The Case For Separation Of Church And State

Kim Davis  Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk, who has made news by refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, has now been sent to jail for being in contempt of court.    Mrs. Davis has stated that because of her Christian beliefs, she cannot be a party to the sin of homosexual marriages. In doing so, Mrs. Davis has also made the best case for those of us who feel that the Founders of this nation, clearly intended there to be a clear and unequivocal separation of church and state.

Mrs. Davis is, like any citizen, guaranteed the right to practice her faith as she sees fit, but as an elected official, she has taken on the role of government.  So let us first look at the oath she swore when taking office,
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of _______ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.”

“According to the law”, notice it does not say, according to the laws I agree with, or according to the laws that my religion agrees with. One can also assume that a person with such strong religious beliefs would most likely have had their hand on a Bible while taking this oath before God.

She can as a private citizen hold whatever beliefs she wishes, she can as an elected official in her personal life hold any belief that she wishes, but as an elected member of government that has taken an oath to uphold the laws of this nation, and the state of Kentucky, she cannot pick and choose which laws she will follow, and she certainly cannot choose to treat one citizen differently from others.

Mrs. Davis is basically attempting to create a state religion of Christianity. But her real problem is with God. She wants us to believe that she is doing God’s will, but is she?

The Bible is full of references about judgement, let’s look at a few.

Psalm 9:19
“Arise, O Lord; let not man prevail: let the heathen be judged in thy sight.”
Luke 6:37
“Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:”
  You see, what Mrs. Davis has done, she has set herself up as the judge of sin. She has taken on the breastplate of God Almighty, and thinks she is worthy of judging others for their sins as she sees fit.
   Even Jesus himself did not take on the mantle of judge.
  John 12:47

  “And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.”
   So you see, Jesus said, that if people hear the word of God, yet do not accept it, that he did not hold them in judgement, but instead still promised them salvation.
   Yet Mrs. Davis feels that she is better suited to judge the sins of others than even Jesus.
   The problem that so many Christians have, is that once they set themselves up as judges of sin, they are instantly made hypocrites. For as Christians, we accept the fact that we are imperfect, and are all sinners. Jesus taught us this, ”

John 8:7
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
  What Mrs. Davis is doing is not about her sin, or her fear of sinning, it is about her judging others, who she has judged as sinners.
  But again in the Bible we are told that man’s judgement of sin is meaningless.
1 Corinthians 4:3
“But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.”
 And finally,
1 Corinthians 4:5
“Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.”
  So, as we see from the very word of God, we as imperfect beings are not to raise ourselves up in judgement of others. Yet that is exactly what Mrs. Davis has done.
  And in doing so, has become an instant hypocrite.
   One must wonder, has Mrs. Davis ever issued a marriage license to a Jewish couple? After all in their ceremonies they make no mention of Jesus, according to her strict interpretation of faith and scripture, has she not participated in an un-Holy sin?
   And really, if a heterosexual couple obtains a license from Mrs. Davis, and then has a secular ceremony, one that is not recognized in the eyes of the Lord, would that not mean, they are living in sin, has she not participated in that sin?
   Once the government she is a part of, by choice, passed the law allowing homosexual marriage, she became a willing participant, in that she did not remove herself from that government, and had been taking their paycheck.

Kim Davis mug shot  Kim Davis is in jail, but she is no martyr, she is a vain misguided woman, who while she may not deserve to be in jail, she does deserve to be unemployed. She has broken her oath of office, she is in contempt of the courts.
The seventh commandment says, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
Her vanity is that she believes that she is God’s equal, and that she has the authority to judge others, she is in my view wrong.

  I have often said that we bring our morals, principles and values to government through our actions, and how we treat others. Our elected officials can bring Christian values to government by behaving in a Christian manner. What they can’t do, according to our Constitution, is force their beliefs upon others, that is what Mrs. Davis is attempting to do.
  No one is telling her she must be homosexual, all she is being told to do is the job she asked for, and to up hold that oath she took in the presence of God.
  We had a very clear demonstration of how this should have been handled right here in Sussex County, De. Former Clerk of the Peace George Parish campaigned against homosexual marriage, he was elected, and then the state legislature passed laws to allow homosexuals to marry. In line with his beliefs, Mr. Parish finished his term, allowing his deputies to handle the homosexual couples, and then resigned.
  Mrs. Davis obviously does not have the same strength of her convictions, she is more interested in holding the job, and in being  held up as some sort of martyr.
  This is why the Founders separated government and the church, so that people could not impose their faith and beliefs upon others from the offices they hold. Mrs. Davis needs to be removed, or to resign, she then can be the activist she seems to want to be.

18 Comments on "The Case For Separation Of Church And State"

  1. real deal says:

    The real deal is that she is upholding the law. The law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. The High Court is the lawless group here. They have no legitimate authority to make such a ruling. If we had a couple of hundred people like her, we would still have a constitutional government.

  2. Frank Knotts says:

    So real deal, you have no problem with her breaking. Her oath of office?
    And which law are you quoting that defines marriage as a man and a woman?
    And last time I checked, a clerk is not a legislative office either, so why does she get to make law?

  3. lindsey says:

    The “real deal” is that Kim Davis is using her government position to force everyone to practice her religion. The Supreme Court ruled. The issue is closed.

  4. Fish Bites says:

    “And which law are you quoting that defines marriage as a man and a woman?”

    The Law of God, the Law of Nature, and the Law of Kentucky.

    I agree with Real Deal – Governments do not have the authority to establish the rules that Governments are supposed to follow. Only God, the Creator of the Universe, can decide who can be lawfully married in Rowan County, Kentucky. Courts have no business messing with the law, deciding if laws are Constitutional, or deciding whether things are legal or illegal. Only God can do that. Laws are Constitutional if they agree with what God says, and that was the entire point of having a written Constitution in the first place.

    The Ten Commandments are the basis of all law, and they require that nobody worship anything other than God. That’s why there are Ten Amendments that say the same thing as the Ten Commandments.

  5. Frank Knotts says:

    14th Amendment, section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    This is man’s law on the matter.
    As for God’s law? Well as I said above, neither I, nor Mrs. Davis, nor anyone here is placed to judge God’s law, only God can do that.

  6. Dave says:

    ” That’s why there are Ten Amendments that say the same thing as the Ten Commandments.”

    Am I the only one that is curious about the Ten Amendments which say the same thing as the Ten Commandments? I especially would like to know the amendments which address the following.

    I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.
    Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy (particularly which Sabbath day?)
    Honour thy father and thy mother
    Thou shalt not commit adultery
    Thou shalt not covet the neighbor’s wife

  7. Dave says:

    The simple facts are these. Ms. Davis took an oath. From a secular perspective the oath has a constitutional construct. From a religious perspective, the oath ends with “so help me God.”

    Clearly, she violated both her constitutional oath and her oath to God. If she was truly Christian and her religious oath meant something, she would repent and do penance. If she truly meant her constitutional oath, she would resign because she is unable to live up to her oath.

    All of this could have been avoided by getting government out of the marriage business altogether and letting any and all who want a government civil union have it and keeping marriage as a religious artifact for which each religion is free to choose how and who they want to marry. But, no the fundamentalists drew a line in the sand which the tide has all but erased. But then vision was never their strong suit.

    Besides, as Ms. Davis and so many other Christians (even some of local ones) demonstrated, being that type of Christian, one can always sin and repent, sin and repent. Reminds me of washing clothes, when they get dirty, just wash them and all the dirt is gone. Contrary to what they have been commanded, they put their false Christianity before the Lord.

  8. Pat Fish says:

    No, you’re not Dave.

    I was a bit shocked that the Bill of Rights is really the Ten Commandments of the constitution.

    That being said…..there is a story behind the Bill of Rights, No? seems that the Founders presented the constitution to the people and they all acted like they were from Sussex county.

    With pitchforks and fire they demanded a more clear, concise, cut to the quick definition of ten things they thought were not clear enough in all the words…..such as Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, etc.

    The ten commandments sort of work from the same principle, cutting to the quick, getting to he point.

    Both the ten commandments and the bill of rights are to the point and cover it all in few words.

    Or something.

    Heh….but yeah, saying the Bill of Rights is same as the ten commandments is a stretch.

    But I thought I’d take a stab at it.

    As for the original topic of this thread…..well if I say I think Frank wrote a pretty good editorial lots of people get mad at me.

    But he did.

    Like so many things Frank writes, I don’t necessarily agree with it.

    I don’t disagree either but for giggles an grins let me throw out what concerns me about this same sex marriage thing. It’s that slippery slope thing. Dear Lord what’s next? NO WAIT!

    Multiple wives, but of course!

    I’m not sure why the government of the people can’t define a marriage as between a man and a woman and leave it alone.

    Because you change it now, you change it later. And at some point it becomes a big joke.

    I’m done.

  9. Dave says:

    The Bill of Rights covers adultery! Who knew!

    The real problem is that there those who believe that the bible is the real constitution or conflate the two. But then false Christians have always struggled with the contradictions between what they preach and how they live.

  10. Frank Knotts says:

    And why not multiple wives? If all concerned are of age of consent? Though of sound mind may be in question.
    When we are talking about a secular marriage, all we are really talking about is a contract between two people that is recognized by government, and can be arbitrated by government in the case the need arises to nullify said contract.
    Mrs. Davis has confused the sin of homosexuality with what she believes to be a sin, a contract between two people.
    The sin is not living together, not having a contractual agreement about how to divide property if the contract is broken.
    If we take Mrs. Davis’ view to a logical end, then if two heterosexual men were to live in the same house, and then entered into a partnership that included joint ownership of all property, then it would be a sin in Mrs. Davis’ eyes, for the only role she is playing in the partnership is validating a contract in the eyes of government. To actually participate in the sin, she would have to be participating in the act of same sex, since that is what the Bible denotes as a sin.
    As Dave pointed out, these so called conservative Christians have been preached to for so long that their is no separation of church and state, that they now believe it, and believe that they are the arbiters of not only man’s law, but of God’s law.
    This woman is imposing through her elected office, her religious beliefs. If that is not in the scope of, “Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”, then I don’t know what does.
    Not only is she establishing her views of Christianity as the will of the state, but she is prohibiting others from the free exercise of their beliefs, which by the way, includes not believing anything at all.

  11. pandora says:

    For those of you okay with Kim Davis’ religion dictating her actions… Are you okay with Fundamentalists of all stripes working at Motor Vehicle denying women driver’s licenses because of their religion? Or Muslims who work at a grocery store not allowing pork products in their check-out line at Shoprite?

    If you’re okay with Kim Davis’ stand then you must be okay with my examples above… right? If not, please explain.

  12. Frank Knotts says:

    Pandora, sorry for the delay, your comment went to spam for some reason. Thanks for the heads up, and we rarely ban anyone here, you must have us confused with that other blog site. LOL

  13. pandora says:

    Guess no one can answer my questions. Duly noted.

  14. Frank Knotts says:

    Pandora, I have been asking the same questions all over Facebook of the fringe and have gotten no real answer.

  15. mouse says:

    I was looking at the wife of the guy who lives next door to my neighbor. Does that count

  16. pandora says:

    Frank, they can’t answer because their answer is that Christianity (at least their brand of it) is the only true religion. Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Wiccans, atheists, agnostics, etc. must follow their beliefs. So much for those proclaimed constitution lovers. They throw the constitution out the window every time – while pretending to love the founding fathers. LOL! These guys want a theocracy.

    And, btw, where are they now? All I hear are crickets.

  17. Frank Knotts says:

    Actually Pandora, while I see the validity of the SCOTUS decision based on the 14th Amendment, I actually think there was cause to overthrow the one man, one woman Kentucky law based on the 1st Amendment’s freedom of religion clause. One man, one woman is a Biblical concept, so by a state imposing that ideology upon citizens in order to obtain a government license, in my view constitutes a violation of the prohibition of creating a state religion.
    As for where they are? I could make some joke about silently praying, but we all know that particular type of Christian prefers to pray in public.

  18. mouse says:

    Sinners, fornicators, off with their heads

Got something to say? Go for it!