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

the vatican is not the pope.
the pope did support davis's right to contentious objection.
since facts are facts all that can be posted in argument against that is media 'spin'.

 

If you are right, and he did give his endorsement to her for breaking an oath of office, disregarding other people's beliefs, and causing others' emotional pain, then thank you for starting a thread about what an idiot the pope is.

 

so how are members expected to discuss anything if they cant analyse and describe the elemental composition of their opponents arguments, while their opponents can describe the members arguments as off topic with out supporting arguments to validate such a claim? Its hardly intended as an insult, and I am always willing to validate my claims in evidence or further argument or both which is the way it is done in all the academic circles and disciplines. So when I believe that you or someone made an argument that does not apply to the subject matter under review, (which is called a red herring), how am I supposed to respond? Simply agree with whatever is said rather than point it out? Doesnt that tilt the scales a little? How do you want people to respond when confronted with strawman arguments? I have never seen anyone post something like that before in all my years on boards, since it removes the ability and gags an opponent from pointing out logical augmentative fallacies which is a normal and standard process in any debate? How did saying someone or something said is wrong become an insult? I cant imagine?

 

Besides, she is doing what she is doing either out of fear of her god's wrath, or her hatred of homosexuals. Neither of those reasobs have anything to do with being conscientious.

 

well then there is a huge population of idiots according to you.

Very simply put conscientious objection protects the individual from the forces of the mob with respect to all religions, even the atheists.

The pope agrees with Davis that she has the individual right to conscientious objection.

In fact there are rights that extend beyond that in which one must prove damage or injury, another one state sort of just close their eyes to while jamming their agenda down everyones throats.

If she has the right then she violated no law, in fact the law violated her by trying to force her to act against her conscience.

If your version is correct then we murdered all those nazis at nuremburg since they were all hung for NOT exercising their moral duties to their fellow men and women.

I would say you have a 'dilemma' to deal with and sort out

and just to put this point to bed, so much for the conscientious object[OR] that so many site since it refers to the military in pretense it applies nowhere else. See Cohen from JStor below:


CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

CARL COHEN

Conscientious objection deserves more reflective attention than it generally gets; I want to help correct this deficiency. My object is not to urge that anyone be, or not be, a conscientious objector; I am not wise enough for that. Rather, I hope to make conscientious objection more deeply and more accurately understood. With such understanding, those who contemplate conscientious objection for themselves can (given an awareness of their own beliefs) act more consistently and more intelligently, while those who witness conscientious objection by others can better appreciate the essential nature of that conduct. A fuller understanding of conscientious objection has a further practical consequence of immediate importance. It exposes two grave injustices imposed by the rules governing conscientious objection presently in force in our system of military conscription, and may lead to their correction.

I

The provision of a special category for conscientious objectors is a device of the body politic. Recognizing that there are certain kinds of laws which may command the performance of acts that a significant minority cannot perform in good conscience, the community provides a special mechanism which permits that minority to be released from the requirement that those acts be performed, normally on the condition that some alternative acts rendering equal service to the community be performed in their stead. Conscientious objection may be viewed as a legal pressure valve, deliberately devised to relieve the tension between deeply held moral convictions and the demands of the law, when that tension becomes extreme. How great must the pressure be before the valve will open? That must depend upon the judgment of the legislators and administrators of the community in which the device is employed; in most cases, their aim is to avoid a situation in which some respected and law-abiding citizens are forced to choose between deliberate disobedience of the law in question and (if obedient) excruciating moral anguish. The sound principle which underlies conscientious objection is that, in framing its laws, the community should avoid creating situations in which any of its respected members are necessarily faced with an intolerable moral dilemma.

Provision for conscientious objection is a mark of considerable sophistication in a political community. It indicates that there is a general awareness, in that community, of the depth of moral disagreements, and it is a concrete exhibition of the community’s disposition to tolerate such disagreements when they are genuine and profound. It is, at the same time, an implicit recognition by the community that obedience to certain of its own laws might be held, by good and reasonable men, to be a moral evil.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2379480?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

so you have become a mind reader? could it be she understands Gods reasoning and simply and nothing more than agrees with God?

 

If she understands her god, agrees, and is trying to do his bidding, then she's doing it out of fear.

As a side note - her god is kinda fucked up in making people, then demanding that they hate each other if they aren't alike. No wonder she has fear...her god is a lunatic.

 

She is doing it because she does not want to be an accessory to the commission of a sin which is NO different than you obeying some law so you do not become an accessory to the commission of a crime.

 

Who's the mind reader now?

 

A sin is a belief. A crime is a fact.

 

Not ignoring you, just lost interest in the thread.

 

you

You are the one who ran in several directions of frivolous arguments not me.


davis made her position perfectly clear that it goes against her morals.

and that is defined as conscientious objection

 

Thats not correct, a sin is also a fact.


a belief is one element of religion and a belief is also the extent of philosophy and ethics.

 

I have, too.

Kim Davis was used to dupe the Pope.

I don't care.