In no particular order:
1) Yes, basic human decency IS a Christian value. It is just that not all Christians practice it. A saying has often been attributed to Gandhi, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
FWIW, the same could be said of almost any major faith tradition- most enshrine some form of The Golden Rule among their fundamental tenets (in Christianity, it's #2, according to JC Himself), but practitioners, being human, often fall short of the ideal.
Look at the history of nearly any major religion, and you'll find at least one period of fanatical, violent, militant "evangelization" or intolerance. To paraphrase a certain commercial series, it's what people do.
2) American religious conservatives have lost sight of the true purpose of enshrining the separation of Church & state, the anti-establishment clause, the Federal RFRA act and countless legal decisions: they're aegises against persecution and arrest, not swords to be used against those who believe & behave differently.
Because the USA is a nation of laws that is merely demographically Christian and not- as some believe- a Christian nation, the religious right has bible-blinders on. They cannot envision scenarios in which- if their interpretation of religious freedom laws were upheld- they would end up suffering because others could make similar religious claims to deny services.
An Inuit clerk whose faith bars women from hunting could deny Sarah Palin a gun license. Orthodox Jewish or Hindu city inspectors could deny key licenses to restaurants serving pork or beef, respectively. There is even a recent case of a Muslim stewardess who may have been been fired for not serving alcohol to passengers who could legally order it.
Heck- it wouldn't even have to be another faith, just another sect: there are over 30,000 sects of
Christianity and not all are OK with divorce. #1 on THAT list would be Roman Catholicism, which also happens to be the biggest branch in the world, and- surprising to some- the most numerous even here in the USA. So what happens if an old-school Opus Dei type clerk decides against issuing marriage licenses to the divorcees out there?
3) there is a very real sense in which the action of the Kentucky clerk may violate not only discrimination laws, but also the anti-establishment clause. The gist is this: she has used her government position to enforce a particular religious viewpoint on a legal practice to the exclusion of other religious or non-religious interpretations.
U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 13 § 242 covers "color of law" abuses:
Here's a breakdown from the DoJ's website:
So not only could she face more jail time based on renewal of the contempt charge, she could- and should, IMHO- face even more time under Federal law. If you hear about FBI involvement in this case, you'll know it's based on this.
1) Yes, basic human decency IS a Christian value. It is just that not all Christians practice it. A saying has often been attributed to Gandhi, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
FWIW, the same could be said of almost any major faith tradition- most enshrine some form of The Golden Rule among their fundamental tenets (in Christianity, it's #2, according to JC Himself), but practitioners, being human, often fall short of the ideal.
Look at the history of nearly any major religion, and you'll find at least one period of fanatical, violent, militant "evangelization" or intolerance. To paraphrase a certain commercial series, it's what people do.
2) American religious conservatives have lost sight of the true purpose of enshrining the separation of Church & state, the anti-establishment clause, the Federal RFRA act and countless legal decisions: they're aegises against persecution and arrest, not swords to be used against those who believe & behave differently.
Because the USA is a nation of laws that is merely demographically Christian and not- as some believe- a Christian nation, the religious right has bible-blinders on. They cannot envision scenarios in which- if their interpretation of religious freedom laws were upheld- they would end up suffering because others could make similar religious claims to deny services.
An Inuit clerk whose faith bars women from hunting could deny Sarah Palin a gun license. Orthodox Jewish or Hindu city inspectors could deny key licenses to restaurants serving pork or beef, respectively. There is even a recent case of a Muslim stewardess who may have been been fired for not serving alcohol to passengers who could legally order it.
Heck- it wouldn't even have to be another faith, just another sect: there are over 30,000 sects of
Christianity and not all are OK with divorce. #1 on THAT list would be Roman Catholicism, which also happens to be the biggest branch in the world, and- surprising to some- the most numerous even here in the USA. So what happens if an old-school Opus Dei type clerk decides against issuing marriage licenses to the divorcees out there?
3) there is a very real sense in which the action of the Kentucky clerk may violate not only discrimination laws, but also the anti-establishment clause. The gist is this: she has used her government position to enforce a particular religious viewpoint on a legal practice to the exclusion of other religious or non-religious interpretations.
U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 13 § 242 covers "color of law" abuses:
Here's a breakdown from the DoJ's website:
So not only could she face more jail time based on renewal of the contempt charge, she could- and should, IMHO- face even more time under Federal law. If you hear about FBI involvement in this case, you'll know it's based on this.
Last edited:
