Monday, September 7, 2015

And finally, would Kim Davis be in jail if she were Muslim?

By Tom Quiner
Kim Davis’ crime is that she believes in the First Amendment … and she’s a Christian.

The Kentucky clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because she said it violates her Christian faith.

Liberal elites have no tolerance for such people as Kim Davis. Turn the clock back to last year. Do you remember what New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, said?

 “Who are they [Republicans]? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

Interestingly, Muslims are pro life, anti gay, and certainly pro assault rifle (ask Charlie Hedbo). (For the record, Republicans are certainly not anti-gay, although they tend to define marriage traditionally based on the welfare of children that can only be produced by the union of one man and one woman.)

I don’t hear the good governor calling for a ban on Muslims from New York.

Over in Chicago, you’ll recall that Mayor Rahm Emmanuel once said that the job-creating business, Chick-fil-a, wasn’t welcome in the Windy City because…

“They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”

How do they disrespect Chicagoans? They embrace traditional marriage. When asked if they support the traditional family unit, Chick-fil-a president, Dan Cathy confessed:
“guilty as charged … We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit ….”

The biblical definition of the family unit.
That’s kind of the same belief Muslims hold, except their scripture is the Koran, and yet the ultra liberal Mayor of Chicago has not called for a ban on Muslims.

One can’t help but scratch their heads with a number of reactions. For one, Republicans and Christians by and large embrace the same pro life, pro family, pro traditional marriage, and pro Second Amendment rights that Democrats used to support until politics made Democrats bend their principles.

And then there is liberals’ strange reaction to Muslims. They give Mohammad worshippers a free pass when they kill and maim in the name of Allah. But then turn right around and smear people who oppose human abortion and gay marriage (like Kim Davis) in the name of Christ, actually suggesting that these peaceful Christians are somehow sub human and unworthy of citizenship where liberals rule.

Even more, they go on Facebook and “slut shame” Ms. Davis for having been married many times, calling her a shameless hypocrite, or worse. One particularly cruel liberal meme screams, “how could someone this ugly get married 4 times?”
Of course, they ignore the fact that her conversion to Christianity apparently came after her multiple marriages.

We’re left with questions.

Why do liberals exercise tolerance toward Muslims, but a particularly vicious intolerance towards Christians?

Why does the liberal’s use of the word “diversity” exclude Christians, but not Muslims?

When liberals talk about “inclusion” in the loftiest terms, why does the term include Muslims, but not Christians?

Why do the Thought Police prowling the Mainstream Media and Facebook only wield the club of Political-Correctness against Christians and not Muslims?

And finally, would Kim Davis be in jail if she were Muslim?


Kjell Edlund said...

Interesting question!
I have only the swedish conditions as referens.
In my country you do have a right to not t conduct marriage if it contradicts your belives - BUT that ONLY applies to ministers of faith and also priests within Church of Sweden.
HOWEVER - as a CIVIL clerk with licence for conducting marriage you are NOT alloud to say no to same sex partners!
But then again - its Sweden.

Kjell-Erik Edlund
Former officer
God's messengers session 1980-82

Anonymous said...

An interesting blog and one that is quite reflective of how the liberal-progressives treat those who are conservative in their views especially if they are Christian. And I find it upsetting that these same liberal-progressives want to molly-coddle the Muslim Extremist's who want to rid the world of Jews, Christians and establish an Islamic Caliphate.

John Stephenson, Former
Canada and Bermuda

Rod Seaney said...

This liberal position is analogous to liquor sales. Temperance believers can refuse to purchase liquor and boycott liquor-selling venues, but any employee in such a venue must sell liquor. Are some liberal positions inconsistent? Of course. We all are. But liberals tend to support freedom, truth, justice, love, and respect for others' differences. --Rod Seaney, Accepted Candidate, 1963.

Rod Seaney said...

As an analogy, consider the case of Temperance Christians (or Muslims). They can eschew liquor, even boycott any venues that sells it, but if employed at one, they must sell it unless legally exempted. But they cannot prevent people from purchasing it and keep their job. --Rod Seaney, Accepted Candidate, USA Central, 1963.

Anonymous said...

Oh balderdash! The author makes it sound as if liberal= bad and hypocritical and conservative= good and traditional. The fact is, almost nothing is so cut and dry. Most people are much more complicated and far less so simplistic in their own personal beliefs on various hot button issues, than Mr. Quiner makes them out to be.

The very premise of his article reeks of small mindedness in that it seems to be based on something he calls "traditional" marriage and that he assumes is biblical in nature, going back to thousands of years. The truth is, that if the gross immorality and injustice of what went on in your average biblical marriage, was still going on today, the participants of those marriages would be considered bizarre, law- breaking anomalies in western society and once found out, would all be sitting on their keisters in jail somewhere.

The traditional marriage Mr. Quiner and the three times divorced, four times married (two times to husband # 2 who is now also husband # 4) mother of two, (born out of wedlock between marriages by other men) "very conservative" Ms. Kim Davis, keep yacking on and on about, is actually a very recent construct. The construct has nothing to do with God per se, but rather economics. Its heyday of dominance was around WWI until the late 1960s.

It was a prominent feature of life at the crest of the industrial age, before computers and the now post-industrial, information age, where men brought home all of the bacon and women were expected to stay home, pump out kids and bake stuff from scratch.

All of this has changed, and as with all change, there will always be some disintegration and upheaval, but usually, in the long run the changes are for the overall best and often times corrects the injustices of the past. Since I'm not the apocalyptic type, I'm not at all concerned about every change being a sign of the end of the world. Since most of the early day gentile Xians (including nursing attendant Luke) didn't appear to be very apocalyptic either, I think that puts me in good Xian company.

As for Ms. Davis, if she doesn't want to do her job, she needs to step down. She also needs to stop taking God's name in vain. All the other complaints of Mr. Quiner, are just smoke and mirrors and have nothing to do with why Ms. Davis was thrown in the slammer.

Daryl Lach
USA Central

"You Must Go Home By the Way of the Cross, To Stand With Jesus In the Morning!"

Anonymous said...

John Stephenson is right on the money. And the answer to the question is - sadly, no, she wouldn't be in jail now if she was a muslim.

Anonymous said...

The real answer is a Muslim wouldn't be in jail right now. Why? Because a Muslim would never have been elected to that position in that county in the U.S. Actually, I'm willing to stand corrected - has any known practising Muslim been elected to public office anywhere in the U.S?

Anonymous said...

I fear the comments have mainly avoided the salient question - would she be in jail now if she were a muslim? Calling her morality into question is totally unnecessary - that is indeed 'smoke and mirrors'. Her multiple marriages etc may not be an ideal role model, but that's not what this article is about, and it is reprehensible for it to have been raised here. The question is stark, and should be answered directly. The question of traditional marriage as (typically) expounded by Mr Lach is far superfluous and has no bearing on the (very simple) question. Mr Seaney's comments at least do have a semblance of logic attached to them. But if she were a Muslim she would not be in jail - a loophole would be found for her. We bend over backwards NOT to offend muslims, even at the expense of our own consciences. Let's be honest, if muslims were in charge of our judiciary, the burning questions would be that much worse for the GLBTQ population. We are already creating conditions for muslims which are contrary to our values and culture - the method for meat slaughter and financial arrangements for fiscal borrowing to name but two. Stop criticising Ms Davis and answer the question - 'yes' or 'no' would be good.

Anonymous said...

To answer the salient question, of course she would be in jail. It's contempt of court:

Anonymous said...

Dear Commenter # 7,

Dear Commenter # 7,

There are actually two Muslim men in the U.S. Congress House of Reps. That's two out of 435 members. One is from the more liberal State of Minnesota and one is surprisingly, from the anything other than liberal State of Indiana. (And then of course let's not forget the pretending to be a Xian, President Barack Obama, whom everyone knows is really a stealth Muslim and possibly a terrorist sympathizer. lol!) However, you are correct in assuming that a Muslim probably never would've been voted into Kim Davis' office, in the small county of Kentucky she represents, As a result I'm with you in believing that the question isn't even valid, and is just all smoke and mirrors to get the ire up of the far right wing nuts in America.

Commenter # 8,

I did not want to answer the question because I think the question is, as I stated before, bogus since it really doesn't apply to the situation at hand and I don't care to be manipulated by those who may have a xenophobic prejudice. However, since you seem to insist on yes or no then the short of it is "YES'" Why? Because same sex marriage is now the law of the land. It has already been upheld as a constitutional right by SCOTUS in June of this year. Accomodation has to do with dress codes and religious holidays and peripheral things like that, not whether or not a SCOTUS decision can be ignored by a civil servant.

As for my bringing up the facts of Ms. Davis' multiple marriages, etc. I only do so because I think it is a valid point in this particular discussion. It's not because I don't believe that God can forgive and set her on a new path, either. It's because the information reeks of the same insanity of all the usual past, anti-gay rights, rabble rousing clergy and politicians, who turned out to be living double lives, while scapegoating gays to assuage their own guilty consciences.

Ms. Davis may have very well had a born again, spiritual awakening in 2011, but I tend to believe, that thanks to her fundamentalist church, she is not really free from her own guilt, and thus the experience of Grace that should have freed her from it, hasn't been allowed to. She is now scapegoating gays with the six so-called clobber passages, when what is really bothering her is Matthew 5: 31-32 and Luke 16: 18! If grace was really the operative word in her newfound spirituality, she not only would be signing the marriage licenses but smiling at every gay couple who came through the doors to get one and saying "God Bless You!"

As for my bringing up the argument that what religious conservatives call "traditional" marriage is a relatively new construct that has nothing to do with what actually went on in biblical marriages, I brought it up, only because Mr. Quiner brought it up himself first, assuming that it does mirror biblical marriage. So in a twist to my concluding statement in a debating commentary we engaged in several days ago, commenter # 8, this time, don't bust my chops.


Daryl Lach
USA Central

"You Must Go Home By the Way of the Cross, To Stand With Jesus in the Morning!"

Anonymous said...

I had to look up the weird phrase 'bust my chops', which doesn't really fit in with the high-powered intellectual argument stated by this writer, and I came across this:
*****Bust my chops - Top definition:-
Bust means "punch" and chops means "mouth", so "to bust someone's chops" literally means to hit them in the mouth, but most of the time it means to give (someone) a hard time.
Don't bust my chops; I'm sick and tired of you calling me names.*****
Pot - kettle? Just asking.