Pope Endorses Kim Davis, 'stay Strong'.'thank You For Your Courage’

Letter #38, 2015: Kim and Francis September 29, 2015, Tuesday — Kim and Francis

And, Holy Father, do you also support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their own personal conscience, abide by some laws or discharge their duties as government officials, for example in issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples? Do you support those kinds of claims of religious liberty?” —Terry Moran, ABC News, asking a question to Pope Francis on the papal airplane during an impromptu airplane press conference, on the evening of Sunday, September 27, just after the Pope left the United States to return to Rome

“Conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right. Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying ‘this right that has merit, this one does not.’ It (conscientious objection) is a human right.” —Pope Francis, answering Terry Moran’s question on the papal flight on September 27

Kim Davis gave me this account of the meeting shortly after it took place.
“The Pope spoke in English,” she told me.

“There was no interpreter. ‘Thank you for your courage,’ Pope Francis said to me. I said, ‘Thank you, Holy Father.’ I had asked a monsignor earlier what was the proper way to greet the Pope, and whether it would be appropriate for me to embrace him, and I had been told it would be okay to hug him. So I hugged him, and he hugged me back. It was an extraordinary moment. ‘Stay strong,’ he said to me. Then he gave me a rosary as a gift, and he gave one also to my husband, Joe. I broke into tears. I was deeply moved.

“Then he said to me, ‘Please pray for me.’ And I said to him, ‘Please pray for me also, Holy Father.’ And he assured me that he would pray for me.”

Vatican sources have confirmed to me that this meeting did occur;

Pope Francis met with Kim, embraced her, encouraged her, and, on the papal airplane, when asked the question cited at the outset, he stated, very strongly, that “conscientious objection” is “a human right.”

The meeting with the Holy Father was a moment of consolation to Kim.
It strengthened her conviction, she told me, to obey the law of God, before the law of man.

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that, when the human law contradicts the natural law, it is not a valid law.

Pope Francis met with Kim, embraced her, encouraged her, and, on the papal airplane, when asked the question cited at the outset, he stated, very strongly, that “conscientious objection” is “a human right.”

He talked of “Conscientious objection” which, he said, must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right.”

It (conscientious objection) is a human right. It always moved me when I read, and I read it many times, when I read the “Chanson de Roland” when the people were all in line and before them was the baptismal font and they had to choose between the baptismal font or the sword. They had to choose. They weren’t permitted conscientious objection. It is a right and if we want to make peace we have to respect all rights.

http://insidethevatican.com/news/letter-38-2015-kim-and-francis



the fact that Congress chose to draw the line of exemption on the basis of religious belief confronted the Court with a difficult constitutional question, which, however, the Court chose to avoid by a somewhat disingenuous interpretation of the statute.198 In Gillette v. United States,199 a further constitutional problem arose in which the Court did squarely confront and validate the congressional choice. Congress had restricted conscientious objection status to those who objected to “war in any form” and the Court conceded that there were religious or conscientious objectors who were not opposed to all wars but only to particular wars based upon evaluation of a number of factors by which the “justness” of any particular war could be judged; “properly construed,”
snip
In United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), a unanimous Court construed the language of the exemption limiting the status to those who by “religious training and belief” (that is, those who believed in a “Supreme Being”), to mean that a person must have some belief which occupies in his life the place or role which the traditional concept of God occupies in the orthodox believer. After the “Supreme Being” clause was deleted, a plurality in Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), construed the religion requirement as inclusive of moral, ethical, or religious grounds. Justice Harlan concurred on constitutional grounds, believing that the statute was clear that Congress had intended to restrict conscientious objection status to those persons who could demonstrate a traditional religious foundation for their beliefs and that this was impermissible under the Establishment Clause. Id. at 344. The dissent by Justices White and Stewart and Chief Justice Burger rejected both the constitutional and the statutory basis. 398 U.S. at 367.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/08-conscientious-objection.html



Universal Declaration of Human Rights
In 1948, the issue of the right to "conscience" was dealt with by the United Nations General Assembly in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It reads:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

well there we have it, not only is the right to exercise your religion explicitly expressed in the US Constitution but it is a Universal human right to "everyone".

So why do so many people hate Kim Davis?
Intolerance and hatred for someone who is different?

 

I think the Holy Father is confused on this issue. He conflates conscientious objection to military service with civil disobedience, and ignores the important distinction between exercise of the "right" by private individuals and by public officials who refuse to perform clear duties of their office, and ignores the conditions which Gandhi, M.L. King and Socrates placed upon the proper exercise of civil disobedience. When a public official decides to disobey the law (s)he is entrusted to enforce, it's not just her rights that are at stake. By ignoring the law upholding a clear fundamental right to gay marriage recognized by the courts, (s)he is depriving others of their rights she has a duty to protect, effectively nullifying a valid law, and undermining the rule of law.. Socrates, Gandhi and Martin Luther King were careful to show respect for the rule of law while practicing civil disobedience by accepting the punishment for their disobedience. Kim Davis should do the same, and Pope Francis should butt out.

 

I know of no such distinctions, with regard to the american constitution.
Please cite them and make sure they are sources that include the right to exercise religion as part of your distinction.

 

Kentucky governor's lawyer had this to say:

Palmer G. Vance, a lawyer retained by the governor, described Davis' suit as a "meritless assault on the rule of law." Even if Beshear had not instructed clerks to follow the law, the Supreme Court and subsequent court orders required her to do so, he wrote.

​

"At issue here are marriage licenses issued by the Office of Rowan County Clerk and not Kim Davis individually, as Kim Davis individually has no authority to issue such licenses," he wrote. "The Office of Rowan County Clerk does not have a right to free exercise of religion."http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/10/01/kentucky-governor-steve-beshear-hits-back-at-county-clerk-kim-davis-for-her-lawsuit-against-him-re-same-sex-marriage-licenses/73137134/

 

First that is nothing more than attorney bluster and is yet to be proven in court.

Second unless she is suing the governor for his order she is suing the wrong party.

Third there is no state legislation on the books adopting the supreme court ruling.

Forth since when are the states obligated to follow the supreme court decision before it becomes state law?

Fifth She can also sue the judge for enforcing an extra constitutional ruling.

Finally I am still waiting for that supposed distinction between private and public. See my post number 3

 

Pope Francis is a piece of shit

 

When interviewed on the plane, the pope stopped short of giving his opinion on whether or not he believes an elected official of the government should be allowed to keep their job while refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. He's all for conscientious objection, that's clear, but it would have been interesting to hear his take on the Kim Davis issue, specifically.

 

Full support to the Pope.

 

The Pope did not stop short and directly responded regarding government officials and answer is crystal clear and was already posted in the OP



And, Holy Father, do you also support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their own personal conscience, abide by some laws or discharge their duties as government officials, for example in issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples? Do you support those kinds of claims of religious liberty?” —Terry Moran, ABC News, asking a question to Pope Francis on the papal airplane during an impromptu airplane press conference, on the evening of Sunday, September 27, just after the Pope left the United States to return to Rome

“Conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right. Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right.


I suppose someone could try to make a case davis is not human, otherwise it completely unlawful to fire someone for exercising their rights.

 

You are incorrect, Zzap.

The pope did not specify as to what his opinion would be, in regard to discharge from office (as is the norm when a CO status is granted), if there ever came a day that an elected government official was granted a CO status. (Not that his opinion matters in any way.)

 

Miraculous stuff. The man truly speaks in tongues!

Intolerance for who? Gay people?

So now you tell me - you the tolerant guy - how would you like it if half a dozen ISIS guys ass-raped you because some dude in the sky said so?

 

This story is BS anyway isnt it

 

I'm sure the pope would have endorsed Jeffrey Dahmer had he thought there would be people rallying around Dahmer because he was targeting gay men.

The vatican isn't concerned with any people's rights, or suffering as much as it is concerned with keeping the numbers of the flock high, and the money rolling in.

One of these days, it will be to the advantage of the vatican to support homosexuals, then they will be denouncing the Kim Davises of the world.

 

Pope's already out glad-handing the issue. I just heard on BBC he said his statements should not be taken as unconditional approval of Kim Davis's actions.

 

how many threads does this dumb bitch need

 

Pope said that meeting her was not an endorsement of her actions.

She has been married four times....Pope doesn't endorse that either.

Holier than thous are too busy pointing their finger of condemnation to look at their own evil.

 

I don't have any problem with their meeting or anything that was said. He's right. She has a right to believe what she believes and live in that way. However, if she has made it plain that her religion does not allow her to uphold the law of the land, it should disqualify her from holding this public office position. This is not discrimination. It's simply a matter of not being able to do the job she signed on for. I think that now that we are starting to finally separate church and state, we will see this more and more, and that we should learn from this that we need a process in place for dealing with these conflicts without a big to-do. It should be a simple question: will you do your job? If the answer is no, remove them. It could be that simple if we would only make it simple. Instead we're letting legal red tape and the desire to include everyone and not discriminate get in the way of really easy logic.

 

It is horrific in philosophy to make an absolute positive assertion then attach your but to it . To confound is a sin .

 

Again

Is this all bullshit or not?

The quote about what was said to her by the pope thats been thrown around all the media outlets.....comes from one of HER lawyers

Was it all just a set up by the locals, the Pope have any real clue who she was.

The whole thing reeks of bullshit