• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

From Tupac to Rosa Parks: KY county clerk Kim Davis says "Only God can judge me now"

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Garlador

Member
mre said:
Quick, someone post that M. Night Shyamalan pic.
Click to expand...

I know the one you're talking about, but I think this one is more appropriate.
Mark-Wahlberg-Confused-In-The-Happening.gif
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Veritigo_X said:
The Pope came to the US to fuck shit up. He's pissing off both Democrats and Republicans, it's kinda funny.
Click to expand...
I'm perplexed at liberals using the pope as some high ground against republicans on climate change and income inequality. Why willingly use that two edged sword, given the inevitable reality of him saying shit you don't agree with on social issues.
 
B

Brawly Likes to Brawl

Member
PhoenixDark said:
I'm perplexed at liberals using the pope as some high ground against republicans on climate change and income inequality. Why willingly use that two edged sword, given the inevitable reality of him saying shit you don't agree with on social issues.
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking. I'm convinced his more progressive comments at the beginning were calculated.
 
D

Dicktatorship

Junior Member
PhoenixDark said:
I'm perplexed at liberals using the pope as some high ground against republicans on climate change and income inequality. Why willingly use that two edged sword, given the inevitable reality of him saying shit you don't agree with on social issues.
Click to expand...

You're perplexed that american politicians did something short-sighted just to spite their political opponents even if it backfires?

AMecXEQ.gif


Try and remember that they aren't people good decision making skills; they're politicians.
 
F

Fj0823

Member
vainglorious said:
Whyyy. Why would he give someone like Davis any kind of validation.

I like this Pope but... I guess it's easy to forget that he's still a Pope. If that makes sense.
Click to expand...

I do think it's a matter of how much he knew about the situation, if she just told him her side of the story, his response makes perfect sense.

Kim Davis: "POPE!! THEY ARE FORCING ME TO MARRY THE GAYS! I CANT SAY ANYTHING OR THEY´LL SEND ME TO JAIL!!!"

Pope: "Damn girl, stay strong"
 
Wag

Wag

Member
Fj0823 said:
I do think it's a matter of how much he knew about the situation, if she just told him her side of the story, his response makes perfect sense.

Kim Davis: "POPE!! THEY ARE FORCING ME TO MARRY THE GAYS! I CANT SAY ANYTHING OR THEY´LL SEND ME TO JAIL!!!"

Pope: "Damn girl, stay strong"
Click to expand...

I'm sure The Pope lives a very sheltered existence. Remember the man hasn't watched TV in over 20yrs. He is surrounded by yes-men and sycophants. I'm sure his advisers for whatever reason told him that this would be a good meeting for him to have. Probably won't help him in the average American's eyes, but in the average Catholic's eyes it won't make a damn bit of difference.
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
Wag said:
I'm sure The Pope lives a very sheltered existence. Remember the man hasn't watched TV in over 20yrs. He is surrounded by yes-men and sycophants. I'm sure his advisers for whatever reason told him that this would be a good meeting for him to have. Probably won't help him in the average American's eyes, but in the average Catholic's eyes it won't make a damn bit of difference.
Click to expand...

I could see it making a difference with some Catholics. Davis is an evangelical, born-again Christian. They don't exactly think highly of Catholics, which is why it's weird the Pope even talked to her in the first place.
 
Pilgrimzero

Pilgrimzero

Member
Keep in mind this was probably set up by some republican congressman, the Pope probably had no idea who she is aside from she was a "conscientious objector"

Also keep in kind I'm sure the Pope realizes that "conscientious objection" doesn't mean "immune from consequences"
 
Wag

Wag

Member
Veritigo_X said:
I could see it making a difference with some Catholics. Davis is an evangelical, born-again Christian. They don't exactly think highly of Catholics, which is why it's weird the Pope even talked to her in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Maybe his advisers told him that this was a cause that most Americans believed in. Who can say? I'm sure it will be talked about widely here. The right will see it as vindication, the left will see it as interference.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Pilgrimzero said:
Keep in mind this was probably set up by some republican congressman, the Pope probably had no idea who she is aside from she was a "conscientious objector"

Also keep in kind I'm sure the Pope realizes that "conscientious objection" doesn't mean "immune from consequences"
Click to expand...

It was apparently set up by Vatican officials.

Mr. Staver, her lawyer, said Vatican officials had been aware of Ms. Davis, and that the meeting had been arranged through them — not through bishops or the bishops’ conference in the United States. He would not identify the Vatican officials.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/us/county-clerk-kim-davis-who-denied-gay-couples-visited-pope.html
 
T

thefro

Member
Wag said:
All this proves, is once again, the Vatican is still out of touch.
Click to expand...

There's still a very large conservative faction in the Vatican that John Paul II and Benedict appointed. You'll need a couple more Francis-type Popes to start changing that.

Not saying Francis doesn't support Kim Davis but it's not his dictatorship and he has to do things to support what other Vatican officials, the bishops, etc want and to get support on other things.
 
D

DragonSworne

Banned
Pope's response to the Davis situation is illogical...

Pope said:
But, yes, I can say the 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.'
Click to expand...


So we need conscientious objection since it is a human right and we shouldn't be deciding which human right is valid or not. Great, but Davis is denying people other human rights through her conscientious objection. Way to negate yourself, Pope.

The pope indirectly supports one human right being more important/valid than another. The right to marriage vs. the right to conscientious objection.
 
G

Garlador

Member
DragonSworne said:
Pope's response to the Davis situation is illogical...




So we need conscientious objection since it is a human right and we shouldn't be deciding which human right is valid or not. Great, but Davis is denying people other human rights through her conscientious objection. Way to negate yourself, Pope.

The pope indirectly supports one human right being more important/valid than another. The right to marriage vs. the right to conscientious objection.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the misunderstanding.

She was not in trouble for being a conscientious objector. She was in trouble for NOT DOING HER JOB.

She was not put in prison for protesting; she was put in prison for failing to do her sworn duty.

Everyone DOES have the right to be a conscientious objector without fear of persecution, but she was NOT persecuted for being a conscientious objector.

If objecting to "the gays" was enough to put people in prison, we'd have millions of people in prison right now for objecting. The reason she was in prison had NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION, and way, WAY too many people don't understand that.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Pope wasn't aware of the reasons or circumstances, or was misled as to the reasons. Maybe he did know; I can't be sure.

But he's correct on conscientious objection. But that wasn't why was she arrested.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
brainchild said:
A far cry from supporting the notion that a government official doesn't have to do their job while remaining under the government's employ.

Sure, they have a right to 'conscientious objection', but their employer has the right to remove them from office if they can't do their job.
Click to expand...

I think the Pope's point is that a person has the right to conscientious objection without facing negative consequences. At least, I think that's closer to his point than that a person has the right to conscientious objection without facing death.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
I think the Pope's point is that a person has the right to conscientious objection without facing negative consequences. At least, I think that's closer to his point than that a person has the right to conscientious objection without facing death.
Click to expand...

That is a lovely dose of inferencing that you derived from those statements. I tend to refrain from such speculation until there's at least a modicum of evidence to support it.

Considering the context, I'd infer that he meant that a person has the right to conscientious objection without the apprehension of unjust treatment or persecution. Inferring that he implied that one subjected to such circumstances has the right to avoid any negative consequences whatsoever as a result of this is such a huge leap in logic that you'll have to tell me how you got there before I can consider it a valid point of view.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
brainchild said:
That is a lovely dose of inferencing that you derived from those statements. I tend to refrain from such speculation until there's at least a modicum of evidence to support it.

Considering the context, I'd infer that he meant that a person has the right to conscientious objection without the apprehension of unjust treatment or persecution. Inferring that he implied that one subjected to such circumstances has the right to avoid any negative consequences whatsoever as a result of this is such a huge leap in logic that you'll have to tell me how you got there before I can consider it a valid point of view.
Click to expand...

I think the context provides more than a modicum of support for my reading of the Pope's comments. He was asked the following question:

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?
Click to expand...

This was clearly in reference to actual events of which the reporter and the Pope were no doubt aware--the bit about government officials discharging duties ("for example in issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples") clearly refers to Kim Davis and others like her. Reading the Pope's response in the context of those events, my reading makes the most sense. He was asked, in a roundabout way, "Do you support Kim Davis?" He answered, in a roundabout way, "Yes."

That reading is confirmed by the fact that the Pope-meeting-Kim-Davis story from last night turns out to be true.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
I think the context provides more than a modicum of support for my reading of the Pope's comments. He was asked the following question:



This was clearly in reference to actual events of which the reporter and the Pope were no doubt aware--the bit about government officials discharging duties ("for example in issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples") clearly refers to Kim Davis and others like her. Reading the Pope's response in the context of those events, my reading makes the most sense. He was asked, in a roundabout way, "Do you support Kim Davis?" He answered, in a roundabout way, "Yes."

That reading is confirmed by the fact that the Pope-meeting-Kim-Davis story from last night turns out to be true.
Click to expand...


No, he blatantly dodged answering the question directly, instead, opting for giving a more general philosophical response. Supporting her in 'a roundabout way' does not equate to full support for her actions.

Nothing in his statements implied that he believed that the government should not have taken action to stop her from preventing citizens to exercise their human rights (in fact his emphasis was on human rights, and there is nothing to suggest that this emphasis was selective to just some human rights), nor did his statements imply that he believed that she shouldn't have to deal with any negative consequences for obstructing the law.

His statements were more empathetic than anything else, and considering his position, I can't even blame him. He smartly deflected the question in a way that wouldn't give the impression that he wasn't empathetic towards all human rights, even if ultimately, it would make him seem like a Davis supporter. However, without any evidence to suggest that he disapproves of the government's actions, despite him moving the conversation away from leading to such implications, you have no substantive basis for making such claims.


EDIT:

To put this succinctly, the pope is saying to Davis, "In theory, I would support you, under these conditions". Turns out that the actual events don't line up with his hypothetical supposition. You're arguing as if his statements apply to the actual events and not just the hypothetical scenario that he's proposing, despite the fact that he framed his response purely around a hypothetical situation.
 
C

Captin Quacker

Member
Escape Goat said:
Hes never actually changed or proposed change to doctrine. Hes just saying maybe we should tone down the intensity. Though depending on your expectations from a new pope might make him cooler than the last.
Click to expand...

but I was expecting a modicum of "bitch please" or "son I'm disappointed" from him. Not a flat out "you go gurl!!!"
 
K

~Kinggi~

Banned
Really something when a vapid bitch like Kim Davis gets the satisfaction of having the pope tell her she's doing the right thing. Fucks the lot of them.
 
A

AngryNapkin

Banned
She is fairly dumb, her religious beliefs should have zero bearing on her job. If she doesn't like it she needs to find another form of employment.

The pope of all people getting involved is ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Homophobe Kim Davis in Romania to help ban gay marriage
2
50
7K
geomon replied
Lesbian couple win $10,000 damages from county clerk who called them an ‘abomination’
17
3K
hydrophilic attack replied
  • Locked
Kentucky changes law so Kim Davis doesn't have to sign marriage licenses
39
4K
BeardyChan replied
  • Locked
Pope had secret meeting with Kim Davis, Kentucky County Clerk
3 4 5 6 7
339
38K
Bowler replied
  • Locked
Kentucky Clerk denies same-sex couple marriage license for the third time
4 5 6 7 8
353
44K
Stumpokapow replied
Top Bottom