Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Report: Pope Francis Met With Kim Davis
From the NYT:
Pope Francis met secretly in Washington last week with Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who defied a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, her lawyer said in a telephone interview Tuesday night. Francis gave her rosaries and told her to “stay strong,” the lawyer said. Ms. Davis and her husband, Joe, were sneaked into the Vatican Embassy by car on Thursday afternoon, according to Ms. Davis’s lawyer, Mathew D. Staver. The couple met for about 15 minutes with the pope, who was accompanied by security, aides and photographers. Mr. Staver said he expected to receive photographs of the meeting from the Vatican soon.
It continues:
Published in Domestic Policy, Religion & PhilosophyThe pope did not mention Ms. Davis by name [while visiting the United States, nor during an interview on his flight back], but added, “Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise, we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying, ‘This right, that has merit; this one does not.’ ”
While in Washington, Francis also made an unscheduled stop to see the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of nuns that is suing the federal government over the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.
The only significance to jailing her before the case is over, before the legislature could convene to give her an accommodation, is that the Judge did the wrong thing.
He could have easily put this off until the legislature came back, and in the meantime allowed all people to go to the next county for their license.
There is no time, place or manner obligation imposed by the constitution for the delivery of license. Some states authorize the municipality. Some like Kentucky authorize the county. If a state wanted they could make everyone go to the state clerk.
So please don’t be one of those folks (not saying that you are) who pretends making folks drive to the next county while this woman awaits her religious accommodation application to be heard in January was a constitutional deprivation of rights.
As has been argued many times before, the authors of the US Constitution did not equate “establishment” of religion with promotion of religion. If they had, Congress would not have hosted so many gatherings for Christian worship, nor would President Jefferson (not known for religious orthodoxy) have devoted taxpayer money to Christian missionaries. Our government buildings would not have been adorned with Christian imagery. “Establishment” refers to the sort of legally forced conversions that plagued Europe for centuries.
Clearly, the Constitution’s authors favored Christianity, generally interpreted, over many other religions. They would not have tolerated Maypole nudists, nor suttee, nor female genital mutilation, nor any number of other pagan practices. The Constitution, like any founding document, relies on certain assumptions concerning morality.
Freedom of conscience has limits. It’s not a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card. A person cannot simply cry “It’s a religious belief” and be forgiven. 20th-century jurisprudence might make such a claim, but we all know what nonsense has pervaded modern laws.
Tommy, please don’t misunderstand. I basically support Davis’s cause. She should not be forced to issue marriage licenses to gays.
But I don’t think punishing her would be wrong on account of being a religious objection or conscientious objection. Punishing her would be wrong because the ruling which created this scenario (Obergefell) is wrong.
Can half the nation claim conscientious objections and expect legal allowances? I doubt it.
Religious accommodation laws have been on the books for at least 50 years and half the nation has not asked for one.
Just because those laws are on the books doesn’t mean the religious person wins just for asking. If the employer can’t find an accommodation and still deliver the goods or service, the religious person loses and has to go.
Scalia, the most anti-religious Justice in history, made religious accommodations much harder. That’s why we started passing Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, in response to Justice Scalia’s attack on religion.