Thursday, September 3, 2015
the reason we have separation of church and state
Well, I see that Ms Kim Davis accepted jail in defense of her principals, that she is standing by her faith that same sex marriage is an abomination and she won't let herself be tainted by that sin. It's too bad she doesn't show the same adherence to faith and religion when it comes to her own personal life since she hasn't observed the other strictures concerning marriage that are laid out in her scripture.
I think she is wrong not to comply with the law regardless of her position on marriage and who may or may not get married as dictated by her religion. She may have been raised to think that marriage didn't exist until Christianity but that does not give her the authority to deny the license required by law, not religion, to any couple who wishes to marry. Her faith does not give her the authority to determine the course of other peoples' lives. Her religious beliefs do not allow her to break the oath of office she took when elected to her position. Her religion, her beliefs, her faith are pertinent to her life alone. It is not for her to judge the lives of others. If her religion tells her something should not be done, then she should not do it. It is not her place to force others to comply with what she deems acceptable. Indeed, her own religion tells her not to judge. Her own religion tells her that her faith is a private thing. Her own religion tells her to obey the laws of the land.
In her own arrogance, in refusing to sin, she has sinned many times over. If, of course, you believe in all that sinning stuff. Which I don't exactly. Right/wrong, yin/yang, light/dark, up/down, in/out...duality, opposites, balance but also that great gray void in-between. Anyway, that's beside the point.
The point is that if her religious beliefs, her faith, were such that they compelled her not to do her job, a job she was elected to do, and worse, prevented others in the office from doing the job, then she should have resigned her job even if what she was required to do was not required when she was elected. She took an oath to uphold the law, not whatever law she agreed with.
Had she just done that, instead of wrongly thinking she had the right to impose her sense of morality on the public at large in defiance of the law, she would not be in jail today.
I'm sure the Founding Fathers never imagined this sort of struggle between religion and rule but they well knew the danger of religion in law.