I agree with you. Choosing God over Caesar is a good thing, but if Caesar pays your salary then you do what he says or find another job.
It oversimplifies things to say that a Christian should get another job. The jobs that a Christian can hold in such cases is rapidly diminishing and is not limited to government jobs. For example, what if you run a bed and breakfast but cannot in good conscience allow homosexual couples to share the same bed in your home? That has already been ruled against. Many other examples could be given. And a significant percentage of jobs are government jobs. In Canada, their highest court has effectively ruled that school teachers cannot hold to conservative religious beliefs either inside of the classroom or even outside of it. Where does it all end? Somewhere we need to make a stand.
I recall a story in a book somewhere about a few boys who refused to kneel for a false god...
but if Caesar pays your salary then you do what he says or find another job.
_____________________________________________
You would have made a good Nazi with that argument.
Not trying to insult you, but really. That is the same weak line of reasoning the Germans used as they sent millions to their deaths.
“We were only following the law”.
I can appreciate the metaphor, but we don't have a literal Caesar in this country. We have elected officials. She is an elected official. As far as I can tell she IS doing her job as presumably there is presently no Kentucky Statute authorizing her to issue a marriage license to two sodomites.
Cordially,
I agree with you. Choosing God over Caesar is a good thing, but if Caesar pays your salary then you do what he says or find another job.
***********************************
I know what you are saying, but what this will boil down to is that if you are a Christian, you can’t hold a government job or you will violate your religious beliefs. That is what this is coming to. Some reading on this subject:
The Stupidity of Sophisticates - Mark Steyn
http://www.steynonline.com/7036/the-stupidity-of-sophisticates
....... try to imagine it’s early 1933. The National Socialist German Workers Party is the largest party in parliament and thus President von Hindenburg has appointed its leader, Herr Hitler, as Chancellor - not der Führer, just Chancellor, the same position Frau Merkel holds today. And the National Socialist German Workers Party starts enacting its legislative programme, and so a few weeks later the Civil Service Restoration Law is introduced. Under this law, Jews would no longer be allowed to serve as civil servants, teachers or lawyers, the last two being professions in which Jews are very well represented.
But that wily old fox Hindenburg knows a thing or two. So as president he refuses to sign the bill into law unless certain exemptions are made - for those who’ve been in the civil service since August 1st 1914 (ie, the start of the Great War), and for those who served during the Great War, or had a father or son who died in action. And the practical effect of these amendments is that hardly any Jew in the public service has to lose his job.
And so in April 1933 it would be easy to say, if you were a middle-class German seeking nothing other than a quiet life, that, yes, these National Socialist chappies are a bit uncouth, but the checks and balances are still just about working. What’s the worst they can do?
Paul von Hindenburg died the following year, and his amendments were scrapped.
That’s Germany’s civil service in 1933. What of America’s civil service in 2015?
So observant Christians will no longer be able to serve as town or county clerk. Are comparisons really so “lunatic”? The logic of the 1933 Civil Service Restoration Act is that the German public service will be judenrein. The logic of the 2015 Supreme Court decision is that much of the American public service will be christenrein - at least for those who take their Scripture seriously. That doesn’t strike me as a small thing - even if one thought it were likely to stop there.
Agreed. I applaud her moral courage but if the rule of law can be overthrown by one person saying their religious beliefs trump court orders then what the hell are we gonna do when someone cites the Quran in defiance of the law?
She fought the good fight, but it’s over. The time has come to just find a subordinate who doesn’t mind issuing the licenses or consider resigning. It’s a sad day when Christians are likely to be barred by their religious faith from holding public office in this country.
If your government orders you to run concentration camps, you run concentration camps.
Suppose she can’t find another job? Should she be reduced to poverty just to satisfy the lawless whims of an evil court and the slimy sodomite revolution?
She doesn’t work for Caesar. She works for the People. The Supreme Court doesn’t pay her salary, the People do.
Just as long as everybody knows that Alberta’s Child has a agenda in this particular field...quick search of her posts shows this
“I agree with you. Choosing God over Caesar is a good thing, but if Caesar pays your salary then you do what he says or find another job.”
On the other hand, the Extreme Court had no legal basis for ITS decision, either. And the 2 gays on the court should have recused themselves. So I would not criticize this courageous woman.
Agree. I detest the Obergefell vs Hodges decision, but it’s the law of the land. If Davis won’t comport with the law, she’d do better to resign her office and find a job that doesn’t involve her sanctioning same-sex marriages.
We hear this line all the time, but it's actually a really, really bogus argument.
Government officials can "opt out" of things all the time if they disagree or can't do something in good conscience. In the military, there are conscientious objectors who can "opt out" of certain types of service if they are pacifists, etc. Indeed, since the law changed *after* she had already been elected, the argument that she either needs to violate her own conscience or else "find another job" sounds dangerously close to violating the Constitution's ban on religious tests for office - in short, you can't tell someone that they have to violate their own conscience before they can hold a government position.
That’s all cool and stuff, but that opinion says no Christian can be placed in said position. Salary does not trump free speech, nor conscientious objection on religious grounds. At least before we entered into soviet styled governance and instead of resisting we go along to get along and fold like a deck of cards.
Charles, at 35, explains it to us, on rather good authority.