Kim Davis and The All-Powerful Supreme Court

Did you know….
-The Amish are not required to complete the standard compulsory twelve years of education.
-Jehovah’s Witnesses are not required to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance, or in the production of war materials.
-Christian Scientists are not forced to have their children vaccinated or undergo medical procedures often required by state laws.
-The vast majority of states have a religious exemption for vaccines.
-Quakers are not forced to fight in wars.
-Conscientious objectors are exempted from the draft for both religious and nonreligious reasons.
-Muslims are allowed to wear head coverings in driver’s license photos.

Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (or RFRA) give religious objectors a statutory right to exemptions from certain governmental laws. Unless, that is, if the government could show that denying the exemption was necessary to serve a compelling government interest. The claimant must also show that the law they want an exemption from “substantially burdens” their beliefs.
In America, the right of conscience, the right to do what we believe is right, is something held sacred. Whereas in many (dare I say most) countries around the world, it is a right that is trampled on and discarded.
Its importance to Americans is demonstrated in the fact that the very first amendment to the Constitution was written specifically to protect this right. Our Founders could easily have decided to protect our right of habeas corpus, right to a jury, right to bear arms, etc. first. But they did not. They protected the freedom of religion and conscience first. That says a lot.

Kim Davis of Rowan County, Kentucky was elected to the position of County Clerk in 2014. She won the election on the Democratic ticket. Recently, she has spent time in jail for refusing to issue a marriage licenses to a same-sex couples.
Is she right in doing this? Or is she wrong? I think one thing that is plain is that she is an elected official, and technically part of the executive branch of government. Therefore she is responsible to the executive branch and to the people who elected her to the office of County Clerk.
Most people, I’m afraid feel very distant from this story, since it does not directly affect them at the moment. But this is a very dangerous position to take. A woman was just thrown in jail for exercising, with no immediate harm to anyone else, her First Amendment right to the free exercise of her religion.

Are we still living in America?
(Note: While this has been the top story regarding officials not issuing licenses to unions they have a deeply held religious belief against, Kim Davis is not alone.)


Jonathan Paine
@painefultruth76
painefultruth1776@gmail.com

Comments

  1. Objectors of conscience must accept the consequences mandated by the law of the land. The law stands above religion in our country. You can have all the freedom of conscience you want, but the law reigns supreme. Conscientious objectors good and bad must go to jail or work cleaning bedpans in mental hospitals or do any of the other things mandated by the law for people who disobey the law. Kim Davis is an allegedly good person who broke the law and must pay the price. If she wants to live by conscience alone and remain civilly "free" she should move to a theocratic state like Iran or Saudi Arabia, but then she'd probably be jailed there, too. I think she's check-mated and is now protected by people who have some pretty dangerous anti-American motives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate your comment! However, I was under the impression that the First Amendment is part of the "law of the land". In fact it is contained in the Constitution which is the "Supreme Law of the Land".
      The First Amendment right to freedom of religion is a statutory right, giving exemptions from certain governmental laws. Unless, that is, if the government could show that denying the exemption was necessary to serve a compelling government interest. The claimant must also show that the law they want an exemption from “substantially burdens” their beliefs.
      That "substantial burden" is what Kim Davis is going to have to prove in court. For more information, I'd recommend this article - http://painefultruth76.blogspot.com/2015/06/why-supreme-courts-ruling-on-marriage.html
      Thanks again for your input.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops, it was the same comment as the one I posted a minute earlier.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular Articles

Equality: Missing the Key Word

Hogg & Company - Welcome to the Real World

The Coming Tragedy