County Clerk Defies Federal, Appeals, And Scotus Court Orders Against Her, Invoking Her Faith And Religious Freedom

[KevinG]

What you're saying, then, is that you disagree with the Supreme Court's decision. Fair enough. But none of us has the right to ignore a Supreme Court decision, especially if we're talking about a government official.

That was my original point.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Ahab, on 04 Sept 2015 - 4:05 PM, said:

That's a nice addition but not necessary to make my point.

Whatever we do we should do what we do because we think or feel that what we are doing is the right thing to do.

What other people think in response to what we do may test our resolve or bring up another situation where we would need to do something else, but whenever we do whatever we do our actions should be our expression of what we think is the right thing to do.

It sometimes takes a while before we catch on to the full consequences of our actions.

 

Ttribe-

This is either deeply naive, or horrifyingly disturbing.  I'm currently undecided on which, at this point.

 

Ahab seems to think decisions based on what "feels right" are impervious to external forces. Of course they are not. Once I consider how others may react to something I do or say, my decision about what might be right could change. So there is a relationship between "what feels right" and the community in which we live.

 

Quick example- I don't believe the church felt it was right to stop practicing polygamy. However, once external pressures, like forfeiting church property including temples, were placed on the church then "what was right" changed. The relationship between the desired action that was at first thought to be right, changed when there was a great risk. The church would have been incapable of altering it's decision if it simply stuck with it's first decision about what felt right-ie keeping polygamy.

[The Nehor]

Quick example- I don't believe the church felt it was right to stop practicing polygamy. However, once external pressures, like forfeiting church property including temples, were placed on the church then "what was right" changed. The relationship between the desired action that was at first thought to be right, changed when there was a great risk. The church would have been incapable of altering it's decision if it simply stuck with it's first decision about what felt right-ie keeping polygamy.

 

I actually believe President Woodruff when he said that if God had not approved the Manifesto that he and many others would have gone to prison and we would have lost the temples. I am also of the firm belief that if the Saints had lived their religion that they would have established a Zion in the wilderness and been invincible and the United States government would have had no power over them. They failed and God rescinded the command to protect them in their weakness.

[jkwilliams]

I actually believe President Woodruff when he said that if God had not approved the Manifesto that he and many others would have gone to prison and we would have lost the temples. I am also of the firm belief that if the Saints had lived their religion that they would have established a Zion in the wilderness and been invincible and the United States government would have had no power over them. They failed and God rescinded the command to protect them in their weakness.

If there's one thing I can say about my polygamous ancestors it's that they fulfilled the law to the best of their ability. They lived their faith despite all kinds of hardships and antagonism. I can't see how anyone could say they failed.

Edited September 4, 2015 by jkwilliams

[ERayR]

If there's one thing I can say about my polygamous ancestors it's that they fulfilled the law to the best of their ability. They lived their faith despite all kinds of hardships and antagonism. I can't see how anyone could say they failed.

 

Sometimes failure is not the fault of the person who is trying.  When insurmountable forces assail it sometimes becomes too difficult to continue.

[The Nehor]

If there's one thing I can say about my polygamous ancestors it's that they fulfilled the law to the best of their ability. They lived their faith despite all kinds of hardships and antagonism. I can't see how anyone could say they failed.

 

I don't think it was polygamy they failed at though of course some did. They just did not build the holy city God wanted them to by living their faith. In that sense they failed. I am not trying to be harsh. LDS today are also failing. There are one....maybe two recorded success stories on that level in all of history so not achieving it is not that damning.

[jkwilliams]

I don't think it was polygamy they failed at though of course some did. They just did not build the holy city God wanted them to by living their faith. In that sense they failed. I am not trying to be harsh. LDS today are also failing. There are one....maybe two recorded success stories on that level in all of history so not achieving it is not that damning.

I guess I don't see God as expecting so much from us.

[The Nehor]

I guess I don't see God as expecting so much from us.

I'm the D&C he kind of said he did. Still, he has not condemned us yet so we just continue on.

[Ahab]

I prefer a "majority rule" system, tempered by Constitutional protections, over the alternatives in the forms of Communism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Socialism, etc. In other words, I kind of like what we have; despite all of its imperfections.

Well as long as you're happy. I like what I have.

Which is inevitable in any human group size > 1.

Only if you're talking about total agreement with everyone on every issur. It is possible to agree with some people some and even all of the time, though.

This is either deeply naive, or horrifyingly disturbing. I'm currently undecided on which, at this point.

Feel however you want. Don't let me influence you if you don't think you should agree with me.

[Ahab]

Ahab seems to think decisions based on what "feels right" are impervious to external forces. Of course they are not. Once I consider how others may react to something I do or say, my decision about what might be right could change. So there is a relationship between "what feels right" and the community in which we live.

So you're susceptible to peer pressure, eh?

How much pressure would I have to exert for you to agree with me? How many people would I need in my gang? And what is your main weakness? Are you ticklish? Would a scowl on my face make you think twice? How about if I yelled at you REALLY REALLY LOUD? Don't worry I'll figure it out eventually.

Quick example- I don't believe the church felt it was right to stop practicing polygamy. However, once external pressures, like forfeiting church property including temples, were placed on the church then "what was right" changed. The relationship between the desired action that was at first thought to be right, changed when there was a great risk. The church would have been incapable of altering it's decision if it simply stuck with it's first decision about what felt right-ie keeping polygamy.

Meh, just an example of how wrong you are.

Your perception is fatally flawed.

You need someone else to tell you what you should think.

Are you any closer to changing your mind yet?

Edited September 4, 2015 by Ahab

[jkwilliams]

So you're susceptible to peer pressure, eh?

How much pressure would I have to exert for you to agree with me? How many people would I need in my gang? And what is your main weakness? Are you ticklish? Would a scowl on my face make you think twice? How about if I yelled at you REALLY REALLY LOUD? Don't worry I'll figure it out eventually.

Meh, just an example of how wrong you are.

Your perception is fatally flawed.

You need someone else to tell you what you should think.

Are you any closer to changing your mind yet?

You'd have to actually make some arguments. In your last post, all you've said is that HJW is wrong and has a fatally flawed perception. Maybe it's too much bother to back that up with arguments.

[Stargazer]

You'd have to actually make some arguments. In your last post, all you've said is that HJW is wrong and has a fatally flawed perception. Maybe it's too much bother to back that up with arguments.

 

But that's so much harder than backing up one's positions with bare assertions!  Besides, even facts can be denied.

 

It's just way too much work.

 

Forget it. It's hopeless.

[ttribe]

Well as long as you're happy. I like what I have.

What is it you "have"? Do you live on another planet?

Only if you're talking about total agreement with everyone on every issur. It is possible to agree with some people some and even all of the time, though.

You didn't make that distinction before, did you?

Feel however you want. Don't let me influence you if you don't think you should agree with me.

You can rest assured, nothing you've ever said on this board has ever influenced me. Sorry to bring you the bad news.

[Stargazer]

What is it you "have"? Do you live on another planet?

You didn't make that distinction before, did you?

You can rest assured, nothing you've ever said on this board has ever influenced me. Sorry to bring you the bad news.

 

How about me?  Has anything I've ever said on this board influenced you?  Aside from influencing you to want to track me down and beat me to a pulp, that is! 

 

JK

[ERayR]

You can rest assured, nothing you've ever said on this board has ever influenced me. Sorry to bring you the bad news.

 

That is sad.  He occasionally has some good ideas to think about.

[ttribe]

How about me?  Has anything I've ever said on this board influenced you?  Aside from influencing you to want to track me down and beat me to a pulp, that is! 

 

JK

 

Once...when you destroyed me in the basketball pool.

 

That is sad.  He occasionally has some good ideas to think about.

What can I say? Perhaps I'm just not as in-tune as you.

Edited September 5, 2015 by ttribe

[The Nehor]

I guess I don't see God as expecting so much from us.

 

I see it more as God wanting us to stop getting in the way.

[thesometimesaint]

What I hope comes out of this mess is that all government officials, and all judges (including those in the SCOTUS), are people. As in PEOPLE. People who have their own ideas and values and who use those when making decisions and judgments. People who sometimes make mistakes and errors in judgment. People, who as people, can be wrong.

The fact that some people have positions of power in this world doesn't mean they should be obeyed. Especially when those people make bad decisions and bad errors in judgment. Even if those people have the power to put us in one of their jail cells.

We all need to do what is right, by whatever means necessary.

 

So the goal always justifies the means. That is a scary world you want to impose.

[halconero]

This is what spirit prison is like, folks.

EDIT: For all those wondering, this was in reference to about 8 or so spam advertisements for Viagra pharmaceuticals.

Edited September 6, 2015 by halconero

[Ahab]

So the goal always justifies the means. That is a scary world you want to impose.

The goal for everybody would be to do whatever they felt was the right thing to do, with nobody doing anything they felt was wrong.

If that sounds scary to you I'd rather not know about whatever you would rather impose.

[thesometimesaint]

If all men were angels no government would be necessary. If all men were devils no government would be possible.

[The Nehor]

The goal for everybody would be to do whatever they felt was the right thing to do, with nobody doing anything they felt was wrong.

If that sounds scary to you I'd rather not know about whatever you would rather impose.

I would have everyone do what I say.

[Stargazer]

 

Once...when you destroyed me in the basketball pool.

 

What can I say? Perhaps I'm just not as in-tune as you.

 

Wait... what? Basketball pool?  Couldn't have been.  I've never participated in a sports pool in my life.  It must have been my evil twin.

[Russell C McGregor]

The way this decision was made was using the same legal precedent that Loving (let along many other marriage-expansion rulings) was made, which struck down several states' laws based on constitutional review.

I love the way you smuggle the assertions you are trying to make into casual little "observations" like that. That way, they might slip under the radar, and people might just swallow them without examining them. Clever tactic.

However, Loving was not "marriage-expanding." Race was never part of the definition of marriage; it was merely a criterion about which a minority of jurisdictions, mostly (although not exclusively) in the United States, chose to make rules. Rather, Loving relied upon the existing definition of marriage -- the union of a man and a woman -- in determining that Virginia's anti-miscegenation rule was arbitrary and artificial.

This is manifestly different (to those whose view is unclouded by self-interest) from a rule that says that the union of a man and a woman should take place between a man and a woman. Such a rule is natural and just.

[Russell C McGregor]

Breitbart legal editor Ken Klukowski used to be the “Director Of Religious Liberty” at the Family Research Council and these days he’s the senior counsel at the equally conervative Liberty Institute. Because of his past affiliations, his latest column at Breitbart may surprise some:

 

 

 

(bold added)

Mr Klukowski seems like a smart man.