It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kim Davis Comes Out Of The Political Closet!

page: 8
34
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH




originally posted by: Annee

There is no religious test per the Constitution.



There is now.

"Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party."


Communism isn't a religion, it's a political affiliation.

Shaking my head!




posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: AMPTAH

Now you're just being silly. You can practice your religion in America


As long as you don't hold public office, yes.

But, once in public office, you have two choices.

1) Leave the job, and practice your religion in the private sector.
2) Stay on the job, become two faced, and look the other way, when your beliefs are in conflict with the office.



And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. KJV, Matthew 6:5


Some people like to be "seen to be Christians", they go to church, hang out with the congregations, take photo ops, etc..but when they have to act, their actions are contrary to their professed beliefs.

So, you either have to be a hypocrite in office, or a believer that quits.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword


Communism isn't a religion, it's a political affiliation.

Shaking my head!



Yes, that was the exact point I was making. You have to read the whole post, before responding.

Communism isn't a religion, "SO" the US constitution wasn't violated by having a "communist test" for holding office.

But, "religion" is protected by the constitution. So "no religious test" is allowed to determine if a person can hold office. But, the "Davis Test" is a "religious test". Hence the constitution is now violated.

That's the point. Is it clear, now?



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

As long as you don't hold public office, yes.


What part of Secular Government do you not understand?

You can believe whatever you want, but you can't let it interfere with the a government job you took an oath to the Constitution for.

No one forced Kim to get a government job. That was her choice.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

It's the hypocrite that takes a government Job, then claims they can't do it because of religious objections. Their agenda is to prevent others from practicing their "religion". That's not practicing religion, unless your religion says that only yours is true, and you should obstruct the practice of others'.

America wasn't founded on such a premise and American law reflects rights that are supposed to be evenly distributed. If your job is to make sure that happens, you can't claim religious objection to others' religions and their practices. IF doing your job offends you, then you should quit.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
This cuts to the heart of the issue in my opinion. This is from a piece discussing the fact that Kim Davis' legal team hoaxed a story about a rally that had supposedly been held for her in Peru. However, that hoaxing is not what I want to address. Rather I want to point out this:


Though Staver called the photograph “an honest mistake,” he insisted that people still give Davis a thumbs-up everywhere she goes. “Make no mistake, however, that there is widespread support for Kim Davis. Last week she was recognized by many people as she walked through the Philadelphia, New York LaGuardia, and Washington, D.C. Reagan airports. People gave her a thumbs up sign or verbally expressed support for Kim Davis. While she has obvious detractors, Kim Davis also has wide support.”


Source

( By the by, it is from a site called "Thinkprogress" - however I cannot find any source that either disputes the validity or context of the quote - so straw man away by attacking the source if you must but doing so will not change the facts presented ).

Now, maybe it's just me and my possible ignorance. But I would assume that being a Theocratic tyrant of a County Clerk in Bumblebutt Kentucky could not possibly involve jaunts through Philly, LaGuardia and Reagan International. Am I missing anything here? Is she on vacation? Is there some aspect of her job that I am missing out on? Maybe there is an obscure law about using Notaries from other cities?

Or is Kim Davis now abusing her public office yet again by neglecting her duties even as she travels around making immoral profits from her abuse of office?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide

Or is Kim Davis now abusing her public office yet again by neglecting her duties even as she travels around making immoral profits from her abuse of office?


Was waiting for someone to mention the ridiculous hoax. So happy you downplayed it.

However, "Where in the World" is Kim Davis ---- and who's paying for these jaunts?

One place she's not is in her office handing out marriage licenses.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

On the 25th or 26th, she went to the Value Voter's Summit in DC to receive the “Cost of Discipleship Award” from America's leading hate group. I'm certain they paid for everything. I don't doubt her supporters were vocal. Her dissenters were probably awed by the spectacle.

Source



Last night at the Values Voter Summit, the annual gathering of conservatives sponsored by America’s leading anti-gay hate group, Family Research Council, bigoted Kentucky County Clerk and lawbreaker Kim Davis was awarded the group’s “Cost of Discipleship Award”.

Davis was introduced by her attorney Mat Staver and FRC head Tony Perkins.


edit on 9/29/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Hefficide

On the 25th or 26th, she went to the Value Voter's Summit in DC to receive the “Cost of Discipleship Award” from America's leading hate group. I'm certain they paid for everything. I don't doubt her supporters were vocal. Her dissenters were probably awed by the spectacle.


Awed wouldn't be my choice of word


The day will come when she is no longer news.

Maybe they can offer her a job to keep her in the spotlight.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Kim Davis Meets Secretly With Pope



“I put my hand out and he reached and he grabbed it, and I hugged him and he hugged me,” Davis said. “And he said, ‘thank you for your courage.’”

Father Benedettini from the Vatican Press office released a statement after reports emerged that Davis and the pope had met.

“The Holy See is aware of the reports of Kim Davis meeting with the Holy Father. The Vatican does not confirm the meeting, nor does it deny the meeting.[b/] There will be no further information given,“ the statement reads.


Is this totally strange??? A secret meeting, when the Pope's visit was SO VERY PUBLIC? Why so secretive? Why won't the Vatican confirm or deny?



They claim that photos are forthcoming.
Source I will be interested to see the photos. But if the Vatican is going to be sending photos, why wouldn't they confirm the meeting? I'm sure they have their reasons, but it seems strange to me.
edit on 9/30/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

She was arrested because she did not "render the salad unto Caesar," which she is commanded to do, BTW.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
The OP is misleading. It makes it sound like the woman was secretly a republican when she did these things. She wasn't.

The woman has issues. I am not denying that. Her views and her position were in conflict and she should have addressed that herself long before this ever got media attention.

However, when she committed these grievous acts of hatred and bigotry she was a Democrat. She changed parties after the fact. And the reason she changed was because the party of acceptance and tolerance attacked her mercilessly. If my party attacked me like that I would change too.

She committed an act of bigoted hate as a Democrat. Then changed to republican when Democrats attacked her. I don't see anything shocking or surprising there at all.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Annee

Kim Davis Meets Secretly With Pope



“I put my hand out and he reached and he grabbed it, and I hugged him and he hugged me,” Davis said. “And he said, ‘thank you for your courage.’”

Father Benedettini from the Vatican Press office released a statement after reports emerged that Davis and the pope had met.

“The Holy See is aware of the reports of Kim Davis meeting with the Holy Father. The Vatican does not confirm the meeting, nor does it deny the meeting.[b/] There will be no further information given,“ the statement reads.


Is this totally strange??? A secret meeting, when the Pope's visit was SO VERY PUBLIC? Why so secretive? Why won't the Vatican confirm or deny?



They claim that photos are forthcoming.
Source I will be interested to see the photos. But if the Vatican is going to be sending photos, why wouldn't they confirm the meeting? I'm sure they have their reasons, but it seems strange to me.


Could be another hoax by her lawyers. But, alledgedly, she is making the clsim herself.

Scrupulous is not something they comprehend.

If it's true, it cheapens the Pope's visit IMO. She defied a Federal judge and broke the law, defying the Constitution she took an oath to. The Pope had no business sticking his nose in.
edit on 30-9-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
The OP is misleading. It makes it sound like the woman was secretly a republican when she did these things. She wasn't.


No, she wasn't -- except in name only. She even states her and her husband had been discussing for a while to switch parties.

But, that particular county is predominately Democrat and it helped her get elected.



edit on 30-9-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

They're setting all the precedent they can.

No stones unturned.




posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

No, she wasn't -- except in name only. She even states her and her husband had been discussing for a while to switch parties.



And you actually *Believe* anything she says !!




posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

No, she wasn't -- except in name only. She even states her and her husband had been discussing for a while to switch parties.



And you actually *Believe* anything she says !!





Her actions speak for her.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Annee

They're setting all the precedent they can.

No stones unturned.



I certainly hope so.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
The OP is misleading. It makes it sound like the woman was secretly a republican when she did these things. She wasn't.


No, she wasn't -- except in name only. She even states her and her husband had been discussing for a while to switch parties.

But, that particular county is predominately Democrat and it helped her get elected.




I see your point, but at some time she was a democrat. The question isn't whether she changed to republican or not, it is when. There is not enough evidence to support an accurate conclusion. I think a lot of people look at the current state of the nation and wonder if their party choices are correct (assuming there even is a correct choice). And with party policy becoming increasingly ambiguous in an attempt to sway those unsure voters, the lines are being blurred more than ever. It could be that the changing party beliefs are what brought this whole issue to a head in her case. Or, this could just be another case of someone deciding they 'identify as' whatever they suddenly choose to be for whatever reason. There seems to be a lot of that happening lately.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
The OP is misleading. It makes it sound like the woman was secretly a republican when she did these things. She wasn't.


No, she wasn't -- except in name only. She even states her and her husband had been discussing for a while to switch parties.

But, that particular county is predominately Democrat and it helped her get elected.




. . . at some time she was a democrat.


What does that really mean?

Her mother was a Democrat, so at 18 she joined her mothers party?

She is obviously not Democrat. I doubt she ever was in her real thoughts and actions.
edit on 30-9-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join