I would lighten up. It will work itself out. When you make a major change like that, it takes time for all of it to fall into place.
Just had a penitentiary flashback....
- Thread starter usafk9
- Start date
I thought for a moment he went and applied and was denied.
Just read that Davis has instructed the one deputy clerk assigned to hand out marriage licenses to refrain from using his title "Deputy Clerk", and to sign them as a notary instead. I predict the judge isn't going to like that - he told her not to interfere, and that sure sounds like interference to me.
BTW: when people hear "traditional marriage is between a man and a woman", many think it's just a politically correct way of saying homosexuality is a perversion, gays are sinners, God hates
s, etc. as it amounts to the same thing in the end.
BTW: when people hear "traditional marriage is between a man and a woman", many think it's just a politically correct way of saying homosexuality is a perversion, gays are sinners, God hates
s, etc. as it amounts to the same thing in the end.
Davis said last Monday that her name and title would not appear on the forms and later that same day the Governor and the State Attorney General said the forms were valid. And Judge Bunning's order releasing Kim Davis said a form altered in the same manner by the Deputy Clerk the day after the contempt hearing while Kim was in jail was also valid as far as he was concerned, but that he'd leave it up the state. So there really is no new development with this. The Deputy Clerk is just covering his butt, and the ACLU and other lawyers involved just want to punish her for not embracing same-sex marriage.
I don't know why they'd think it's a politically correct way of saying it, since traditional marriage is, in fact, between one and and one woman. I don't know about gays being sinners or who all God hates, but I do know that homosexuality is a perversion. Look it up and then you'll know it, too.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Is not about embracing...she breaking the Law..if it was anything other than a Christian against a gay...we would not be having this problem...period..
She's a hypocritical bigot. .using her NEW found relegion as an excuse to garner attention. .
IF she walked the walk...talked the talk...been a god fearing nose to the bible christian her ENTIRE life...well.. .honestly I could somewhat respect her views..not this FAKE...never seen so many crocodile tears in that last interview
She's a hypocritical bigot. .using her NEW found relegion as an excuse to garner attention. .
IF she walked the walk...talked the talk...been a god fearing nose to the bible christian her ENTIRE life...well.. .honestly I could somewhat respect her views..not this FAKE...never seen so many crocodile tears in that last interview
Why would Jews try and stop the sale of pork? Kashrut law only prevents Jews (who observe a Kosher diet) from eating pork, not from selling it or otherwise being involved in its provision. Orthodox Jews have no objection to non-Jews eating pork, or to doing anything to help them to do so.
What are you talking about? There are no million it's to agree with. Either you agree that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion or you don't.
The 'it' to which I referred would be religious beliefs, not the freedom to practice them.
Now you're just making stuff up. She's never passed judgement on anyone's moral fitness to be married. Her own morals prevent her from endorsing same-sex marriage, and she absolutely has the right to think whatever she wants to about same-sex marriage, but she's never passed judgement on anyone and told them they were not morally fit to get married. She handed them a piece of paper with instructions and a map to the nearest County Clerk's office (15 miles away) and told them they could get a license there with no problems.
I'm "making stuff up"? Her refusal to grant a marriage license is a statement that says it all "You are unfit to be married." And if she can't sign the licenses, how come she can give people directions to someone who will? How is that any different? One is just as complicit as the other. Does her God judge being an accessory before the fact on a scale?
How are the non Christians losing?
"Faith based" precepts and programs and organizations are increasingly being introduced into public education, and medical care, too, with taxpayer funding. As every example I've seen [and there are plenty] the faith is solely Christian, the non Christians are losing the fight to keep religion out of government - and out of the taxpayers' pockets.
As for the Texas judge who gave the couple the choice of him going to jail or getting married, that happens a lot more than you think. A judge in Pennsylvania did the same thing a few months ago.
That's the unhappy Texas couple with the judge who married them.
The story as reported isn't entirely accurate. The judge didn't order him to "write Bible versus," plural, he ordered him to write a single Bible verse, 25 times a day until he got married, "If a man digs a pit, he will fall into it." Which happens to be a Bible verse. The judge told him the words to write, he didn't even have to crack a Bible to write it.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation got their panties in a wad and filed a complaint with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, instead of filing a lawsuit, because they know they wouldn't have any standing in a lawsuit, because it's none of their business. So, they filed the complaint and want the judge disbarred, which won't happen. They would also like him tarred and feathered, and drawn and quartered, but that won't happen, either. If the Bible verse had been something about God or Jesus or some other Biblical character, then it could easily be argued that it's a violation of church and state. But it's hardly that. "If a man digs a pit, he will fall into it" is so easy even an atheist can understand it. And can probably even write it.
That the judge ordered him to write anything from the Bible at all is an abuse of his authority. The judge imposed his religious beliefs by choosing a Biblical verse to write 25 times per day until the marriage on the defendant, and that's indefensible. Had the judge used a quote from the Quran, everyone would be outraged.
Cheri, why do you believe all US presidents take the oath of office on a Bible as opposed to the Koran? Do you realize the United States is a predominantly Christian nation? Founded on Judeo-Christian principles. There is no getting around this fact. The current flirtation with a president of Muslim heritage is in all likelihood a once-in-a nation's-lifetime event. Obama's legacy will include a resolve by Americans to never veer away again from tradition. Our nation cannot afford another such mistake. Many of us view Obama as a dangerous man. Dangerous to Constitutional government.
Horse hockey. It's a quote from a book, and the quote didn't mention it reference religion in any way, shape or form. It could have just as easily been a quote from Catcher in the Rye or Green Eggs and Ham. It was the quote itself that was important, not where it came from.
No he didn't, and yes it is. The order wasn't issued in the context of religion, the quote doesn't reference religion, the defendant didn't need a Bible to comply with the order. The judge simply thought of a quote that might teach the defendant a life lesson with regard to his crime, and it just so happened to come from the Bible. If the quote had been "I can do all things through Christ" then you'd have an argument about imposing religious beliefs.
Depends on the quote. If it was, "Walk not the Earth with conceit or arrogance," nobody would care much.
What about if he had given any of these quotes...? Any of these objectionable? (no fair Googling)
"Willful waste makes woeful want."
“Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, and borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.”
"When you give someone your word, speak the truth."
What if the judge had ordered him to write, 25 times a day, the lyrics of the 1965 mega-hit song by The Byrds (written by Pete Seeger in the 50s), "Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is A Season)"?
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, a time to reap that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace,
I swear it's not too late.
Is it where these quotes come from more important than what the words themselves say?
Considering he had to write it 25 a day until he was married, if the judge wanted to really put the fear of God into him, I think the judge should have ordered him to write...
"Heav'n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn'd, Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn'd."
Much like the case of the "briefcase clock bomb," this, too is a case where common sense needs to be applied, rather than yielding to an unyielding emotional agenda.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Fact is, all Presidents don't take the oath of office on a Bible, all theocratic hallucinations aside:
"Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901.[11] Both John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce [12]swore on a book of law, with the intention that he was swearing on the constitution.[13]
Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One.[14] Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama each swore the oath on two Bibles.[11]
Washington took his oath of office with an altar bible borrowed from the St. John's Lodge No. 1, Ancient York Masons lodge in New York and he kissed the Bible after taking the oath of office.[15][16]
Subsequent presidents followed suit, up to and including Harry Truman,[17] but Dwight D. Eisenhower broke that tradition by saying his own prayer instead of kissing the Bible"
BTW - you did notice that there is no reference whatsoever to God or a Supreme Being in the actual oath itself didn't you ?
Oath of office of the President of the United States
It would accurate to say that the majority of the present population of the Unites States are Christian ... or at least hailed from the Christian faith/heritage at some point in the past ...
But if one wanted to be entirely correct, it would be far more accurate to say that the United States is a pluralistic nation, favoring no particular faith as a matter of law.
To some extent ... but not exclusively.
You would have to elaborate further ... in order to determine whether you are actually talking about real facts ... or merely indulging in a fantasy designed to serve an agenda ...
Liars For Jesus
The United States as a Christian nation - Rational Wiki
Last edited:
No, We were originally a secular nation The original founding fathers did not want religion in the constitution. In fact, Jefferson (the author of the constitution) was an atheist. He believed that religion in government was a damaging idea and wrote specific clauses to keep it out. In fact, most modern nations have followed the idea of separation of church and state and applied it to their own constitutions. All modern nations agree that religion has no place in politics.
"Separation of church and state" was designed to allow people freedom of conscience by preventing the government from imposing a state religion. It allows each individual to worship whichever deity he or she chooses, including "none". In other countries, one is required to follow the state religion, or at least contribute to it with tax money. Failure to obey can have drastic consequences; you run the risk of losing your freedom, even your head
Here in the USA, however, each one of us is free to choose. I choose to worship Jesus Christ. You may choose Him, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or none at all. Let your conscience be your guide. Just remember that you get to choose only for yourself, not for the rest of us.
Here in the USA, however, each one of us is free to choose. I choose to worship Jesus Christ. You may choose Him, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or none at all. Let your conscience be your guide. Just remember that you get to choose only for yourself, not for the rest of us.
To be fair, or rather, if one wanted to be entirely correct, one shouldn't mentally lop off the contextual meat of the sentence and reply solely to what remains. The claim made within the question was not that all presidents take the oath of office on a Bible, period, the question was posed as to why the Bible and not the Koran. The question doesn't even apply to those presidents who used neither when they were sworn into office.
Incidentally, as a matter of accuracy and completeness, Theodore Roosevelt didn't use a Bible in 1901 when he was sworn in, because he was sworn in after William McKinley died, and the oath of office was hastily administered at the Ansley Wilcox residence (now the Ashley Wilcox House, the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Historic Site, administered by the National Park Service) in Buffalo, NY, where a Bible was not immediately available. When he was sworn in 1905 he used the same Bible that he used in 1898 when he was sworn in as governor of NY.
Franklin Pierce didn't use a Bible for his oath of office, ironically on religious grounds. It's also why he "affirmed" rather than swore his oath. The Constitution mandates "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The "Affirmation" and "(or affirm)" in the Constitution comes from one of the basic tenets of the Religious Society of Friends, A.K.A.,the Quakers. The Quakers were among some of those groups that took very, very seriously and very, very literally the injunction in Scripture in the "Sermon on the Mount" that you should swear not, period. You swear not. Don't ever swear, under any circumstances, end of discussion. ("But I tell you, do not swear at all, either by heaven for it is God's throne or by the earth for it is his foot stool. Simply let your yes be yes and your no, no. Anything beyond this comes from the evil one.") The meaning behind that for Quakers was not merely in the sense that if the Sermon on the Mount gives you an ethical principle, you darn tootin' better take it seriously, but also that if you swear at times and don't swear at others, you are implying that maybe in those other times you don't tell the truth. Once you start swearing, you're gonna have to swear at everything you say to get people to believe you. It's easier just to have one big default swear where your yes means yes and your no means no. It is a fundamental religious ethical principle that has unwittingly been adopted by countless liberal atheists on college campuses everywhere, and isn't that a hoot.
Now instead of lopping off you're adding to. The addition of "favoring no particular faith as a matter of law" changes completely the context of his statement. While your new and improved statement is indeed entirely correct, it doesn't make the original statement any less entirely correct. Since a nation is, by definition, a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory, where "a matter of law" plays no role in the definition, it is, indeed, entirely correct to state the United States is a predominantly Christian nation.
Much to the chagrin of many, that might not be the case much longer (relatively speaking). As is noted in the most recent Pew Research Center poll, "To be sure, the United States remains home to more Christians than any other country in the world, and a large majority of Americans – roughly seven-in-ten – continue to identify with some branch of the Christian faith. But the major new survey of more than 35,000 Americans by the Pew Research Center finds that the percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014." (roughly 52% of the world's population is non-Christian, compared to the roughly 6% in the US).
It's an interesting (and alarming to some) poll that shows Christians are fighting a losing battle of attrition. As Christians see more and more people claiming to not be Christian (both those (mostly the younger folks) never entering the world of Christianity in the first place, and those leaving the church outright), they are becoming more and more defensive, and angry, about it, Desperate. They've gotten to the point where they are now claiming there is an actual "War on Christianity" in America. Onward Christian soldiers. (Any similarities or parallels to be drawn between that and Islamic jihad are purely coincidental). They're fighting harder and harder, as compared to any time in the history of these United States, to get their views legislated into law, to force the increasing number of non-believers to at the very least behave like a believer.