Yeah, rather disappointed in hearing that. I started liked this pope until he back-peddled on same sex relationships, then went on with a PR campaign about sex abuse (read: nothing will change), and now this.

Apparently a belief in God is an exemption from being fair and just, and an exemption from following the law so long as it goes against your conscience.

Isn't that exactly why we have a justice system in the first place? To prevent people from doing things like this?

Our favourite pope has weighed in on the issue.

Govt. workers have right to refuse gay marriage licenses: pope

How can the Pope say anything else in public. It is official catholic church dogma along with it's anti divorce and anti abortion position.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Apparently a belief in God is an exemption from being fair and just, and an exemption from following the law so long as it goes against your conscience.

I believe you have just described all forms of religious fundamentalism.

A man described as good in a holy book: "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes"

An atheist's ethics allows no exceptions for gang rape.

---

I have actually met people who believe that the fact that the government has chosen to put "in god we trust" on our currency proves the existence of god.

---

Dave Nelson

Apparently a belief in God is an exemption from being fair and just, and an exemption from following the law so long as it goes against your conscience.

I believe you have just described all forms of religious fundamentalism.

A man described as good in a holy book: "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes"

An atheist's ethics allows no exceptions for gang rape.

Indeed. Would an old, sonless atheist allow an exception for incest so that there might be someone to carry his name? I suspect not.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Yeah, rather disappointed in hearing that. I started liked this pope until he back-peddled on same sex relationships, then went on with a PR campaign about sex abuse (read: nothing will change), and now this.

Apparently a belief in God is an exemption from being fair and just, and an exemption from following the law so long as it goes against your conscience.

Isn't that exactly why we have a justice system in the first place? To prevent people from doing things like this?

Well he actually doesn't say that. He says that people should have the right to object to discharging their duty if they feel it clashes with their consciousness.

Tell me, how do you feel about people who avoid the draft because they are pacifists? Or people who went AWOL because they were about to be deployed to a war they did not agree with? What about someone like Snowden who revealed a bunch of state secrets because he felt keeping those things a secret would be immoral? Should the government go after those people with full force as well?

Does working for the government really mean you have to completely set aside your own morals and values in favor of the morals and values set by the government?

Well he actually doesn't say that. He says that people should have the right to object to discharging their duty if they feel it clashes with their consciousness.

This is exactly what I said he said, and I think he's opening up a can of worms.

Does working for the government really mean you have to completely set aside your own morals and values in favor of the morals and values set by the government?

So where does it end, logically? Does half the military get to opt-out of a war they disagree with? Can police officers do the same? What about ambulance drivers and other rescue workers? If something violates their conscience, do they simply get to not do their jobs? Or would it be best if they resigned and let someone else do it? And if no one else is willing to do it, then maybe that will send a message that the law was wrong.

Yeah, rather disappointed in hearing that. I started liked this pope until he back-peddled on same sex relationships, then went on with a PR campaign about sex abuse (read: nothing will change), and now this.

Apparently a belief in God is an exemption from being fair and just, and an exemption from following the law so long as it goes against your conscience.

Isn't that exactly why we have a justice system in the first place? To prevent people from doing things like this?

Well he actually doesn't say that. He says that people should have the right to object to discharging their duty if they feel it clashes with their consciousness.

Tell me, how do you feel about people who avoid the draft because they are pacifists? Or people who went AWOL because they were about to be deployed to a war they did not agree with? What about someone like Snowden who revealed a bunch of state secrets because he felt keeping those things a secret would be immoral? Should the government go after those people with full force as well?

Does working for the government really mean you have to completely set aside your own morals and values in favor of the morals and values set by the government?

There is a Religious Exception, not a Conscientious (non-religious) Objection to Serving in the American Military.

Religious Practices in the 1st Amendment (including Free Speech), are Protected.

We see this today by the Religious Accommodation Laws and Court Rulings, regarding Religious Beliefs.

Note: If The Left believers that a Practicing Christian (Kim Davis) cannot be allowed to serve in an Elected Government Position:

The Left must agree with Dr. Carson, regarding a Practicing Muslim, in any Elected Position (Including President of The United States).

Correct?

If not: What is the difference?

Right, so you can opt to not serve in the military and no one is forcing wots-er-name to be a county clerk. However, she is using her position to now force other people to comply with her world view.

---

Reality Internet Personality

So where does it end, logically? Does half the military get to opt-out of a war they disagree with? Can police officers do the same? What about ambulance drivers and other rescue workers? If something violates their conscience, do they simply get to not do their jobs? Or would it be best if they resigned and let someone else do it? And if no one else is willing to do it, then maybe that will send a message that the law was wrong.

Well thats the question isn't it? But I do like my government consistent, so if it allows people to object to one thing, it should allow for people to object to everything. Though perhaps with the idea that in some cases, such as the Kim Davis case, it might be better to look for another job.

So where does it end, logically? Does half the military get to opt-out of a war they disagree with? Can police officers do the same? What about ambulance drivers and other rescue workers? If something violates their conscience, do they simply get to not do their jobs? Or would it be best if they resigned and let someone else do it? And if no one else is willing to do it, then maybe that will send a message that the law was wrong.

Well thats the question isn't it? But I do like my government consistent, so if it allows people to object to one thing, it should allow for people to object to everything. Though perhaps with the idea that in some cases, such as the Kim Davis case, it might be better to look for another job.

I don't have a problem with her right to object per se, but rather if she isn't willing to fulfill her duty that she took an oath to uphold, then perhaps resigning is the only respectable option. It sounded to me that the pope is saying she should have a right to object and keep her job.

Note: If The Left believers that a Practicing Christian (Kim Davis) cannot be allowed to serve in an Elected Government Position:

The Left must agree with Dr. Carson, regarding a Practicing Muslim, in any Elected Position (Including President of The United States).

Correct?

If not: What is the difference?

I don't see anyone here saying a Christian shouldn't hold Kim Davis' job.

Es99...

You then agree with Dr.Carson, regarding Practising Muslims.

Correct?

Not correct...as long has the practising muslim doesn't force his religion on other its fine. I have worked in government with practising muslims and they were 'surprisingly' capable of doing their government jobs without forcing their faith on anyone else.

How many Muslims do you know, Clyde? How many have you worked with, befriended, hung out with? Because your question about Dr. Carson is really dumb. Especially as it seems there are a lot of Christians in the US government who can't seem to help themselves when it comes to forcing their views on others.

Maybe we should not allow anyone of any faith in any position of power?

---

Reality Internet Personality

I don't have a problem with her right to object per se, but rather if she isn't willing to fulfill her duty that she took an oath to uphold, then perhaps resigning is the only respectable option. It sounded to me that the pope is saying she should have a right to object and keep her job.

Exactly. I'm a vegetarian, perhaps I should go get a job in a butcher's shop and refuse to sell people meat. Its my firm belief that eating meat is wrong so I am sure these people would protect my right to work in a butcher's shop and stop other people from eating meat.

---

Reality Internet Personality

"Every citizen has the right to be wrong!"
Joseph R. Smallwood


edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Smallwood

---

Es99...

Answer: Many, in the present US Military.

Why would you believe differently?

How can it be that The Left, as The Right, does not understand people they disagree with.

Why?

BTW: According to both The Left and Dr. Carson:. Any Muslim, Christian, Jew, (pick one or more). Must renounce their Religion, or Swear an Oath against their Religion's Teaching. To hold Office.

Repeating: Left = Right.

Perhaps you need to change your constitution then? What are you not understanding about the separation of Church and State?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Note: If The Left believers that a Practicing Christian (Kim Davis) cannot be allowed to serve in an Elected Government Position:

The Left must agree with Dr. Carson, regarding a Practicing Muslim, in any Elected Position (Including President of The United States).

Correct?

If not: What is the difference?

I don't see anyone here saying a Christian shouldn't hold Kim Davis' job.

The Left: Only should have her job. If they reject Their Religion's Doctrine.

Once again you're misstating or misunderstanding what you believe to be the left's position on this. There are plenty of Christians who are willing to give out same-sex marriage licenses and do not feel it rejects their religion's doctrine. If Mrs. Davis feels so strongly about it, then she should do the only right thing and step aside if she can no longer fulfill her duties and oath.

'Separation of Church and State' are not the words in the First Amendment.

Except that SCOTUS has ruled that denying same-sex marriage is a violation of equal rights, therefor the First Amendment no longer applies in this case. The Courts are not saying she has to agree with them, nor are the courts saying she cannot believe same-sex marriage is wrong. What they are saying is that she took an oath before entering office that said she would uphold the law, and now the law is requiring her to stop treating same-sex couples as inferior when it comes to getting married. If she can no longer fulfill that oath, then she needs to step aside and allow someone who is willing to not let their personal views get in the way of following the law.

Once again you're misstating or misunderstanding what you believe to be the left's position on this.

As I am "The Left" I am not sure how I can be misstating it. It is more likely that you are misstating it.

There are plenty of Christians who are willing to give out same-sex marriage licenses and do not feel it rejects their religion's doctrine. If Mrs. Davis feels so strongly about it, then she should do the only right thing and step aside if she can no longer fulfill her duties and oath.

Isn't that what I, as The Left, have been saying all along?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Once again you're misstating or misunderstanding what you believe to be the left's position on this.

As I am "The Left" I am not sure how I can be misstating it. It is more likely that you are misstating it.

CLYDE wrote:

The Left: Only should have her job. If they reject Their Religion's Doctrine.

My statement was in response to that. CLYDE thinks that the Left is stating that she should only be able to keep her job if she rejects her religion's doctrine. This is not correct to my knowledge. My post was an attempt to correct CLYDE's misunderstanding that no one is telling Mrs. Davis that she has to be OK with same-sex marriage, or has to accept it religiously. What some people, like me, are saying is that she can hold her personal beliefs all she wants, but she can no longer hide behind the law for her bigotry.

There are plenty of Christians who are willing to give out same-sex marriage licenses and do not feel it rejects their religion's doctrine. If Mrs. Davis feels so strongly about it, then she should do the only right thing and step aside if she can no longer fulfill her duties and oath.

Isn't that what I, as The Left, have been saying all along?

Yes, that is what many liberals have been saying, and I happen to agree.