How does Kim Davis' conduct differ from Theocracy?
Asked by
jerv (
31079
)
September 3rd, 2015
As Kim Davis sits in jail on Contempt of Court charges for failing to perform her duties as county clerk or allowing her deputies to perform those duties for her, there have been claims of religious persecution.
Mike Huckabee has stated that her jailing, “removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country.”. Many others have made similar claims, yet they have no issues forcing non-Christians to violate their morals.
It seems to me that when one allows religion to trump secular law, that we cease being anything other than a religious state where clergy (of one faith) wields all power and deprives all non-followers of the privileges that they themselves consider God-given rights.
Sure, it’s the Bible instead of the Quran and Allah instead of God, but those are mere details. Can you tell me how Davis’ conduct and the support of such behavior differs in any practical way from Sharia Law or other blatant theocracies?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
9 Answers
It’s a mistake to attribute a theocratic excuse to her behavior. The reason is irrelevant. Her behavior is criminal. To follow her conscience is noble. To follow her conscience AND refuse to resign is both arrogant and selfish.
@stanleybmanly Under normal conditions maybe, but when you get quotes like, “God’s moral law convicts me and conflicts with my duties.” and calling yourself ”... a vessel for the Lord…”, it’s kind of hard to refute a religious element.
When one performs their duties as a government official putting more weight on God’s law than on anything legislature, judges, or your own superiors in the Executive branch, you pretty much have religion becoming de facto law, which may become de jure law if the legislature is composed of people with a similar agenda and/or you have judges interpret the laws in light of their own desires rather than the lens of legislative intent.
When religion becomes law, whether de facto or de jure, you have something that at least closely resembles Theocracy. In fact, the latter pretty much defines it.
Well sure here motives are theocratic. And you can judge just how asinine her reasoning is by the deafening silence from the major religious denominations. It’s the fact that she won’t quit and be a hero that’s daunting and a huge PR blunder to her cause. I should take the trouble to find her explanation of the reasoning behind her decision. Perhaps she’s just a victim of bad advice.
There’s no question about the theocratic nature of this. What is notable is that this incident is such a blatant over the top example of an attempt to subvert the will of the state for religious motives that any individual or institution siding with this woman betrays a fundamental failure to understand this country or its BASIC reason for being.
Hey…the Founding Fathers thought about this a long time ago. That’s why they came up with the First Amendment.
So weird how damn convoluted those Christians get. One minute they stand on the Constitution like it’s the Bible, then next they want to throw the Constitution in the trash, and the next thing they want to rewrite the Bible.
Her conduct is what could be expected in a theocracy but, fortunately, we do not live in one so it is an aberration, not a policy.
She is not the leader of the country.
Wow, @rojo, I’d lost track of Betty over the years. Why isn’t she in the race?
The second most irreverent but spot-on thing you might see today.
If you’re bored, cut and paste the quotes in that article to a blank page and then try to make sense of them totally devoid of context. It’s impossible. They’re not making any sense.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
