Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Kim Davis, 'modern fundamentalist'
genkaku
Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
Passed along in email was this Gilbert-and-Sullivan rewrite/send-up of Kim Davis.
And, for the Buddhists who may be inclined to use the word "namaste," here is an alternative approach.
4
Comments
OK, well, cute-ish.
I agree with the general sentiments. I am myself quite far left on the political continuum, so the views resonate with me.
But . . .
Although I smirked out loud, here's what bothers me. It was an impressively thorough and biting treatment of her hypocrisy, but it's disingenuous to argue against her views by attacking her personally. Her message is that gay marriage is contrary to the bible's teachings, and she is correct. Regardless of how many times she's been divorced, gay marriage is contrary to the bible's teachings. If you disagree with her, present an alternative point of view. But attacking her personally does not contribute positively to the discussion.
I know it's all very light hearted and maybe I shouldn't take it so seriously. But how light hearted is it really? There are a lot of names in the credits. Quite a lot of effort went into this attack.
I get what you're saying, but extremists tend to invite a pie in the face.
@Steve_B -- I'm not being snarky, but I am ignorant: Can you point out/quote the specific Bible verses that suggest gay marriage is against the Bible's teachings? I could be wrong (more ignorance on my part), but I believe homosexuality was not viewed with as much fiery acumen, pro or con, in the time of Jesus or even among the other Jews who preceded him.
As an aside, I do wonder why ad hominem attacks should be discouraged and critiqued and yet ad hominem agreements and praise do not excite a similar displeasure and skepticism.
It amazes me that she gets attention at all to be honest. If it happened here she would have been fired and that would be the end of it.
^^^ apparantly it's an abomination
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/18-22.htm
I wonder if the abominable snowman is gay?
Lesbianism is not mentioned as far as I know. Also shrimp eating is banned.
There is a story out this morning that says the Pope met with Kim and told her to "stay strong". http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-in-secret-meeting-with-pope-francis-report-says/ar-AAeWq4N?ocid=spartandhp
So far the Vatican hasn't commented and the sole source seems to be Kim Davis and her attorney so at this point I'm pretty skeptical that the meeting actually happened and think it might be some kind of propaganda stunt.
There is plenty of old stuff in the bible talking about homosexuality. But not gay marriage. In theory, according to the bible, one could be gay and get married (to someone of the same sex of course) and still be ok as long as they weren't having sex. The bible is against gay sex. Not gay marriage.
I think that the personal attacks actually distract from the issue, which is unfortunate. As I always say, I don't care what people believe. But you should not hold a public job that prevents you from equally, legally serving all people because of your beliefs. Just like the Muslim flight attendant who doesn't want to serve liquor. Then don't take the job. In this case, she needs to leave her job if she cannot do the duties as assigned. She is obligated to serve the citizens of her state and county and she refuses to do so based on her beliefs. That is what we are supposed to be protected from. She IS the government. She is using her beliefs to refuse service to someone else. Not ok.
@ourself she cannot be fired because she was elected. She would have to be impeached, and living in the bible belt, that is extremely unlikely to happen.
Well that's just plain stupid. If she gets paid to perform a service she is not providing or is going against the law there should be no middle ground.
These attention whores don't need more than their allotted 15 minutes, lol.
What a joke the States is becoming.
Relax @ourself: With any luck, the Department of Homeland Security will join forces with the fundamentalist patriots and we'll soon have a theocracy that will rival Islamic State's most anal-retentive wet dreams. Peace and harmony and everyone wearing a mask.
@Steve_B My thoughts exactly!
My initial thought when the criticism on Kim came out was the same exact idea. Society can be pretty hypocritical.
I'm not defending her -- I absolutely believe that what she is doing is legally and morally wrong. I'm just pointing out that the ad hominem attacks constitute the low road. And I doubt that a bible passage could be accurately quoted to distinguish between gay sex and gay marriage; I would be quite surprised (and impressed) to see one. Applying that distinction from without would seem to require invoking a sexless homosexual marriage, sacrificing logic for semantic pedantry.
Genkaku, your question about ad hominem agreements is thought provoking. I'd guess they seem more agreeable simply because they are agreements, not attacks. But I can't remember ever recognizing an ad hominem agreement as such. "Ted Nugent is SUCH a nice guy, guns and draft dodging must be societal ideals."
Apparently the Pope met her on his tour of the States.
SHE maintains he thanked her for her stance, and told her to stay strong.
The Vatican is refusing to either confirm or deny that this discussion actually took place.
I have my doubts it panned out exactly as she reported, myself.....
Look north, about seven posts, to the land of person.
Yeah.
What he said.
The Vatican confirmed yesterday that the Pope met with Kim Davis.
@Steve_B Indeed it is just semantics (gay sex versus gay marriage) instead of logic. But that seems to be the way they like to play. Not much logic in their argument when you start to pick it apart, yet they maintain it. If they want to call me on how illogical it is to say the Bible is against gay sex but not gay marriage, I'll have that debate with them happily on their version of "logic."
Yeah, I guess the meeting did actually take place. Another article does a good job of trying to suss out what it actually means, is the Pope just playing lip service with the LGBT people or is he just supportive of conscientious objection?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/meeting-with-kim-davis-has-pope-watchers-asking-what-did-francis-mean/ar-AAeYujT?ocid=spartanntp
Regarding reverse ad hominem, the idea sounds a little strange and doesn't seem to happen but I think its really just "appeal to authority", like "this yogurt is great because Jamie Lee Curtis says so."
Conservatives think us progressives will go all apoplectic at the Pope's meeting with Ms. Davis. Not me: I think it's entirely consistent with Francis' message that he supports civil unions for gay folks, but considers marriage a sacrament of the church that should be reserved for a man and a woman. So he's not in lock-step with progressive views, which lends weight to his views on climate change and poverty. Huzzah, Francis!
Pope Francis is still the leader of the catholic church. I love the shaking up he is doing, trying to get people to focus on the foundations of compassion and love. But he is unlikely to completely start erasing major tenets of their faith. This would all be a non-issue if the government would get their noses out of marriage to begin with. One of the Pope's quotes I read about the Davis meeting was indeed for his support of conscientous objection as he believes it to be a human right. But in the US, our highest court determined the right to marry (whether you agree with the term used or not) is a right as well. She can indeed continue to refuse licenses to gay couples. But she will also suffer legal consequences as a result, as she should, if she refuses to allow anyone in her office to fulfill their duties. It will be interesting to see how it works out over time, 6 months from now. She has only been the clerk for 11 months or something, but she was a deputy under the previous clerk for 26 years or something like that. So she understandably isn't likely to quit her job when she is just a few years from earning retirement. Who can afford to do that?
Your point is well made, @karasti.
Just a further comment:
It is tragic that fundamentalists (extremists) have a mind set that makes it near impossible to constructively dialog with them. Simply put, it is "I'm right and you are wrong, end of subject." Unless you can breach that wall of deliberate ignorance, you are literally speaking to a wall. Folks like the clerk are, in their own minds, at war and will give no quarter to their perceived enemies. They do not see the harm they are doing to their victims, to their communities, to themselves. They are more comfortable in their darkness and fear even hate the light.
Interesting to note that Pope Francis, a Jesuit, did some Jesuitical tap-dancing today in an effort to distance himself from any "support" of Kim Davis' views.
What a joke the States is becoming.
-Curling and bagged-milk, just saying :-)
Ps. edited to add, just poking fun, I find our neighbors to the North to be delightful...
We're getting just as bad up here in some ways. Just not as much of a circus.
If we heave Steve and you guys feel the Bern we may just turn some of it around together.
@ourself, As an aside, some years ago when the Québécois wanted to secede, a move was afoot in Vermont to do the same thing and then join with the Québécois to form a new country :-)
Hey just what we need. More countries.
To go along with it, it has now come out that the Pope has met in private with a gay couple, a man he is friends with and was a teacher to and his partner.
I think, as usual, Americans just tend to jump in and assess everything and assign immediate meaning to it so we can decide which side to take. How many people who have been loving the pope were immediately put off and questioned everything about him by hearing he met with Kim Davis? Probably quite a few. A spiritual leader visits the US and all we get hung up on is whether he supports our legalization of gay marriage? We just have so many issues.
I think the Pope does genuinely care about people. All people. And he met with people of all sorts because of that. Not to take a political side or to offer support for a point of view for any one person. And I think it's unfortunate that the messages he did share are now completely lost in our arguments about whether he supports Kim Davis. I wish she would just go away already.
I think she has. Her 15 minutes are (mostly) over. Unless something new rekindles interest, she will fade.
Yeah, how come the lesbians always get a free pass?
Blokes wrote the bible, mate so you tell me....
http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy209/Herman_Verheij/09d1e950-d158-4553-9f69-72cb8044473a_zpsb53543a6.jpg
As much as I'm sick of this Lady....she gave me a good example to use for the church people at work co signing on this nonsense.....
For example, I said, the state says you need a license to drive....you go to the DMV, and the Lady says..." Oh, no Sorry, I don't believe people with curly hair should have one" Sorry...no driving for you...god wants it this way.
And would someone tell these people that tickets to heaven are not transferable. If I'm going to hell....than let me. Whats that got to do with you? Are there recruiting points given by god? Is it all or no one with him? Why is my salvation so valuable to you?
Oh forget it.
I agree with @Lionduck...it's like talking to a wall.
And so they should. People who try to make bigotry respectable by dressing it up in religious or political dogma are the worst kind of hypocrites.