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?

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

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Doesn't make an exception to the Work Place or Public Office. And doesn't confine Free Exercise to the Home, or House of Worship.

Understanding ALL Freedoms must have some limitations. It is better to err on the side of Freedom. In this case - Religious.

But... When erring on the side of one freedom. Results in limiting the freedom of another (in this case Gay Marriage): Ay, there's the rub.

There's no rub, Democrat Kim Davis could have declined to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples herself, though permitted her deputies to do so. That she would not permit her deputies to act in accordance with their conscience had the effect of establishing her religion in Rowan County.

Before your inevitable question regarding Carson, no I don't agree with his view "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that", for the same reason I would not agree with a person who said the same of a Quaker or a Catholic, or, indeed an atheist.

Note Carson also said "If they are not willing to reject sharia and all the portions of it that are talked about in the Quran". Rejection of sharia means rejection of the obligatory rule on prayer, something that I doubt any practicing Muslim would be willing to agree to, likewise it would mean rejecting the fasting for Ramadan. It is not clear to me why Carson appears to believe such activities are incompatible with the office of POTUS.

---

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

It is not clear to me why Carson appears to believe such activities are incompatible with the office of POTUS.

That's simple, because he needs to pander to the Republican electorate.

---

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?

Es99...

Problem.

Why do they, and not others, speak for their Religion?

Those Christians who give out Marriage Licenses to a Gay Couple: Do not, of course, speak for the entire Religion.

My problem, with this case. Is with Anti-Religion Bigots (not speaking of you - of course), who will not attempt an Accommodation. As is done for others.

Why not here? Why the cheering? Reminds me of the Roman Colosseum: Throw this Christian in jail.

Es99...

We do disagree mightily. But have had interesting discussions.

My question to you. Why wasn't an attempt, at a Normal Religious Accommodation, done? Why this Judge's 'Rush to Judgement'?

This Judge could have easily Ordered, as is usually done in these situations. The State/County/City/Town to attempt to find a Religious Accommodation. While finding someone else, who would sign.

Why not?

The judge did do that. He ordered that she allow her staff to sign, however, she had ignored that order and tried to stop them as well.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Suspension first (Because of Constitutional Issues). Then an attempt at Accommodation.

If unsuccessful. Then...

These very Complicated Constitutional Issues, required a judge not massaging his ego.

The Judge is simply doing his job. The Judge cannot rewrite the marriage certificates, nor can he fire her.

The religious accommodations are coming. The county is planning on re-doing the marriage certificates so that they do not require any name on them, thus removing Kim Davis' name and objection to signing the documents. But until those changes are in place, she is in a tough spot.

It would seem to me that in the ultimate defiance of the law, Kim has chosen to not only go back and remove her name from every same-sex marriage license, but has also stated that all same-sex licenses issued without her signature are invalid.

The only one stroking their ego in this case is Kim Davis, and she's eating up the attention doing so.


As for the Judge, his position is this:

Bunning said in his ruling, "Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions, regardless of our personal opinions. Davis is certainly free to disagree with the Court's opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent."

The Judge sounds quite fair and reasonable to me.

As for the Judge, his position is this:

Bunning said in his ruling, "Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions, regardless of our personal opinions. Davis is certainly free to disagree with the Court's opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent."

The Judge sounds quite fair and reasonable to me.

Well, Mr. Klan doesn't agree with Brown v. Board of Education and is going to force separate and not really equal schools and other accommodations because he can disagree with SCOTUS and refuse to comply with their opinions. A tea party members dream!

When she spoke her oath, her tongue should have caught fire, if her belief was true.

---

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.

Personally I would like to see if its possible if they can't make some accommodations first, ensuring that she can keep her job without forcing her to do something she objects to before firing her. Maybe reassign her to some position where she doesn't really have to do anything with gay couples.

BTW 2: You do agree with Dr. Carson.

Correct?

No I do not.

And as others have pointed out, there are plenty of religious people that either don't make a fuss about it or who even support gay marriage and would be more than happy to give gay couples their marriage certificate.

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.

Personally I would like to see if its possible if they can't make some accommodations first, ensuring that she can keep her job without forcing her to do something she objects to before firing her. Maybe reassign her to some position where she doesn't really have to do anything with gay couples.

Мишель,

Do what?!?!?

I don't think you understand the situation.

Ms. Kim Davis is NOT just some employee. She is County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. Ms. Kim Davis is an ELECTED Government Official.

The Election Results (2014 General Election):

COUNTY CLERK (Vote For 1) 	 	

  	  	        Percent	Votes
John C. COX (REP)	46.84%	3,444
Kim DAVIS (DEM)	        53.16%	3,909
  	  	  	        7,353

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/KY/Rowan/53808/146149/en/summary.html#

(See page 2 of that website for the race in question.)

Who is the 'they' that you refer to? The Voters? The Courts?

Kentucky does not have any 'recall' provisions that I know of. The Voters in Rowan County, Kentucky will have a chance to change their minds on Ms. Davis in the 2018 General Election. The Courts might could do something. If Ms. Davis were to be charged with and convicted of a crime of sufficient severity, Ms. Davis would be removed from office. Ms. Davis herself could resign. Other than that, not much can be done.

Мишель,

Do what?!?!?

I don't think you understand the situation.

Ms. Kim Davis is NOT just some employee. She is County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. Ms. Kim Davis is an ELECTED Government Official.

Ahh I see, my bad. I wasn't aware that county clerk is an elected position. I thought she was just a normal county employee (also the reason I haven't paid to much attention to this case, I didn't get the fuss about it).

Well yeah in that case my point about reassigning her doesn't work obviously. But neither can you fire her and she can only step down out of her own will right?

I guess then we gotta wait for that compromise to be set up, where she no longer has to put her name on it.

Question, what other duties does a county clerk have besides signing off on marriage certificates and why is this an elected position?

Ahh I see, my bad. I wasn't aware that county clerk is an elected position. I thought she was just a normal county employee (also the reason I haven't paid to much attention to this case, I didn't get the fuss about it).

Well yeah in that case my point about reassigning her doesn't work obviously. But neither can you fire her and she can only step down out of her own will right?

I guess then we gotta wait for that compromise to be set up, where she no longer has to put her name on it.

Question, what other duties does a county clerk have besides signing off on marriage certificates and why is this an elected position?

Мишель,

Duties? Depends on the County. Mostly the size of the population of the County, but also to a lesser extent the State the County is in.

The larger the population of the County, the fewer the responsibilities of the County Clerk, as the County can afford to have other departments to handle the other stuff.

Fairly standard for the County Clerk is handling Vital Records, such as Birth Certificates, Death Certificates, Marriage licenses, etc.

In Texas, County Clerks also oversee Local Elections, perhaps in other States as well, I am not sure.

In lower population Counties, the County Clerk will also handle property deeds, business licenses, lots of other stuff.

Why is it an elected position? Why is any other Government position elected? Same reason. The People wish a voice in their Government.

Before your inevitable question regarding Carson, no I don't agree with his view "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that", for the same reason I would not agree with a person who said the same of a Quaker or a Catholic, or, indeed an atheist.

bobby...

You may be too young to remember the concern regarding John Kennedy's Religion.

He had to issue statements that his Roman Catholic Religion, would not interfere with his sworn duties.

When he was meeting the Pope. Questions were raised if he would kiss the Pope's Ring.

As he said. The Penitent Catholic does. The President of The United States, does not.

Nothing new today regarding another Religion.

I chose the religion of two previous presidents on purpose. As you note JFK was a Catholic, Nixon was a Quaker.

---

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

I chose the religion of two previous presidents on purpose. As you note JFK was a Catholic, Nixon was a Quaker.

Is there a tradition that the US President should attend church the first Sunday at office?
I have seen soo many pictures of that.

Why is it an elected position? Why is any other Government position elected? Same reason. The People wish a voice in their Government.

Yeah but people usually don't vote for bureaucrats and the duties of county clerk sound like standard bureaucracy to me.

I mean, in order for elections to make sense you need two or more people competing against each other and then the people can pick who they like most based on the program each candidate campaigns for. So what can a county clerk actually promise to do aside from his or her duties. Promise to do them extra well?

Why is it an elected position? Why is any other Government position elected? Same reason. The People wish a voice in their Government.

Yeah but people usually don't vote for bureaucrats and the duties of county clerk sound like standard bureaucracy to me.

I mean, in order for elections to make sense you need two or more people competing against each other and then the people can pick who they like most based on the program each candidate campaigns for. So what can a county clerk actually promise to do aside from his or her duties. Promise to do them extra well?

You ever try to *fire* a member of the civil service (bureaucrat)? It is difficult in the extreme. Nowadays, they almost have to get caught with kiddie-pr0n on their computer to get the axe.

The position of County Clerk is a very important one. A lot of extremely important records are handled by County Clerks, and if they start screwing up and upsetting the residents of that County (by, for instance, playing favorites) you can get rid of them during the next election.

I never thought that you would be *against* electing government officials. How do you feel about direct election of the US President? The US President is head of the Executive Branch of the US Federal Government. You know... Head Bureaucrat... The President has VERY LITTLE direct political power.

What are the President's powers?

Appoint members of the Federal Judicial branch, and senior members of the Federal Executive Branch. Requires approval of (confirmation by) the US Senate.

Negotiate Treaties with other Nations. Requires approval of (ratification by) the US Senate before the Treaty can take effect.

Recommends a Budget. This is more of a polite request. Over the last MANY years, Congress has ignored the President's Budget and formed one of their own. This even extends down to how much $$ is spent on individual Programs.

Veto Legislation. If, however, the law being vetoed is important enough to Congress, the Veto can (and will) be overridden by Congress.

Politely request that certain specific legislation be introduced in and passed by Congress. The President cannot introduce legislation on his/her own. It REQUIRES a member of Congress to do so, specifically a member of the US House of Representatives if it is Tax legislation. But upon introduction, it requires either the Speaker of the House or the Majority Leader of the Senate to send it to a committee for initial discussion, or bring it up on the floor for a vote in their respective chambers.

Direct Regulations be put into effect by the Executive Branch. Subject to Congressional oversight. If Congress objects, those Regulations go into the trash-can.

Commander-in-Chief of the US Federal military. Again, use of the military is ALSO subject to Congressional oversight. Congress says no, the military comes home.

Head of State. Largely a ceremonial position. About the ONLY direct power of the President that is NOT subject to congressional approval comes under this heading. The so-called Presidential Pardon of various criminals as an act of mercy or justice.

Head of Government. There is no singular head-of-government in the USA. In the USA, the 'head-of-government' is pretty much a group effort. The (currently) 9 members of the Supreme Court, The Speaker of the House, The Majority Leader of the Senate, and The President all function seperately and together as 'head-of-government', with the other 11 having a LOT more direct power and authority than the President.

And that is about it...

The President, essentially is 'nothing but a bureaucrat'. Why elect him/her?

Here in Texas, we elect members of our State and Local Governments. Our Legislators (at State, County, City, and other local levels). We elect our Judges at all levels from State on down. Everything from members of the Supreme Court of the State of Texas on down to the local Justices of the Peace. We elect not only the State Governor, but also the Department Heads of the major State departments of the State Executive Branch. (Secretary of State, Land Commissioner, Railroad Commissioner, etc.). The Same all the way down to Cities, and other highly local Governmental entities such as School Boards.

Other States do things in a similar fashion.

Why are ANY of these positions 'elected positions'?

As I said, The People wish a Voice in Their Government.

For some inexplicable reason. Europeans, and others, do not really understand The Laws, Governmental Structure, Constitution, and Different Cultures, of The Dominant Country since WW2.
Why?

Because we are ignorant.
We dont know that US laws are universal.
Soon we have to obey Russian law that also are universal.
Contradiction?
Yes.

Are the US state and church still not seperated?

Pope Francis’ Meeting Wasn’t an Endorsement of Kim Davis’s Views, Vatican Says

It looks like there was an F-up or shenanigans going on in the Vatican.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Pope Francis’ Meeting Wasn’t an Endorsement of Kim Davis’s Views, Vatican Says

It looks like there was an F-up or shenanigans going on in the Vatican.

Uh, isn't that expected of an organization full of pedophiles?

Pope Francis’ Meeting Wasn’t an Endorsement of Kim Davis’s Views, Vatican Says
It looks like there was an F-up or shenanigans going on in the Vatican.

Uh, isn't that expected of an organization full of pedophiles?

Yes there pedophiles in the chatholic churces.
But that goes for all other "religious" orgs...

Pope Francis’ Meeting Wasn’t an Endorsement of Kim Davis’s Views, Vatican Says
It looks like there was an F-up or shenanigans going on in the Vatican.

Uh, isn't that expected of an organization full of pedophiles?

Yes there pedophiles in the chatholic churces.
But that goes for all other "religious" orgs...

Gary's views are well known.

I don't know:)
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=76601

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=is&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fasatru.is%2F&edit-text=
ASAT or Christian custom is based on tolerance, honesty, honor and respect for the ancient cultural heritage and nature. One principal function late in that each person is responsible for themselves and their actions.

You ever try to *fire* a member of the civil service (bureaucrat)? It is difficult in the extreme. Nowadays, they almost have to get caught with kiddie-pr0n on their computer to get the axe.

Really? Well you're doing it wrong then. Bureaucrats are just like regular employees, they have a contract and its perfectly possible to fire them for a bunch of valid reasons. At least, thats how it works over here. Apparently not so in the United States.

The position of County Clerk is a very important one. A lot of extremely important records are handled by County Clerks, and if they start screwing up and upsetting the residents of that County (by, for instance, playing favorites) you can get rid of them during the next election.

Yeah or you turn them into a bureaucrat with a contract and you fire them for not doing their job properly the moment they start causing problems. Easier and cheaper as you don't need to organize elections every few years, and you can get rid of someone the moment they screw up, rather than having to wait until the next election cycle. How much easier would this Kim Davis situation be if they could just tell her that if she doesn't start following the law shes gonna lose her job? Or, if you want to be mindful, you can just move her to another department where she won't be an issue.

I never thought that you would be *against* electing government officials. How do you feel about direct election of the US President? The US President is head of the Executive Branch of the US Federal Government. You know... Head Bureaucrat... The President has VERY LITTLE direct political power.

Well except for the fact that the president can veto laws passed by congress, appoint judges and other important positions within the Federal government, sets out a policy agenda and generally has a lot of power in certain policy areas such as foreign policy. Also, he is the head of state. Of course he should be democratically elected. But county clerk? Sure its an important job, but in the end its just mid level bureaucracy.

I'm all for democratically electing leaders, because thats where democracy counts. Leaders determine the future, it makes sense to have people vote on what that future looks like. But electing people who are in no way leaders? That just causes problems as it introduces a popularity contest into areas where that is either irrelevant or even counter productive. You don't get the best bureaucrats by having people vote on them, you get the best ones by treating them like normal employees and promote them based on merit. It keeps essential functions of the government apolitical and keeps out partisanship. Kim Davis is an excellent example of what happens when you vote for bureaucrats, rather than do their job they start doing this, based on political calculations and because they are only accountable to the majority of voters and can only be removed from power after an election, they get free reign to muck things up. Elected judges are a similar problem, introducing a popularity contest into the rule of law, which is supposed to be impartial and neutral. You cannot have impartial and neutral rule of law when judges are elected democratically.

The President, essentially is 'nothing but a bureaucrat'. Why elect him/her?

Just because he has strict limitations on his powers and requires congressional approval or support for most things doesn't mean the president isn't a leader who can have a tremendous influence on the direction a country takes.

As I said, The People wish a Voice in Their Government.

There is such a thing as to much democracy and thats actually a pretty bad thing. It disrupts the working of the government. It also explains why the American government is so incompetent. Where the rest of the world only elects their leaders and lets the bureaucracy function as a meritocratic organization, America disrupts the natural meritocratic organization because it lets people vote in some popularity contest on who should do what. Democracy as a decision making tool is great but has its limits. It can't just be applied to about everything and produce good results, indeed if misused it will actually create pretty subpar results.