So, I was asked my position on Ms. Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for refusing to follow the law, even after losing her appeal to the Supreme Court. I answered:
“Every public official is subject to the rule of law.” This is not a popular one to answer, but let me change to another person and then come back to Ms. Davis. Because of his deeply held beliefs, President Barack Obama has chosen to take executive action on various issues. As a result, various have called for him to be impeached. Most of the charge has been that a public official may not refuse to follow the Constitution or the law or judicial decisions.
Yet, in the case of Ms. Davis, she is being praised by many for refusing to follow a judicial decision at the level of the Supreme Court, who is the arbiter of the Constitution (unless they are overridden by a Constitutional amendment). Should she not be subject to impeachment for the same charges that some are claiming should be applied to President Obama?
It is important to note that even the most traditional of the Supreme Court justices have not spoken in favor of Ms. Davis. The principle, which has been espoused in previous Supreme Court decisions, is that a public official represents the law and not their personal religious beliefs. If Ms. Davis cannot do that, she always has the option to resign from her office.
The other side of this is that I fully support her religious beliefs. She is taking a strong stand for them. But, she is not considering the effects of her refusal. If her refusal in successful, then any public official can refuse to uphold any law with which they disagree by simply claiming a deeply held religious or philosophical belief. That would lead to judicial chaos.
Either we are in favor of law and order or we are not. A few of the Early Church Fathers even held that a Christian should not hold public office because they could not uphold every Law, unless they decided to compromise their beliefs. Later Church Fathers disagreed, because they realized that it is better to have Christians in government than to not have them in government. But, that means that sometimes Christians will end up appearing to approve of things of which they do not approve.
That was my original reply. I would now add that, by the same reasoning, a few of the Early Church Fathers held that a Christian cannot be in the Armed Forces. There is no doubt that being in the Armed Forces puts you in a position to kill people and to have to follow orders with which you may not morally agree. At least one Early Church Father even held the position that a returning soldier should have to wait a year after they returned in order to be allowed to take holy communion. In essence, they would have to serve a virtual excommunication because they had killed. That position did not last long for the same reason as above. It is better to have Christians in the Armed Forces than to not have them in the Armed Forces. In passing, I will mention that in the case of the Armed Forces, conservative Christians flip their opinion 180 degrees. What do I mean?
In the case of Ms. Davis’ refusal, various conservative Christians have supported her refusal, and have almost labeled her a martyr, which she is not. However, in the case of the young person who decides that they can no longer serve in the Armed Forces because of their moral stance, or who can no longer obey certain orders to kill people, various conservative Christians have historically labeled them as traitors, cowards, and worse. During the draft resistance movements of the Viet Nam conflict, conservative Christians were in the forefront of declaring that their moral objections did not count, that if the government needed them then they needed to obey, and that part of being a citizen was to obey the law. Many conservative Christians would still say the same today. Yet, Davis is supposedly a hero for doing the same thing that those young people did?
Either Ms. Davis is right, therefore the conservative Christians who condemned draft resisters must repent for the evil way in which they treated those young people, or Ms. Davis is wrong, therefore conservative Christians need to be consequent and refuse to support her just like they refused to support draft resisters. If you try to support Ms. Davis yet refuse to support those young people who have crises of conscience in the military, you are not consequent in your beliefs, and are treading on the dangerous grounds of relativism.
“Yet, Davis is supposedly a hero for doing the same thing that those young people did?” You nailed it. I don’t like how now she will assumably become a media martyr for the conservatives/religious rights. Its one thing to stand firm in your beliefs, its another to defy federal law. She took a vow when she took that job. (on the Bible may I add!) The crappy thing is that she has to be impeached out as opposed to a simple “your fired” because she is an elected official. It must be that big ol fat govt paycheck getting in the way there 😛
Scott Simmonds thought you might enjoy this read in light of recent discussions…
Thanks. Do your job, quit, go to jail – she picked what was right for her. She can change her mind and go home anytime. …With liberty and justice for all.
What you seem to have overlooked is that the law changed around her. For 27 years there was no conflict between her beliefs and her position. This is a perfect place for the application of the law regarding reasonable accommodation. http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/first-amendment-2/christian-arrested-muslim-defended-in-freedom-of-religion-double-standard
When she last ran for this office, the Supreme Court was about to hear the case in question, amid a media frenzy. If she didn’t realize that legalized gay marriage was a distinct possibility, she would have to have not been paying attention at all.
I beg to differ with this article, first of all only congress can make laws and so far they haven’t made a law on this issue. Second of all, was Jesus obeying the law when he preached the gospel or when He overturned tables at the temple?
Apples and oranges. The Muslim woman has filed a complaint. We do not know how or when or who will review this complaint. Kim Davis filed many appeals and defenses to lawsuits against her and has lost them all…in legal courts. Secondly, the Muslim woman works for a private employer. Kim Davis is a government employee whose actions harm people who pay her salary. She swore and oath-on the Bible- to uphold the Constitution. Just because she-and apparently you- disagree with the Constitution does not give her the right to hold to her own idea of the law. Now, if this particular Muslim woman worked at say the State Liquor Store and refused to allow people to buy alcohol, then it would be comparable. Or say a Quaker working in a position to deny gun permits. This are applicable situations, not the one you mention. And yes, the Supreme Court IS the final arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not. Talk like that is what led to the Civil War. As a matter of fact, I just read an article today that surmises that religion was a huge culprit in the run-up to the Civil War because so many held that God said whites are superior…and we can’t be going against what the pastors say!
Equal means equal…not that some or more equal than others.
John, it is true that only Congress can make laws, but the Supreme Court can rule that any existing law, even though passed by Congress, is now considered unconstitutional. Unless Congress passes a Constitutional amendment to change that, or invokes Article V of the Constitution, then that is the law. Scott is correct when he states that she had personal choices and she exercised one of them. But, notice that even the conservative justices did not come to her support though they are against gay marriage. What she did goes completely against the principle that a government servant is expected to follow the law.
Jesus was not an employee of the state. Neither were Peter and John. They were speaking as private individuals, Ms. Davis was not. A better example would be Daniel who was a state employee. Notice that he was willing to die for his beliefs at least three times. Ms. Davis is willing to go to jail. In that she imitates Daniel. But, Daniel also served in an empire that engaged in constant moral evil. He was willing to serve as long as certain lines were not crossed. But, those lines were few and far between. Otherwise, he served in an evil empire.
Esther was a wife to a king who was a polygamist and engaged in sexual relations with concubines, that is, women who were grabbed by his servants and forcibly brought to court to see who would most sexually attracted him. Esther was the winner of the ancient equivalent of the modern reality show, The Bachelor. Yet, rather than refusing to marry him, she married him and lived without complaint with a man who was engaged in regular sexual sin.
In a sense both Daniel and Esther were saying two things. One, it is better that a believer be in government than that a believer not be in government. But, they also were pointing out that to serve in government, you have to be willing to put up with many things with which you do not agree.
Here is one place is the answer to any question of why she belongs right where she is until she resigns or decides to issue licenses – http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2015/09/wwjtd-handy-guide-to-every-argument-youll-hear-on-freekimdavis-on-twitter/
Very well written and appreciated!
I 100% agree with you, Mr Obregon, and it’s a relief to see someone thinking and writing sensibly about this. Setting Kim Davis up like a martyr is ridiculous. If she could not issue licenses in good conscience, she should have respectfully resigned.
What I don’t understand is why she didn’t just sign the name of the county instead of her name. No one would have cared, and it would be clear that the county approved of it, not her.
I hope you will forgive me for skimming this. Two comments, of Jesus and Paul, are enough for me. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”; and Romans 13:1-2 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”
Wonderful read, and very well said.