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.
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: windword
Liberty Counsel has admitted that the Peru photo is a different event.
Think Progress
originally posted by: eluryh22
But the Pope (of which I am not a fan, to be candid) meets with this Davis character, and people are getting all worked. So strange.
The term 'Conscientious Objection' implies no actions which would trample anyone's rights.
"Conscientious objection" is fine. Until it is taken to the extent of trampling someone elses rights.
If the Government makes a law trampling someone's rights that is against the Constitution. An Individual refusing to hand out an application or refusing to sign a license does not trample someone's rights.
Government should and does have policies for dealing with problem employees. The policy should be followed, or we are a Banana Republic.
Perhaps he did not agree with her stance, but he did agree with her right to have that stance.
originally posted by: harvestdog
2) Why didn't the pope call in all Bishops and Cardinal's to a huge stadium. Why not arrest the ones that have been shuffled around? This Pope is a joke. His Organization traffics Pedophiles yet no meeting for them?
He has many criminals he ranks over.
Although it may be true that the Pope was not directly addressing Kim Davis in his talks with reporters.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Spiramirabilis
That's the thing about bigotry, the person doing it feels like they are in the right even though no one else does. Bigotry starts from a premise of irrationality, so there is no reasoning with it. Bigots usually ignore facts and evidence that paint their stereotypes and bigoted ideas as wrong. So it is no surprising that Davis feels like she is obeying her conscious here. Her conscious is warped by irrationality and hate.
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: windword
Ah. Sorry, I missed that. No, 100K Peruvians didn't get together to pray for Kim Davis... it was a total lie. Her lawyers are claiming they just parroted with the President of Peru told them. What that means for an alleged meeting with the Pope, I don't know. It seems silly to me that he would meet with her but it seems equally silly and too risky that she would lie about it. The Vatican PR team doesn't deny it but won't comment any further on it... but Vatican PR and other people in power at the Vatican aren't happy with Pope Francis either. The whole thing is weird.
originally posted by: windword
Like I said earlier, it's baffling to me that Pentecostals, as Kim Davis is, would get all worked up about the Pope in the first place. Most of the Pentecostals that I know think the Pope is the Antichrist!
originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: harvestdog
Not sure what to make of it, particularly as obviously we don't know what was discussed between them if they did meet, but even on what has been reported, I'm not sure I read it that the Pope said he agreed with her opinion, but that he agreed with her right to have an opinion based on her moral stance. If that is the case I kind of agree but it's a tricky one in that if you never want to kill someone then you shouldn't join the infantry if you will pardon my use of a metaphor.
Activists who represent lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Catholics tell The Advocate they are concerned about now-confirmed reports of a meeting between Pope Francis and antigay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, fearing that such a meeting could set back what little support there is for the disenfranchised faithful.
"The news that Pope Francis met with Kim Davis while failing to respond to repeated requests for dialogue with LGBT Catholics and their families will be deeply disappointing to many Catholics, gay, trans, and straight alike," says Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, in an email to The Advocate.
"It put the weight of the Vatican behind the US Catholic bishops’ claims of victimization, and supports those who want to make it more difficult for same-sex couples to exercise their civil rights.
www.advocate.com...
originally posted by: Reallyfolks
originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: harvestdog
Not sure what to make of it, particularly as obviously we don't know what was discussed between them if they did meet, but even on what has been reported, I'm not sure I read it that the Pope said he agreed with her opinion, but that he agreed with her right to have an opinion based on her moral stance. If that is the case I kind of agree but it's a tricky one in that if you never want to kill someone then you shouldn't join the infantry if you will pardon my use of a metaphor.
She is really no more or less of a bigot than those that oppose her are. Bigots on both sides simply fighting over who has the right opinion and the opinion to be ignored. Playing all the same games, using the exact same talking points, and the cycle continues
That's the thing about bigotry, the person doing it feels like they are in the right even though no one else does. Bigotry starts from a premise of irrationality, so there is no reasoning with it.
If Pope Francis wants to honor conscientious objection, why doesn’t he reinstate Father Roy Bourgeois whose conscience required him to participate in the ordination of a Roman Catholic Woman Priest. If the pope honors conscientious objection, he should honor the consciences of all Catholics who support women’s ordination and provide entrance to the clergy for all women called to ordination. –Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry
newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com...
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Reallyfolks
originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: harvestdog
Not sure what to make of it, particularly as obviously we don't know what was discussed between them if they did meet, but even on what has been reported, I'm not sure I read it that the Pope said he agreed with her opinion, but that he agreed with her right to have an opinion based on her moral stance. If that is the case I kind of agree but it's a tricky one in that if you never want to kill someone then you shouldn't join the infantry if you will pardon my use of a metaphor.
She is really no more or less of a bigot than those that oppose her are. Bigots on both sides simply fighting over who has the right opinion and the opinion to be ignored. Playing all the same games, using the exact same talking points, and the cycle continues
NO
Equal Rights is not about being a bigot.