General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Pope and Kim Davis -- So?
One doesnt have to be Catholic to appreciate that Pope Francis likes to teach by example. In that he follows the example set by the founder of his faith, who was frequently chastised for consorting with the wrong kind of people. Case in point, Francis declined a dinner invitation with members of congress in order to share a meal with the homeless. So why is anyone surprised that he spent a few minutes with Kim Davis?
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)It's become clear he is very homophobic and transphobic, and looks to be a leader against equality. Despite liking what he says on some issues, I can't have any respect for him.
Demit
(11,238 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)So when did this happen? Pics?
I suspect that somebody is bearing false witness again.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)He's not a liberal.
msongs
(67,193 posts)progree
(10,864 posts)http://news.yahoo.com/pope-wades-u-gay-marriage-debate-historic-visit-192049390.html
Pope Francis waited until his historic U.S. visit was over to make his most direct comments on the nation's debate over gay marriage, saying government officials should have the right to refrain from actions that violate their religious beliefs.
That statement came in response to a reporter's question on the papal plane about Kim Davis
"Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right," Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian. "If someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."
Francis alluded to the Roman Catholic Church's objections to gay marriage during some of his U.S. talks, citing concerns about "juridical" changes to the definition of the family. Still, he largely avoided the issue, the subject of intense debate.
CincyDem
(6,283 posts)"Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right," Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian. "If someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."
I get it, and we have a way for Ms. Davis to be a conscientious objector vis-a-vis her views (albeit demented) regarding same sex marriages...she can resign. She can practice her narrow religious beliefs in the comfortable confines of her 4th marriage and live life happily ever after.
And conscientious objection is part of our judicial system. As much as the right wants to perpetrate this lie, she was not jailed for he beliefs. She was jailed for unilaterally imposing her religious beliefs on others through the power of her elected office. She was jailed because she hasn't got the courage to accept that her religious beliefs might bring with it some real world consequences...like not being able to hold a public office that has duties in conflict with my religious beliefs. In the end, rather than being a act of courage, she's been riding the selfish coward train in high gear since the day this started.
So...
Conscientious objection is a right and when we don't allow others to be a conscientious objector, we deny those rights.
Forced government imposition of religious beliefs is not a right and when we don't allow others to force their religious beliefs through their government position, that's called freedom of religion.
Imagine if instead of being asked about conscientious objection, the Pope were asked about government forcing it's religions beliefs on individual...we might have a very different sound bite.
djean111
(14,255 posts)I don't see why anyone cares, really.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Her parents are Catholic. They share the same views on LGBT. And she's a liar. Either way this story goes is believable.