Did Kim Davis save America? 7


By Tom Quiner

cb091115dAPR20150911054559

Martin Luther King Jr. would be proud of Kim Davis.

Like Dr. King, she opposed an unjust law that compromised her religious convictions. Actually, Ms. Davis did not break any law. The Kentucky Constitution (Sections 402.005 and 402.020) restricts marriage to “the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman.”

The law is still on the books.

Kim Davis simply honored the existing law democratically enacted by the people of Kentucky which five Supreme Court justices said is no longer valid.

The Court’s decision compels public servants like Kim Davis, as well as private business owners in certain lines of work, to either violate their conscience or lose their job (or business).

The Left has reacted viciously, dragging her personal life across the pages of social media and the mainstream media, and even incarcerating her. They know that if she wins, she will have established a precedent that could very well save this nation, to the Left’s chagrin. They want us to get over our love affair with the First Amendment.

Accordingly, the Left wants her to quit her job or be fired. They want to send a message that Christians must leave their faith at home and do the will of Caesar no matter how immoral the law … if they want to work for Caesar.

Caesar’s religion is the established one to which even Christians must bow if they want to earn a livelihood in America.

Christianity thrives on martyrdom. When Caesar threw a Christian Church Father, Polycarp, into the arena around 100 A.D., all he demanded of the priest was to proclaim, “Caesar is Lord.”

Instead, Polycarp responded:

“Eighty-six years I have served Christ, and He never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?”

And the state killed him.

Things never change, do they?

Kim Davis, despite relentless death threats from the Left, still has her life, but went to jail for five days for standing up for Christ in the public square, just like the early Christians did; just like Reverend King did.

Nonetheless, she is a modern American martyr for her faith.

Voices on the right hail her as a modern Rosa Parks, an assertion the Left adamantly refutes.

All I know is that Kim Davis honors Dr. King’s legacy with her commitment to peaceful civil disobedience to tyranny over religious conscience.

Writing from the Birmingham jail, Dr. King said:

“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

Kim Davis has set the precedent. Others are following her lead.

Thanks to this flawed woman of faith, more Christians will stand up in civil disobedience to the modern Caesars who go by the names of Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, Reed, and Pelosi.

Without religious liberty, America is not America.

Thank-you, Kim Davis.

 

 

 

 

 

7 comments

  1. Sir, but what is your opinion that her actions infringes the rights of others that has been protected by law? Because our beliefs vary so much and differ subjectively according to people and thus, that is why any sort of ideology or belief should be allowed to be criticized. Of course, I believe she has the rights to freedom of religion but that freedom does not allow her to compulsively enforce her beliefs upon others. Say for instance, I cannot be working in Burger King and force the customer to consume only salad just because I am vegetarian. They’re paying for it and I get paid for the services I provide. So how can I refuse them a service that is legally provided for them?

    • Your comment is a fair one. Let me take it point by point based on my understanding of events:

      Do her actions infringes the rights of others that has been protected by law? No. She merely did not want her imprimatur placed on marriage licenses. She did not try to block same-sex marriage licenses. She simply sought an accommodation based on her religious beliefs.

      Because our beliefs vary so much and differ subjectively according to people and thus, that is why any sort of ideology or belief should be allowed to be criticized. Agreed.

      Of course, I believe she has the rights to freedom of religion but that freedom does not allow her to compulsively enforce her beliefs upon others. I think this is where people have gotten confused due to the usual slanted coverage of the MSM. She did not try to enforce her religious beliefs on others. She merely asked the state not to enforce theirs on her.

      So how can I refuse them a service that is legally provided for them? Again, she sought an accommodation. The judge was originally not interested in providing one, but changed his mind after the public outcry put him in a bad light. Now the staff will continue to issue same-sex marriage licenses in Rowan County, but without Ms. Davis’ name on them. Why didn’t the judge simply make this accommodation in the first place?

      Thanks for your thoughtful response.

      • Thank you sir but I still have a few doubts.

        It is true that the State should not enforce their beliefs on her. But you see sir, there is a clearly significant difference between beliefs and legitimate law. Beliefs vary subjectively but law does not. I would not go as far to say law is objective but I merely opine that the law is far less subjective than beliefs.

        Second, about soughting accommodation, if doing that particular job is against her conscience, she has the ultimate liberty of resigning and perhaps do some other job that is more aligned and parallel to her beliefs and conscience. Soughting accommodation seems a fairly poor reasoning if you ask me.

        Thank you again 🙂

      • A quick response to your 2nd point. Why should someone have to resign over an immoral law passed after someone was elected to office? Ms. Davis was elected by the people of her state. State law did not change nor did federal. The Supreme Court simply imposed a new morality on every state that had passed traditional marriage laws based on the traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs that marriage is about protecting children and families. The state very much is establishing a religion, let’s call it either Secular Humanism or neo-paganism, that says marriage must be based on lifestyle, not kids. Kudos to Ms. Davis for standing up for her religious beliefs. The Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with objective law. I respect your civility and intelligent analysis, but respectfully disagree with your conclusions for the reasons stated. Thanks for writing, come again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s