DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Time to end political correctness

Oath of Office taken by Kentucky clerk
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

Think of what would have happened if she challenged them to a Duel!

That's going to be hard to do when jurisdictions that actually pass laws to help them catch illegal immigrants get sued by civil liberties groups which are supported by the federal government.

The current law in KY states:

402.080 Marriage license required -- Who may issue.
No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.
Effective: July 13, 1984
History: Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 279, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1984. -- Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 74, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1980. -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 384, sec. 518, effective June 17, 1978. -- Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 100, sec. 14. -- Amended 1948 Ky. Acts ch. 42, sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2105.

By this law/ordinance, only a female may get a marriage license. I guess that would mean she was correct in refusing gay men a license. That would also have nothing to do with the SC ruling.

And that right there could be the HAMMA!!!

DC is really on with this issue! Great points!

By this oath she swears to uphold the law, but I agree that you disagree.

She also refused gay women.

She was refusing everyone for fairness. You should know how much our president wants for things to be fair.

This is a unique definition of 'fairness,' if you ask me. I'd go with 'unanimity'... because there is nothing fair about a heterosexual couple being turned away because of someone's crusade against other strangers they've never met.

Yeah, I'm 'picking nits,' but werds be important... you know?

Freakin Yoda again, right?

Perceptive, you are.

Texas, get the water boiling, time for Yoda stew!

It's not whether or not you pick your nits, but what you do with them after they're picked. I like mine sautéed with garlic.

Do businesses run differently in New York?

I have never read anything that said that interracial "breeding" was not allowed in the Bible. The way I read the verse is why I responded the way I did.

Frankly, using a good translation, I see no other way too read it.

That's an excellent rebuttal to the question of interracial relationships.

Thank you! Coming from a guy whose done such a wonderful job of sharing our faith like you do is a great compliment indeed!
Keep fighting the good fight! You do it gracefully Ytown!

We had that too, but not as a mixed race. Let me be clear: These were churches in northeast Ohio that practiced this garbage, not some backwater town down south. One church was a prominent Baptist church with over 2000 members in downtown Cleveland. That church I spent most of my time with growing up. If you wish to continue to hand wave this issue away go for it, but you will find many fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is clear that miscegenation is `wrong.` Baptists especially.

I'm glad you have found a church that has the "philosophy" you approve of. Just note that every last Christian down to the most regressive WBC member believes their philosophy is correct.



But God is supposed to be eternal. 100 years ago Christians believed in Evolution and felt that the story of the flood was myth, not "fact." Then there was a fundamentalist movement and here we are today with over 50% of all Christians believing that the Bible is literally or spiritually factual. If we are to only put Christ in the lens of today then you are already behind the times. In 20 years Christians will be stating that the Bible said nothing about homosexuality and it was all about "peopling attempting to use that for wrong." Christians move with the secular world so they don't go too far out of touch. I'm not sure why they are so sure that they will be saved by the grace of a vengeful God by moving the goalposts so much. I listened to quite a few sermons growing up about the "dangers" of doing such things.



Uhm she decided to not do her job. How does that not hurt the people trying to get a marriage license? Telling people to go elsewhere is not a reasonable request because the county only has a per capita income of 13k. It's probable that for many it would be an unreasonable cost to travel all the way to another county just because someone decided to be in violation of law rather than do their job.

I'm glad you are willing to dismiss 300 years of American lawmaking as "rambling BS" and "taking scripture to try to make it say what they wanted to say." I wonder if all of the Christians in America from 1664 to 1967 were judged by God for their perversion of scripture, or if God accepted it because most Christians believed this crap at the time. Heaven might have a pretty empty block from that time period otherwise

But hey, feel free to stand tall and believe that you are one of the few people that know how to read the Bible properly. I'm sure all of those lawmakers for several hundred years said the same thing, but clearly Christians such as yourself have moved beyond such perversions of faith.

I guess all Christians before 1978 are in trouble then, because that's when your `good` NIV translation came out. I love the logic that it's the newer Bibles that are more "right" than the older ones though. Keep up the cognitive dissonance! Maybe we should burn all the Greek manuscripts because of how old they are. By golly, maybe no Christians got into heaven until some time in the 1980s!

Of course though, you would retort that yes, clearly Christians did go to heaven before then. But then that brings us back around to the creative backpedaling you and Erik are doing about the 300 years of perversion of Scripture accounted for at the hands of "Holy" lawmakers of America. This backpedaling is so fierce you may end up back at your browser home page if you aren't careful.

Fact: We had rampant anti-miscegenation laws in the United States for 300 years.
Fact: Every anti-miscegenation law used Scripture/God's Will as the reason for the law to exist

Sure, we can bring back the tired old argument that those before us just read it wrong. That for hundreds of years our country misinterpreted the Bible. Christians are all better now! All this does is paint not only the ludicrousness of homosexuality and the Bible into doubt, but the entire concept of the Bible as being infallible itself. The only reason the Bible holds any power as a religious text is the passage of time and the political institutions that have adopted it for its means, no matter how perverse.

To believe that you know better than those before as to how the Bible is to be interpreted shows an immeasurable amount of hubris on your part. You are essentially saying that every Christian before this era got it all wrong, and then believe that Christians of this era got it all right.

Too bad the first link when I googled "moses cush interracial marriage" was in opposition to MrTed:

https://faithandheritage.com/2015/05/did-mosess-cushite-wife-legitimize-interracial-marriage/

But go ahead, keep telling us how modern Christians are right and how all Christians before you got the Bible wrong

At this point Ms. Davis, if she is true to her moral and religious objections, should resign from her position. If she refuses to, then impeachment proceedings need to begin.


She was elected to that position to represent the concerns of the State i.e. over seeing the issuance of State required marriage licenses. The Law defines that position and its duties. Since she was elected the Law has altered the description of those duties. If her moral and religious beliefs come in conflict with those duties, then those same moral and religious beliefs should dictate that she not partake right?

And I agree with part of the point made by that writer, that God punished them for questioning Moses' leadership ..... however, if Moses had married a woman who worshiped Baal, for example, do you think that God would have been willing to say that was fine?

His wife, and there is no Biblical evidence that he had more than one, was the daughter of a priest from Midian. That would make her Jewish, but with a different skin color. She also circumcised one of their sons, further indicating that she was Jewish.

It seemed to me, in reading the Bible, that God was concerned about keeping the Jewish people pure in their worship. He was not concerned about the color of their skin.

Anyway, I have seen nothing in the Bible thus far that tells a Gentile that he cannot marry a person with a different skin color. We are supposed to marry another believer ..... but skin color is never a consideration that I know of.

The Bible warns the Christian "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers", but it does not mention skin color that I know of.

Thus, back to Bob Jones, I disagree with the interpretation of the Bible verse in question.

I have to call BS on that statement bro.

Age of Darwin

The decades following Charles Darwin's publication of The Origin of Species, in 1859, saw the overwhelming majority of North American and British naturalists accept some form of evolution, with many liberal and educated churchmen following their example, and thereby rejecting a biblically literalist interpretation of Genesis.[22] Although Darwin's work rejected "the dogma of separate creations," he invoked creation as the probable source of the first lifeforms ("into which life was first breathed"). This led Asa Gray, who was both religiously orthodox, and Darwin's most prominent American supporter, to suggest that Darwin had accepted "a supernatural beginning of life on earth" and that he should therefore allow a second "special origination" for humanity. Darwin however rejected this view, and used uncompromisingly naturalistic language in place of biblical idiom, starting with The Descent of Man in 1871.[23]

Darwin's book caused less controversy than he had feared, as the idea of evolution had been widely popularized in Victorian Britain by the 1844 publication of Vestiges of Creation.[24] However, it posed fundamental questions about the relationship between religion and science. Though Origin did not explicitly deal with human evolution, the jump was one both supporters and opponents of the theory immediately made, and the idea that man was simply an animal (common descent) who had evolved a particular set of characteristics — rather than a spiritual being created by God — continued to be one of the most divisive notions of the 19th century. One of the most famous disputes was the Oxford Debate of 1860, in which T.H. Huxley, Darwin's self-appointed "bulldog," debated evolution with Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford. Both sides claimed victory, then the controversy was overshadowed by the even greater theological furor over the publication of Essays and Reviews questioning whether miracles were atheistic, bringing to a head arguments in the Church of England between liberal theologians supporting higher criticism, and conservative Evangelicals.[25] The essays were described by their opponents as heretical, and the essayists were called "The Seven Against Christ."[26]

In 1862, the Glaswegian physicist William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) published calculations, based on his presumption of uniformitarianism, and that the heat of the sun was caused by its gravitational shrinkage, that fixed the age of the Earth and the solar system at between 20 million and 400 million years, i.e. between ~3,000 and ~70,000 times Ussher's value. This came as a blow to Darwin's anticipated timescale, though the idea of an ancient Earth was generally accepted without much controversy. Darwin and Huxley, while not accepting the timing, said it merely implied faster evolution. It would take further advances in geology and the discovery of radioactivity that showed that the sun was in fact heated by nuclear fusion that demonstrated the present estimated 4.567 billion years, or ~700,000 times Ussher's value. A way to measure the age of the universe would be discovered by Edwin Hubble in the 1930s, but due to observational constraints, an accurate measurement of the Hubble constant would not be forthcoming until the late 1990s. According to the ESA/Planck data, released in March 2013, the age of the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years[27] or some ~2,000,000 times Ussher's value.

The Swiss-American paleontologist Louis Agassiz opposed evolution. He believed that there had been a series of catastrophes with divine re-creations, evidence of which could be seen in rock fossils. Though uniformitarianism dominated ideas from the 1840s onwards, Catastrophism remained a major paradigm in geology until replaced by new models that allowed for both cataclysms (such as meteor strikes) and gradualist patterns (such as ice ages) to explain observed geologic phenomena.

In 1878, American Presbyterians held the first annual Niagara Bible Conference, founding the Christian fundamentalist movement, which took its name from the "Five Fundamentals" of 1910, and came to be concerned about the implications of evolution for the accuracy of the Bible. But by no means all orthodox Presbyterians were opposed to evolution as a possible method of the Divine procedure. Dr Charles Hodge of Princeton Seminary objected in 1874 to the atheism he considered implied in the naturalistic explanation but both he and Dr B. B. Warfield[28] were open to its possibility/probability within limits, and most churchmen sought to reconcile Darwinism with Christianity.

Darwin died in 1882. In 1915, Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope, spread rumors that he had repented and accepted God on his deathbed. Lady Hope's story is almost certainly false, and it is unlikely that she visited Darwin as she claimed.[29]

________________________________________

I'm not suggesting wikipedia is a source for facts, but in my opinion it's a better source for facts than the bible.

I have talked to a lot of Christians in my lifetime who were around 100 years ago. None of them that I have ever talked to believed the flood was a myth or that evolution was true.

Your argument is getting stupid. You are trying to argue why people believe what they do, and no one outside of that group has any control over that. As I said, biblical passages can be interpreted any way a person can interpret them, for good or evil. Look up Jim Jones if you forget how Christianity can be used for evil. Those are not majority beliefs.

Don't people like you argue that 'not all muslims are bad'? I guess that doesn't count for Christians.

I do as well, but I think it brings the entire construct of Biblical accuracy into question. To what purpose did God make his sole existence to the world (The Bible) so easy to twist and turn such that generations of Christians believed that mixing races was against his Will? Or has society progressed and it really *was* God's will, we just try to twist his Word now to say no, God is fine with there being one race of people. I grew up with sermons about race mixing, and while the pastor took great care to avoid ideas of racism, it was clear what the message was. Grew up for me was "1990s" so maybe that's a long time ago for you, maybe not. But it's still around 30 years after our nation allowed interracial marriage. I know Paul said the Bible isn't easy to read, so I can somewhat excuse the ramblings of a Koresh or McVeigh. But otherwise intelligent pastors and lawmakers perverting the Word of God? What purpose does that hold?

Christians back then said the same things they are now as it regarded miscegenation. That this ruling will destroy the fabric of our nation. That God will turn his back on us. That America as we know it is now gone.

Over 50% of Americans believe that the word of God is either spiritually or factually accurate. Yet 87% approve of interracial marriage, compared to 4% in 1958. 59% approve of same sex marriage, compared to just 33% in 2009. I'm curious to see the mental gymnastics of that 9% or so that believes the word of God is true yet approves of SSM

Given the rise of SSM approval, it will be a short period of time that the majority of Churches in the United States approve of SSM couples. They will then claim that people such as yourself are those who perverted the Word of God to promote perversion and bigotry. I'm not saying it to make you feel bad, I'm just saying history is repeating itself. Just as the NIV and NLT were Bibles created for the "Modern American," new Bible translations will come about that whitewash what was said in Lev and Romans and other places. They will say that while the literal translation was "men with men" they will say the "thought" of it was something else. Read up on the history of some of these Bible's (especially NIV) and you'll see that much of the work was done to whitewash unsavory portions of the past. That's why it's easier for me to find Scripture about anti-miscegenation than you are, because I'm using a 1611 KJV which is an older edition.

http://www.trustingodamerica.com/NIV.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/why.htm

Did they address you as sir? As a respect elder?

The problem with this is that we have solid translations today, and we have numerous whole pieces of the scriptures, or fragments. We have so much of the scriptures dating back to the 1st century AD. We have more information available from the early scriptures than every before.

Further, some of the verses in question are completely unambiguous. Jesus' statement on marriage is as clear as clear can be. I also believe that much of the Bible can be "figured out" by what the rest says. There are some parts that are more difficult than others, but we can put a lot of those difficult verses in context. Some, admittedly, are far more difficult to make sense of.

Why did God do such a thing? I have no idea. However, I know that God had a purpose.

As to Christians believing things that are not Biblical, I believe that this is because so few Christians actually read their Bibles, and think that all they have to do to be a Christian is to call themselves one ...... or show up at church once in a while. I believe, in reading the Bible, that Jesus wants, expects, and requires more than that from us.

As far as "man with man", well, I don't even need that to make an airtight case against gay marriage. Jesus Himself affirmed the Commandment against Adultery, and then clearly defined marriage as one man to one woman, becoming one flesh, as God planned, joined for life. He was as clear as anything else in the Bible. Crystal clear. There was no ambiguity in what He said. Those of us who are Christians should be careful when we disregard the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Read up on theistic evolution and it's inclusion in public schools. It was introduced by Protestants. This held until after WW1 when the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy took hold in the 1920s and 1930s. At that point fundamentalist legislators worked to ban evolution in schools.

As for the story of the flood, The concept of the Bible as being factually true didn't even start as a concept until 1881, and took decades to come around to various theological disciplines. Before that time the Bible was considered to be an account of events as told by the writers of the time. Therefore Christians believed the idea that the earth was made in 6 days to be false, but the overall idea that God created the earth to be true.

Even so, the Bible as being factually true didn't become prominent until the 1970s when we had the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. The idea that the Bible is factually correct is a recent development.

My argument is only getting stupid to you because you have no retort for it. I'm very well aware of the Jim Jones, David Koresh's, and McVeigh's of the world. What you seem to lack in understanding is that the Christian's movement against miscegenation took the course of 300 years and involved nearly every Christian man and woman. If you still consider that to be a minority then perhaps all of Earth is a minority. And just as miscegenation before it, Christians in a generation will label people who believed homosexuality to be wrong as perverting the Scripture and a "minority" sect of Christianity. Do you think that Christians who believe homosexuality to be wrong are a minority? Christians will claim that in due time



So you are reduced to implying that I hold a double standard in regards to religion? Islam is surely a religion of piece. A piece of you here, A piece of you there... (stolen from Bill Maher but it's too good a joke to leave out)

I do not hold to the view that Christians are evil yet Muslims need to be tolerated. I believe Islam to be a worse construct of religion than Christianity because they have a higher propensity for violence than Christians. The penalty for apostasy in Islam is death. This typically does not hold true for Christians. Just because Islam is bad does not mean that historical whitewashing and double standards by Christians needs to be tolerated, however.

Claiming that new manuscripts are incredibly variant is misleading. While no two manuscripts are the same, the changes are always minor. A missing period here. A misspelled pronoun there. The majority of new Bible translations are made to adapt to current dogma mechanics and language changes. That's why the NIV2011 is mainly a "Lets make it clear that being gay is wrong" edition.

You are saying exactly what Bob Jones said, just about homosexuality instead of miscegenation. The fact you don't realize that relationship is astounding. And your claim that newer Bibles "fixed this problem" only demonstrates how adaptable Christians are to changing political environments to fix the "dogma" problem. Given that we've seen almost a quarter of all Americans approve of SSM in a 6 year period, it won't be much longer before Christians once again fix this image problem.

And look, I'm not even saying you are wrong. I've read the Bible (mostly KJV1611) but hey, it seems to speak pretty ill of same sex relations, and it does define marriage as a man and a woman. Just as it contains the story of the Tower of Babel and how God made all the races different, and how God fixed the bounds of their habitation. All of these arguments have been made before in regards to why Christians practice intolerance in one fashion or another. The broken record will skip, and the next time around, it will be "God never said SSM was wrong." Maybe not by you or your current pastor. But the next pastors will.

Actually, I've had every retort for it. You keep wanting to bring up past history. We are currently dealing with the present. I know the history already.

The Christian faith was used to justify the crusades, the inquisition, witch burnings, and many other atrocities. That is not the Christian faith today.

You keep bringing up that Christian religion was used to deny interracial marriage in the past. I think most people know that. That was corrected a long time ago for the majority of people that follow the faith. I don't know if you are trying to change the past, or use the past as a hammer on people today.

No matter what you say in reference to the past, the KY clerk has rights too. She, and others like her, will get a carve out on the ruling from the SC, as it is their belief that a homosexual marriage is a sin, and they don't want to be participatory in any way to that perceived sin. These carve outs are the reasons why Indian Nations can kill bald eagles for feathers, Inuit can hunt whales, SW Indians can use peyote, the Amish don't pay SS, doctors and nurses don't have to provide abortions, and so on.

At every point in history, man has been able to look back at some of its own foolishness in what they believed. This generation will be no different.

I don't doubt that at all. It all depends on your definition of foolishness.

They're not even close to being the same thing lol

so.....being PC.

yea.

And you don't understand the law. LOL