Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

On the positive side, Presidential Pretender Mike Huckabee is doubling down and will be clearly seen as the theocratic opportunist he is, as well as placing the rank ignorance of other Candidates on national display:

Huckabee to Visit Kim Davis in Jail

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am more concerned about the quotes from Rand, Scott, Ted, and Bobby because they may have a chance at POTUS.

None of them seem to understand the 1st Amendment.

It is very simple, Kim Davis cannot hold a political office and enforce religious laws on the public. Doing so would be her playing the part of congress. Doingso would be in direct violation of the first amendment.



As far as the name calling it does get old and seems to end logical discussion on the matter.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Gryphon66

I am more concerned about the quotes from Rand, Scott, Ted, and Bobby because they may have a chance at POTUS.

None of them seem to understand the 1st Amendment.

It is very simple, Kim Davis cannot hold a political office and enforce religious laws on the public. Doing so would be her playing the part of congress. Doingso would be in direct violation of the first amendment.



As far as the name calling it does get old and seems to end logical discussion on the matter.

Agreed on the ignorance of the other passengers in the Republican Candidate Clown-car.

Agreed on the oft repeated facts about the Kim Davis situation, except that Congress doesn't have the right to impose religious laws either. That might be what you mean.

Name-calling? Referring to Huckabee as a theocrat? LOL, what would you call him?

From the article:

"We must defend religious liberty and never surrender to judicial tyranny," he said in a statement. "I am proud of Kim for standing strong for her beliefs. Who will be next? Pastors? Photographers? Caterers? Florists? This is a reckless, appalling, out-of-control decision that undermines the Constitution of the United States and our fundamental right to religious liberty."

I'm not sure what you mean in that, also, I'm not sure where you've seen any "logical discussion" on this matter ...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I was just thinking about how important that wall is between Church and State. That wall is more important for the religious than it is for us secular folks. Belief systems, especially Christian belief systems (with the millions of flavors of it here in the US) under the whim of elected office? I mean in most cases, it would mean Christian authority but what about the few places Christians are the minority? What about places where Catholics far outnumber Protestants? What about towns where Muslims or Hindus are the majority, what happens to the Christians there? That seems like a crazy road to go down.

Of course some Christians want to break and change the very first restriction placed on government by the founders and establish Christianity as the national religion... I don't see that going over too well. I wonder how well the dominant religion would survive the backlash it would receive.

a reply to: chuck258

Thanks. The greater issue is the rocks in her head and that belief that she clings to that she is somehow morally intact.

a reply to: Gryphon66

My statement about name calling was aimed at the thread it wasn't aimed at you or the article. I am just a bit disipointed at what I have seen with some posters.

As far as the 1st I will try to clarify my thoughts.

The first dealing with religion says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The first forbids government from enforcing religious laws it also forbids government from not allowing people to worship as they see fit.

Kim Davis doesn't seem to understand that her elected position is "government i.e. congress" so when she is at work and refuses to issue marriage licenses citing "gods law" as the reason then she is in fact in violation of the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

What is very ironic is that Kim cites the 1st as what protects her and she clearly doesn't understand it is what condemns her.


In the article you linked I didn't see a single candidate that understood that and I find it a bit worrying.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Scares me can you imagine a christian run US theocracy?.
Nukes flying within a year...

a reply to: Grimpachi

I agree with you.

On all points.

a reply to: Kali74

the dominant religion lasted approx. 600 years in the European Christian middle ages. you could be killed just for saying that you didn't believe in god....what human would want to live in a society that practices that type of barbarism?....the first amendment guarantees PERSONAL freedom to worship any god you like, but not if you insist on pushing that belief and the actions that pertain to it, on others.

a reply to: Grimpachi

just because they don't respect it, doesn't mean they don't understand it. I have a hard time believing that they don't understand it. they are as old as I am and we learned all this crap in grade school. they can't have a country run on the principles of any religion as long as that ammendment stays intact, so well they want to undermine it. they pick a small group, like the homosexuals that really not many people care about one way or another so that the most people will just go along with what they are saying, without doing much thinking about it. but well, sooner or later they will have to admit that yes, the gov't does have a right to interfere with your religious beliefs, because we don't agree with them and well, we see those as being just too dang disruptive to our plans. not all religious beliefs deserve protection, sorry. we christians are the majority and therefore only our beliefs should be protected.

but when the constitution was written it was to protect small sects of christian believers from other christian believers, so not even the christians will be safe if this was allowed to play out.

originally posted by: dawnstar

but when the constitution was written it was to protect small sects of christian believers from other christian believers, so not even the christians will be safe if this was allowed to play out.

That's true. Not many seem to know that.

When individual different sects of Christianity started bickering and having power struggles - - - our founding fathers took action.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Grimpachi

just because they don't respect it, doesn't mean they don't understand it. I have a hard time believing that they don't understand it. they are as old as I am and we learned all this crap in grade school.

This is what I was going to say. They understand perfectly! They are lawyers and political experts! They are counting on an uneducated populace (about legal matters and the Constitution) and they have that in SPADES. They can stand up for "religious rights" and keep their voters happy and coming back to the polls.

They understand, all right. They're just devious, deceitful and greedy.

a reply to: boymonkey74

a reply to: jimmyx

Yeah, I just don't see it surviving in the US much longer if they keep trying to insist on their authority or exert it in new ways.

I expect that type of pandering from the likes of Huckabee because let's face it he never had a shot at POTUS, but his run keeps his name prominent and will help make future book sales of which I am sure he understands.

The Christian far right will not determine the election yet the GOP keeps acting like it will. I was actually considering Rand. I wanted to have an open mind about him and at least consider him, but when he makes moves like this I can't help but say "screw that".


I predict the GOP will fail this coming election again "really bad" because they just haven't learned their lesson. IMO this type of brain dead pandering alienates a significant voting block.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

I expect that type of pandering from the likes of Huckabee because let's face it he never had a shot at POTUS, but his run keeps his name prominent and will help make future book sales of which I am sure he understands.

I find it odd he is even going to visit Saint Kimmy considering she is a Democrat.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't find it odd. How great is it that he gets to claim that he will bridge the gap while not really doing it?

originally posted by: Grimpachi

How great is it that he gets to claim that he will bridge the gap while not really doing it?

Maybe he can go and teach a science class after and really show off his mad knowledge.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Gryphon66

I was just thinking about how important that wall is between Church and State. That wall is more important for the religious than it is for us secular folks. Belief systems, especially Christian belief systems (with the millions of flavors of it here in the US) under the whim of elected office? I mean in most cases, it would mean Christian authority but what about the few places Christians are the minority? What about places where Catholics far outnumber Protestants? What about towns where Muslims or Hindus are the majority, what happens to the Christians there? That seems like a crazy road to go down.

Of course some Christians want to break and change the very first restriction placed on government by the founders and establish Christianity as the national religion... I don't see that going over too well. I wonder how well the dominant religion would survive the backlash it would receive.

Yes, I've tried to make that argument many times ... the Christians actually WANT the Church and State to remain separate.

What if baptism were officially restricted to either sprinkling or dunking? What if "the Lord's Table" were only available to certain members? What if Confession became manditory? Or conversely, what if Confession were restricted? By Law.

And that's only a few of the "alternatives" in the Christian faith ... imagine if the little old ladies down at First Baptist were suddenly forced to dance skyclad under the moon? (Actually, it'd probably do them good, but I digress.)

And, of course, let's all remember the biggest bugaboo ... SHARIA LAWS!!!!

Now this is similar . Lets see how these 2 turn out. Both claiming religious exemption from aspects of their job.

Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended for refusing to serve alcohol

In a bid to get her job back, Charee Stanley filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday for the revocation of a reasonable religious accommodation.

www.cnn.com...