdiction. It seems as though your are saying that "doing their job" includes following the law, but it's not really clear that you sacrificially mean that or not. You also say, "Unless and until their job causes them to do harm, then they should rightly not do their job.". I can see instances where "doing their job" might cause harm to one person or group of people while simultaneously protecting another person or group of people from harm. How would you balance what in essence would be two competing "harms"?
I hope that you can understand my confusion with your position and my desire to accurately understand exactly what your position is, and will help me to do so.
Thank You.
Been busy at work for the last 24 hours. Still busy. But yes, to answer your questions, people should do their jobs, obey the laws of their jurisdiction (whether or not they are elected officials they should do their jobs and follow the laws).
As to causing harm? Actually causing physical harm, removing rights unjustly, oppressing, actual persecution, things like that. So, if one were in a job that one had to facilitate the selling of slaves, one should refuse to do that job and actively work against that institution, even if it breaks laws.
As to more vague areas of competing interests (requiring people to obey a speed limit keeps everyone safer/less harm, but it could be said that it "causes harm" to drivers whose job requires them to get places promptly), I don't generally think it's that difficult. If it involves actual physical danger (as driving fast does) the rights of the many outweigh the desires (and we have no "right" to drive as fast as we want) of a few. Give me a specific instance and I can give you a specific opinion.
Out of time... But more later on your confusion about what the "religious right" is.
Thanks.
So would it be fair to summarize your position as follows.
I agree that elected officials should abide by, follow, and enforce the laws of the jurisdiction in which they are elected, but do so in ways that don't cause harm. If there are competing "harms" then they should act in such a way as to minimize or eliminate the greater of the "harms".
I'm sorry if this is redundant, but I really want to be as clear as possible about what your position really is. Thanks.
As to my " confusion ", I don't have any. The problem with the term " religious right" is that it is a term applied to a segment of the population by those who disagree with that segment of the population's views. In essence it is a pejorative. It is also one of those terms that means everything or nothing simultaneously. Other than wiki ( which agrees with me) every definition I found in a short search was from groups that oppose the "religious right". When. I have time I will try to come up with some alternative definitions from neutral sources. As it sits now, you will just define the term so it includes your perception of Davis in order to support your point. Even though you still have the democrat=left hurdle to get over.
Ultimately whether you can stretch a definition to fit your premise or not your initial point (that the " religious right) supports Davis still isn't totally accurate.
If there are competing "harms" then they should act in such a way as to minimize or eliminate the greater of the "harms".
Yes. Or, to recognize if one is an actual harm or just a desire slightly thwarted. As I said on your blog...
I would suggest that it can be tricky, but generally, it's just not that hard.
Example 1: If a slaveowner is forced to free his slaves, then it will "harm" his business. If the slave remains owned, he loses his liberty.
Human liberty is a natural right. "profit" is not. Slave goes free.
Example 2: If a woman can take just any job, then it may harm men who will now face stiffer competition for jobs. If the woman is not allowed to work, she loses her right to self determination.
Human liberty/self-determination is a natural right. "Less competition in the job market" is not. Women can work.
Example 3: If a landlord is "forced" to not discriminate against groups (black folk, gay folk, Muslims, Baptists), he loses his option of picking only those groups he prefers. If groups can be discriminated against in housing, then minorities may lose freedom of mobility and self-determination, to live where they choose.
Human liberty is a natural right. Freedom to discriminate against groups is not, not when it causes harm (and blocking people from housing, from stores, from the market place DOES cause harm). Minorities can't be discriminated against.
Example 4: If a coal company is forced to take measures to protect the water and land and air around where they are harvesting coal, it drives their costs up and causes the harm of less profitability. If they aren't required to take those measures, the neighbors' air, land and water can be physically damaged, causing harm and problems to their health and livelihood.
Life, health and liberty are natural rights. "Profit" is not. Protect the water, land and air.
Like that.
One simply does not have the freedom to cause harm to others and harm is removing or threatening life, liberty and self-determination
As to my " confusion ", I don't have any.
I disagree. When you conflate "democrat" with "can ONLY be liberal/left-ish and if you're a democrat, you could not possibly be part of the religious right..." you misunderstand reality. Of course, there are conservatives who are democrats, those who vote for religious right values and who are registered Democrats.
Again, I am willing to allow that you are just speaking from a place of ignorance, but I've already pointed out how very conservative Kentucky Democrats are. Do you know who are two senators are? Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell. Do you know which party Kentucky Democrats have voted for in presidential races for as long as I can remember? Republican.
They are voting their religious values in these races, they are by and large, more conservative and religious and vote accordingly. Ergo, they are part of the religious rights.
Your misunderstanding appears to be in this confusing that Democrats can't possibly be in the religious right. But party affiliation is NOT what determins if you are in the religious right. It's your values. If you hold values that coincide with conservative Christian traditions and push for policies that reflect that, you ARE by definition part of the religious right.
Definition (dictionary.reference.com):
A coalition of right-wing Protestant fundamentalist (see fundamentalism) leaders who have become increasingly active in politics since the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Roe versus Wade. Among its leaders are Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
Does not mention "must be Republican/can't be Democrat" because that is not part of the definition.
cont'd...
Definition (freedictionary.com):
"United States political faction that advocates social and political conservativism, school prayer, and federal aid for religious groups and schools."
Does not mention "must be Republican/can't be Democrat" because that is not part of the definition.
Definition (Longman dictionary of contemporary English)
"people who belong to Christian churches and who support conservative political ideas and have very traditional moral beliefs, for example not approving of homosexuality and abortion"
Does not mention "must be Republican/can't be Democrat" because that is not part of the definition.
Definition (wikipedia)
"religious right is a term used mainly in the United States to describe right-wing Christian political factions that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies."
Does not mention "must be Republican/can't be Democrat" because that is not part of the definition.
Definition (CONSERVAPEDIA!)
"The "Religious Right" also called the Christian Right was the organized Christian conservative movement in politics since the late 1970s.
It is an umbrella term that includes the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, the Christian Voice, and the Religious Roundtable, as well as unorganized movements.
It is based on the belief that the morality of our nation was eroding and that Christians had to be mobilized at the local level to pressure the political system to reverse the damage."
Does not mention "must be Republican/can't be Democrat" because that is not part of the definition.
Definition (vocabulary.com)
"United States political faction that advocates social and political conservativism, school prayer, and federal aid for religious groups and schools"
Does not mention "must be Republican/can't be Democrat" because that is not part of the definition.
I can not find a single definition that says "can't be Democrat..." You know why? Because that factually simply isn't part of the definition. I know many in the religious right (who proudly identify as such, by the way - including myself at one point, remember) who would vehemently insist that the religious right is not limited solely to Republicans. That's the point, they want to be more than just a wing of the republican party.
That appears to be where you are confused.
Thank you, for validating my summary of your position.
Can I take it that you would oppose any elected official who by failing to enforce, abide by and follow the laws in force in their jurisdiction allowed harm to come to their constituents? Would you place the responsibility for the harm on those who did not abide by, enforce, and follow the law in their jurisdiction?
I would certainly oppose the results. I suspect that many politicians/officials make policy decisions that have unintended consequences. The leader who orders a drone strike against a legitimate target who ends up killing innocent bystanders, for instance. Shame on them for making that choice, but it was unintended. But I think they should be held accountable.
For instance, when Reagan's team placed mines in the Nicaraguan harbor and committed war crimes, I think they should have been held accountable. We weren't at war with Nicaragua, it was, according to the world court, a war crime.
Do you agree that Reagan's administration should have been held accountable?
Or how about coal mine operators and the gov't entities that allow them to operate? If they are causing actual, measurable harm in the pursuit of more profits for coal companies, should the gov't officials who allow that to happen be held accountable?
"Since 2007, peer-reviewed studies by researchers from more than a dozen universities have concluded that mountaintop removal coal mining contributes to significantly higher rates of birth defects, cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases among individuals living in the region where it occurs.
In 2014, researchers demonstrated that toxic dust from mountaintop removal promotes the growth of lung cancer cells in people living nearby. It is the first time a direct link has been established, rather than a correlation, thereby supporting the previous science that mountaintop removal is harmful to human health."
http://appvoices.org/end-mountaintop-removal/health-impacts/
Here we have a conflict between beliefs and wants where, on the one side, there is actual physical harm being done and lives being lost and, on the other side, you have potential jobs being lost and profits being lost. Where do you come down on that? Should the gov't officials who let that happen (hell! who pushed for that to happen! Who tried to lighten the restrictions on coal companies as a matter of policy) should be held accountable?
Here, I am getting away (somewhat) from religious beliefs (although the pursuit of the almighty Dollar could be considered quasi-religious, one could argue), but since we're talking about harm...
Without spending time on each of your individual examples, it sounds like it would be fair to say that you would agree that if an elected official knowingly and intentionally chose not to operate under the laws in their jurisdiction, that you would support them being held accountable for those choices. In other words you would expect that they would uphold and not choose to ignore existing law.
Look, if you want to argue about past events, more power to you, but wouldn't it be cleaner and more productive to look at how things are in 2015, instead of 1982?
I'm asking you to answer the same questions you're asking me: Do you expect people to do their jobs, to follow laws and be held accountable if they cause harm?
Sure, I've already as much as said it, but if you want to hear it again OK. I think that all elected officials should obey, enforce, abide by and live according to whatever the current statutory law is in the jurisdiction they serve.
So when I said earlier in the thread that if she can't follow existing law she should step down, what I meant was that she should follow the law or step down. This goes for all who are elected.
So, if an elected official chooses not to follow existing law, then they open themselves up for various types of consequences which are deserved if appropriate.
Do you agree that an elected official who ignores existing law and thereby causes harm should be held accountable for the results of their choice?
Sure, I've already as much as said it, but if you want to hear it again OK. I think that all elected officials should obey, enforce, abide by and live according to whatever the current statutory law is in the jurisdiction they serve.
So when I said earlier in the thread that if she can't follow existing law she should step down, what I meant was that she should follow the law or step down. This goes for all who are elected.
So, if an elected official chooses not to follow existing law, then they open themselves up for various types of consequences which are deserved if appropriate.
Do you agree that an elected official who ignores existing law and thereby causes harm should be held accountable for the results of their choice?
Deliberate harm, certainly. If there are unintended consequences that are harmful, it becomes more complex.
Ignoring or undermining laws designed to protect our environment, for instance, knowing that harm will be caused - for the purpose of making it easier for coal companies (or instance) to make more profit, such people should be held accountable. You appear to agree, do you?
If, on the other hand, it was less directly connected or unexpected and unintended, well, I think we can have some grace, call it a mistake and learn from that mistake. I suppose it would depend on how reasonable it was to expect some harm from ignoring the law. But as a serious, general rule, leaders should expect to follow the law and should be prepared for consequences if they ignore the law.
I've given you some real world actual examples to make it more concrete. Want to answer some of them? Do you have any real examples to get to your point, if you have one?
Yes, I do have current real world examples, but I haven't had any time to put things together yet, patience is always a good thing.
I've clearly stated multiple times that I believe that elected officials should be held accountable for failing or refusing to follow the laws currently in for e in their jurisdiction. I'm not sure why you keep asking the same question over and over again.
As to your examples, since none of them are particularly specific, it seems foolish to try to do anything beyond a statement of general principles. If you have an example of a specific instance where a specific elected official violated a specific law that might be a different thing, but as it is I don't see how I can be expected to make specific comments on your subjective version of something that may or may not have happened.
So, provide some specific cases with individuals and the laws they ignored or violated and I'll be happy to research and comment as my limited time allows. Beyond that I've repeated my position plenty of times.
One can't plant mines in the harbors of other nations, especially when one is not at war with that nation. I don't know the name or number of the law, but it is an obvious one, isn't it?
Therefore, the Reagan administration should be held accountable for war crimes.
One can't sell arms to enemy combatants (like Bin Laden, for instance) especially when directly told by Congress NOT to do so.
Therefore the Reagan administration should be held accountable.
There are two specific examples. Hold them accountable?
I've clearly stated multiple times that I believe that elected officials should be held accountable for failing or refusing to follow the laws currently in for e in their jurisdiction. I'm not sure why you keep asking the same question over and over again.
As have I. Why do you keep asking the question over and over again? Seeking clarity? That would be my reasoning. And I was asking the question with a specific example to see if, when it came down to specifics, we agreed. That's why I asked.
If you can't point to specific laws violated, how can you be so sure that they were. You also must take into account that any US President has the power to issue findings that allow actions that might otherwise be illegal, to be engaged in under certain circumstances. So, while I may not agree with specific actions taken 30 odd years ago, without access to more information than you have provided I wouldn't venture a guess as to the legality of said actions. Again, if you can cite a specific law broken, and demonstrate the lack of a presidential finding I might be able to offer an opinion. But given the lack of information I just don't feel comfortable making any assertions.
Just curious, can you cite the specific KY (or federal) code section that provides legal sanction for same sex couples to marry?
Are you serious that you need me to tell you WHY it is illegal to attempt to MURDER people in other nations when you are not at war with them? Why it is illegal to support terrorists? Are you really serious?
We, are humans, are free to marry who we want amongst the group consenting adults, and our laws support that. No, I can't cite a code. Nor do I need to. Can you cite a code that lets straight people marry?
By your measure, it would appear that the terrorists on 9/11 committed no crimes, because I can't cite a specific code against it.
If a general notion will do: Murder is illegal. Attempted murder is illegal. Supporting terrorists is illegal. One need not be able to cite the ordinance to know it is illegal.
It appears you are jumping through a bunch of hoops to defend your political allies even when they do what is obviously illegal and immoral. Why is that?
Here, I'll show you how it's done.
"The Bush administration detained and tortured suspected militants; the Obama administration assassinates them. Both practices not only visit more hatred upon the United States; they are also illegal. Our laws and treaties prohibit torture. The Constitution forbids the government from depriving any person of life without due process of law; that is, arrest and fair trial. Yet President Obama has approved the killing of people, many of whom were not even identified before the kill order was given."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/killer-drone-attacks-ille_b_1623065.html
It can't possibly be legal, according to our laws or international laws, to kill people in foreign lands when we are not at war with them. EVEN IF these drone attacks are only hitting actual intended targets, due process is being violated.
There, I pointed to an illegal act by a president I generally support and I DO call for accountability, according to our laws and what is moral.
Can you do the same?
The topic has been "should elected officials obey" the laws of their jurisdiction. So, if there is no codified law, there can be no breaking of the law. You have moved into a more subjective area of moral v. Immoral. As we see here in the US legal does not equal moral. If possible, given my limited time resources, it would be helpful to pick one side (legal/moral) and stick with that rather than to mix the two.
I suspect that if you did the tiniest bit of research, you would find that the state of KY has a codified legal definition of marriage (as most states do). Again if you want to appeal to a more subjective "natural law" sort of argument, but we've been focused on codified existing law and it seems like moving from that to a more subjective view simply degenerates into opinion.
Not at all, I could very easy do the research and cite both state and federal laws broken by the 9/11 hijackers. 1st degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, destruction of property, these are all established, codified, settled areas of law. Which is what we've been discussing.
So, no I'm not jumping through hoops to defend anyone, I'm unwilling to make a judgement without all of the facts. And no, you asserting something does not make it fact. Again, my work and family schedule limits my ability to fact check your claims, so instead of jumping to a conclusion based on hearsay, I choose to withhold stating an opinion until I have facts to back it up.
Again I'm hesitant to jump to any sort of conclusion based on an out of context quote from a potentially biased source. Of course, you haven't actually condemned anyone just pointed out a more current example.
As I pointed out the US President has the legal power to order actions that would be illegal absent the presidential order. I'm not sure that power thrills me, but it is legal and I'm not sure my discomfort is reason to advocate for a change to settled law.
Don't forget: legal does not mean moral.
I am exactly talking about the law, Craig.
It is against the law to kill people, Craig. You are not this obtuse. You are a reasonable adult. You KNOW that you can't legally kill people. You can't legally kill people in other countries. It's not allowed legally.
What part of "Murder is illegal" are you failing to grasp? I am not trying to be insulting, I honestly am wondering what in the hell you are not understanding.
Since, acknowledged earlier that murder is illegal, none is the answer to your question.
You are failing to distinguish between murder, which is a legal term, and is specifically codified and killing which is not.
I'm sorry that you are so incredulous at my (reasonable, rational) position of making judgements based on actual research and not on (possibility) biased hearsay.
This. Is why I haven't provided a counter example yet, I want to take the time to get the facts straight and to provide documentation to support my example. It will take time to do that and I don't know how soon I will have the time to do it right. So, that is my priority, rather than try to run down sources to evaluate your examples.
I'm sure that you can understand that my position is not as you suggest, that I support or excuse the incidents you reference, rather that I am withholding judgement until I can look into things. I really don't see how it is anything but rational and reasonable to not make judgements based on hearsay.
If you don't understand or find that course problematic, I don't know what to do or say.
Since I acknowledged...
Sorry I'm not young enough to be comfortable doing this on my phone.
You are failing to distinguish between murder, which is a legal term, and is specifically codified and killing which is not.
I don't think I am. Planting explosives in an area full of civilians is attempted murder, not a vague "killing..." Where am I mistaken?
"It is against the law to kill people, Craig."
No, it is not always against the law to kill people, it is not even always against the law to intentionally kill people.
"You KNOW that you can't legally kill people."
Except, you can legally kill people.
"You can't legally kill people in other countries. It's not allowed legally."
Again, you can legally kill people in other countries
"What part of "Murder is illegal" are you failing to grasp?"
I have been consistent in stating that "Murder is illegal", I don;t fail to grasp anything. Of course I also grasp that not all killing is murder, in fact, not all intentional killing is murder.
Murder is a specific legal term, which is codified (possibly differently) from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Further for killing to be murder there is an element of intent required.
It is against the law to kill people, Craig. You are not this obtuse. You are a reasonable adult. You KNOW that you can't legally kill people. You can't legally kill people in other countries. It's not allowed legally.
"Planting explosives in an area full of civilians is attempted murder,...". Is it? Is every instance of planting explosives in an area full of civilians "attempted murder"? Every singe instance? Hell, millions of Muslims would tell you that they have a religious duty to plant/strap on explosives to intentionally kill as many innocent people as possible. Now, I'd agree that that act is murder, but that view is certainly not universal.
So, when you seem to be using the terms "murder" and "killing" interchangeably, it is reasonable to question whether or not you understand the difference.
Do you? If so, would it be possible to respectfully ask that you use the two terms in a more precise manner so as to eliminate confusion.
A very simple question, Craig: IS it or is it not against US laws and international laws to attempt to kill people in other nations? Is it completely not against the law, for instance, for terrorists to fly a plane into a building? Or do you recognize that this is against the law, even without being able to cite the specific code?
Don't defend evil, Craig, it doesn't make you look very good.
"IS it or is it not against US laws and international laws to attempt to kill people in other nations?"
As I've tried to point out, your above statement is inaccurate as a blanket statement of fact. The fact that you continue to choose to ignore the distinction between "kill' and "murder", makes having a reasonable conversation on this well nigh impossible. So the answer is both yes and no, it depends on the circumstances. Had you asked the pertinent question "Is it against the law to attempt to murder people?", then the answer would obviously be yes. But since you chose the path of imprecision and used the term "kill", the actual correct answer would be the one I gave.
"Is it completely not against the law, for instance, for terrorists to fly a plane into a building?"
I suspect if you asked the pilots on 9-11 they would have suggested that they were in compliance with Sharia law. By what standard can you definitively say they are wrong? Having said that (which will no doubt encourage you to suggest that I support evil or some such crap), if one look at US criminal code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 51 code 1111 one can find the specific legal definition of murder in US federal statute. If one looks at the actual codified statute one can see that specific aspects of the 9-11 attack specifically meet the codified legal definition of murder in the US. Obviously, other nations may choose to define murder slightly differently, but that is neither here nor there. Of course, there are specific code sections that cover the other aspects of what happened on 9-11. The way law works (and that is the topic), is that if something is not specifically codified in law, then it is legal until the law is changed.
"Or do you recognize that this is against the law, even without being able to cite the specific code?"
Do you realize that if there is no specific code, then something can't be against the law. In other words how can something be against a non existent law?
"Don't defend evil, Craig, it doesn't make you look very good."
I could say that since I haven't actually defended evil, that the above comment is meaningless.
I could say that since it is evil to lie, then at least I'm only "defending" evil not engaging in it.
Or I could point out that if you think that this is a substitute for actually understanding the issues involved and simply default to suggestions of evil motives, that there really isn't anywhere else to go.
If you are unable to understand that simply making a sweeping, broad brush, blanket statement; "It is against the law to kill people, Craig.", is simply factually not true, then I can't help you.
I understand what you are trying to do. You are trying to advance the "moral" argument (I put "moral" in quotes because you haven;t ever established that any sort of transcendent morality exists, let alone defined said transcendent "morality"), which is "It's a bad thing to kill people.", and trying to superimpose it over the established codified legal framework that exists.
So, if you want to make the "moral" argument, fine. If you want to make the legal argument, fine. Just stop trying to superimpose the two.
Or, I can say thanks and move on.
What I am saying, Craig, is that I do not NEED the statute or code number to be able to say with COMPLETE confidence that it is against our law to fly a fucking plane into a building. Do you really need the code number to able to say that?
I think reasonable people understand that this is against our law without needing a code number. Similarly, I can say that it is against our law and international law to attempt to murder (kill, decimate, blow up, squash, slash the throat of, wipe out, destroy, shoot, bomb) innocent civilians in a nation that we are not at war against. We were not at war against Nicaragua, therefore, it was against the law, regardless of whether or not I know the statute or code number for the laws.
Do you seriously doubt that it was against the law?
Stop equivocating about evil, it gives the suggestion that you are defending evil. I hope you understand those words and their implications.
And right now, I am strictly talking about laws and breaking them (which was YOUR question to me, you'll remember).
So, are you saying that you seriously do not know if it is against the law (US and international) to place explosives designed to kill (murder, destroy, blow up, etc) other people in other nations and that is why you don't know if our leaders (convicted of war crimes, remember) are guilty of crimes and worthy of being held accountable because you honestly don't know if attempted murder/killing of people is illegal?
If so, perhaps that is part of the problem here.
The law you cite...
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Fits the idea that attempted killing of Nicaraguan civilians is attempted murder, by the definition that you cite. So, NOW that you have provided the legal definition, are you prepared to agree that the Reagan administration should be held accountable for their breaking of the law (ie, for the "attempt to perpetrate any arson, murder... sabotage... perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being")?
Stop equivocating on evil, Craig. Answer your own question, now that you have provided the specific legal definition.
And just as a reminder, here are my original words and the point I was making...
I expect elected officials to do their job, as a general rule. Unless and until their job causes them to do harm, then they should rightly not do their job.
So, I STILL expect people to do their jobs, UNLESS their job requires them to do harm (hurt, kill, oppress, deny rights) and then I would advocate people NOT doing that job, or at least that part of that job, even if it has consequences.
From that point, you asked the question taking it in a different direction...
Do you agree that an elected official who ignores existing law and thereby causes harm should be held accountable for the results of their choice? - you asked if an elected official who caused harm by IGNORING the law should be held accountable. Again, my answer is yes (with the caveat that sometimes, harm is not anticipated and that is a different scenario). And I've asked you multiple times, getting down to a specific real world situation, if you'd agree that an official who broke laws and caused harm should be held accountable, as happened with the Reagan administration.
That is the question I'm waiting on answers from. I've answered your questions, repeatedly, and clarified when you asked clarifying questions. Your turn.
OK, I get it. You are unconcerned with what various actual laws say and of the legal difference between legal terms (murder v. kill). I get that you don't NEED codified law in order to inform your opinions.
"Do you seriously doubt that it was against the law?"
NO. What I do know for certain is that I am not aware of any number of factors which would affect the legality of anything that happened in Nicaragua 30 plus years ago. What I do know for certain, is that under US law a sitting US president has the authority to initiate actions that would otherwise be illegal absent that presidential authorization. Now you've made it clear that you don"t NEED codified law to make up your mind, I however would prefer to have all of the information available before I reach a conclusion. I've never heard anyone but you suggest that waiting, studying, and ascertaining the facts is somehow supporting evil.
"So, are you saying that you seriously do not know if it is against the law (US and international) to place explosives designed to kill (murder, destroy, blow up, etc) other people in other nations and that is why you don't know if our leaders (convicted of war crimes, remember) are guilty of crimes and worthy of being held accountable because you honestly don't know if attempted murder/killing of people is illegal?"
The above "question" is so full of assumptions and false representations of my position as to be unanswerable in any rational sense. If (as you claim) some US official was "convicted of war crimes", then why are you unable to produce the statute number of the law they violated? Is there some sort of pan-global legal code that the US is subject to?
One of the problems here is that you are so emotionally attached to this that you can't even concede the simple unarguable legal position that killing does not equal murder, and that there are many circumstances where it is perfectly legal to kill people as well as others where it may not be legal but is not criminal.
You keep blathering on about something you claim happened 30 plus years ago, and when I suggest that your (biased) version of events is not enough for a rational fair minded person to be able to form a reasonable opinion, you accuse me of equivocating in order to sanction evil. Do you really not understand the difference between making a studied rational determination, and supporting evil?
"Fits the idea that attempted killing of Nicaraguan civilians is attempted murder, by the definition that you cite."
OK, so where is the evidence that any US official demonstrated "malice aforethought"?
Where is the evidence that any US official engaged in "willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated" actions specifically designed to target civilians?
Again, in the absence of anything specific not (This is my version of what happened 30+ years ago), by what rational standard would you think that any reasonable human being could make any sort of determination?
TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR I AM NOT ADVOCATING, EQUIVOCATING, SUPPORTING OR CONDONING EVIL. I AM SAYING THAT I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SPECIFIC CLEAR UNBIASED INFORMATION TO MAKE A JUDGEMENT. THE FACT THAT YOU ARE BEING CRITICAL OF MY DESIRE TO REACH AN INFORMED CONCLUSION, RATHER THAN TO JUST BLINDLY ACCEPT YOUR VERSION OF EVENTS IS TROUBLING FROM SOMEONE WHO SO OFTEN CLAIMS THE VIRTUES OF RATIONALITY AND REASON.
I guess being Rational and Reasonable only count when someone agrees with you, right?
Otherwise, they're just "evil".
So, your not knowing about Reagan's war crimes are from ignorance, is that what you're saying?
Okay, here's the story, read up on history...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
After just a tiny bit of research it seems germane to note that in the case of mining Nicaraguan harbors and the case stemming from that action, that no where in anything I have seen suggests that the US was either charged with "Attempted murder" nor was the US convicted of "attempted murder" or "murder"
This raises questions of your grasp of the facts.
"So, your not knowing about Reagan's war crimes are from ignorance, is that what you're saying?"
This,
"I AM SAYING THAT I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SPECIFIC CLEAR UNBIASED INFORMATION TO MAKE A JUDGEMENT. THE FACT THAT YOU ARE BEING CRITICAL OF MY DESIRE TO REACH AN INFORMED CONCLUSION, RATHER THAN TO JUST BLINDLY ACCEPT YOUR VERSION OF EVENTS IS TROUBLING FROM SOMEONE WHO SO OFTEN CLAIMS THE VIRTUES OF RATIONALITY AND REASON."
is what I am saying.
Perhaps reading my comments before you jump to conclusions would help things.
Again, based on a tiny bit of research, it seems that the findings of the court were not as monolithic as you suggest, nor were the actions and tactics of the Sandinistas held to the same degree of scrutiny.
You do agree that it was wrong for the Sandinista's to engage in murder of innocent people, right?
You do agree that the Sandinistas were wrong to support armed rebellion in El Salvador, right?
Or are you suggesting that the revolution the Sandinistas supported was some sort of Ghandiiam non violent love fest in which no innocent people were killed?
So far, based on a tiny bit of research. it seems you are willing to give the Sandinistas a free pass for doing (in a general sense) something similar to what the US was accused of, correct?
We're getting pretty far afield from the topic, which is religious liberty, Craig.
I think my points all stand, rationally, morally and legally.
The Sandinistas were dealing with what, by all measures, was a destructive, oppressive, dangerous regime (Somoza, a family propped up for decades by US politicians until they got too dangerous and destructive for even our presidents). It was a regime that morally needed to be stopped, even if it broke laws to overthrow their rule. Again, I point to my earlier principle: People should follow laws UNLESS and UNTIL it involves doing/supporting harmful actions. One can morally, reasonably break laws when one is opposing harmful actions.
I personally disagree with the Sandinistas use of deadly force (and I always disagree with deadly violence that kills innocent people, unlike you and those who support "war" actions like the bombing of Hiroshima) and believe in non-violent approaches to stop oppression, but most people (yourself included) don't have a problem with using deadly violence to stop oppression. Somoza was oppressive. So, there is no inconsistency on my part there and my point stands (it is reasonable to break laws to prevent harm).
Further, it is reasonable to understand that the placing of deadly explosives where it can kill people is attempted murder (at least) and a war crime and should be opposed, IF one thinks it's wrong to do that here (golden rule and all that). That you want to try to defend it when Reagan does it does not make it moral or legal. The world court disagrees with your hunches. I'll take the World Court over some guy on the internet who, by his own admission, is ignorant of the facts.
So, having cleared all that up and realizing that you do not appear willing to condemn Reagan's actions. I am. Such is life.
Anything to say on the topic of the post?
It seems interesting that this is the point at which you choose to "get back to the topic", but whatever.
I've been pretty clear on topic, Davis was incarcerated for Contempt of Court not for either violating or having her "religious liberty" infringed on.
FYI, it appears (if one believes that elected officials should enforce and abide by existing law in their jurisdiction) that Davis may have been legally correct in her refusal to issue marriage licenses. If one takes KRS Chapter 402.005 at face value, then it raises some interesting questions.
"Further, it is reasonable to understand that the placing of deadly explosives where it can kill people is attempted murder..."
This ignores that fact that something cannot be attempted murder unless the statute defining attempted murder is violated.
"...that you do not appear willing to condemn Reagan's actions."
As I have already explained my stance on this, I can only assume that you felt it necessary to lie.
So, with that, I'm done.
Post a Comment