If I'm not mistaken, you're a Christian. If I'm wrong on that I apologize.

 

It sounds to me what you're saying is that you don't respect the Muslim faith, nor the Jewish faith, nor anything that isn't Christianity.

 

Why would Judaism in general be 180 degrees opposed to his Christianity? They're monotheistic religions originating from the same place. They share fundamentally similar moral codes. They advocate prayer and personal sacrifice as a way of getting closer to the divine. I'd think that most of Jewish teaching is extremely close to Catholic teaching, truthfully.

Why would Judaism in general be 180 degrees opposed to his Christianity? They're monotheistic religions originating from the same place. They share fundamentally similar moral codes. They advocate prayer and personal sacrifice as a way of getting closer to the divine. I'd think that most of Jewish teaching is extremely close to Catholic teaching, truthfully.

 

The whole "Jesus wasn't the son of God" belief seems to be a pretty big 180 difference than the teachings of Christianity...:idunno:

It does in this argument about consistency. The courts have been 100% clear on this. She HAS to issue licenses. That's all that matters to me.

 

Really?

 

I was speaking to the question of whether or not the cities have been taken to court. It doesn't matter if they have or not. There are federal laws regarding immigration that they are purposefully disregarding, just as Kim Davis has purposefully disregarded the marriage law.

 

We have a gazillion threads filled with hundreds and hundreds of posts regarding the latter, but very, very little regarding the former.

 

Why?

I was speaking to the question of whether or not the cities have been taken to court. It doesn't matter if they have or not. There are federal laws regarding immigration that they are purposefully disregarding, just as Kim Davis has purposefully disregarded the marriage law.

 

We have a gazillion threads filled with hundreds and hundreds of posts regarding the latter, but very, very little regarding the former.

 

Why?

 

And this would've never been an issue or brought up in numerous threads had people not challenged her on it. If someone challenges these sanctuary cities on their disregard of the law, only then is it a valid comparison.

The whole "Jesus wasn't the son of God" belief seems to be a pretty big 180 difference than the teachings of Christianity...:idunno:

 

I'm going to bow out and let Clyde have his own discussion here, but I'd imagine at least some of this is going to hinge on the word "respect" and what it means to each of you.

I was speaking to the question of whether or not the cities have been taken to court. It doesn't matter if they have or not. There are federal laws regarding immigration that they are purposefully disregarding, just as Kim Davis has purposefully disregarded the marriage law.

 

We have a gazillion threads filled with hundreds and hundreds of posts regarding the latter, but very, very little regarding the former.

 

Why?

 

In my cursory glance at my Google machine it's not 100% clear on what exactly a)sanctuary cities are doing and b)what the laws say. So I would argue that your belief that it's 100% clear that the cities are in violation may(key) not be true.

 

I think we all agree that the courts have said Mrs. Davis argument has been deemed to be without basis when it comes to doing her job.

 

This is just a much simpler legal argument to comprehend PLUS it's been ruled upon. That's the difference.

 

I speak for me. If your argument is that MANY are against her for her belief then I cannot comment. Probably correct though.

And this would've never been an issue or brought up in numerous threads had people not challenged her on it. If someone challenges these sanctuary cities on their disregard of the law, only then is it a valid comparison.

 

The policies adopted by sanctuary cities have been challenged.

The policies adopted by sanctuary cities have been challenged.

 

In the courts??

I'm going to bow out and let Clyde have his own discussion here, but I'd imagine at least some of this is going to hinge on the word "respect" and what it means to each of you.

 

100% correct.

 

One of my strengths is fully acknowledging my weaknesses. Understanding other religions would certainly be a weakness.

 

Secondly, it's not an all-or-nothing as UKMF seems to imply. I probably agree with MUCH of what the Jewish faith believes. Heck, I may agree with a fair amount of what Muslims believe. Don't know. Can't speak as to what they believe.

 

But here's an example. If the Muslim religion believe that women are lesser than men then I do NOT respect that belief.

 

If a Christian believes that dancing is evil then I do NOT respect that belief.

 

If a Catholic believes that abortion should be illegal by LAW then I do NOT respect that belief.

 

Does it mean I disrespect the entire religion? No.

 

Does it mean I disrespect the person as a human being? Not always. Depends.

 

I just don't get why people always feel like it's imperative to say "I respect your belief" when they FULLY disagree with it.

I was speaking to the question of whether or not the cities have been taken to court. It doesn't matter if they have or not. There are federal laws regarding immigration that they are purposefully disregarding, just as Kim Davis has purposefully disregarded the marriage law.

 

We have a gazillion threads filled with hundreds and hundreds of posts regarding the latter, but very, very little regarding the former.

 

Why?

 

Here is my viewpoint of where sanctuary cities are different. (And I still haven't completely formed my opinion of them, partially because I don't know a whole lot about them, and partially because based on what I do know, try as I might, I cannot work up much passion one way or the other.)

 

Without getting into a discussion of whether the Supreme Court can make laws, there is a huge difference between a Supreme Court holding interpreting the Constitution versus a federal statute. More importantly, in the gay marriage case, the court held that the right to marry is a fundamental right. When city officials ignore federal immigration laws, the effect is that they are potentially in violation of whatever the statute provides. In the case of taking multiple steps to deny marriage or make it more difficult for those to obtain a license, the effect is that a government actor is actively infringing on constitutionally protected rights of individuals.

 

Since the Supreme Court, through interpreting the constitution, has held that these rights exist, a more similar example than sanctuary cities would be if individual cities outlawed guns, or told citizens they couldn't vote, or prohibited all abortions.

 

There's a difference between being a conscientious objector and taking on the repercussions oneself, and in most cases I respect that, but I have a huge problem when one objects and essentially tells others that his/her personal opinions carry more weight than others' constitutional rights.

Why did the Pope meet with Kim Davis? Did he need a marriage license?

 

 

Ok, ok, ok. I know I'm headed for h-e double toothpicks.

In my cursory glance at my Google machine it's not 100% clear on what exactly a)sanctuary cities are doing and b)what the laws say. So I would argue that your belief that it's 100% clear that the cities are in violation may(key) not be true.

 

I think we all agree that the courts have said Mrs. Davis argument has been deemed to be without basis when it comes to doing her job.

 

This is just a much simpler legal argument to comprehend PLUS it's been ruled upon. That's the difference.

 

I speak for me. If your argument is that MANY are against her for her belief then I cannot comment. Probably correct though.

 

Regarding sanctuary cities, one of the prime examples of a city ignoring federal law is the Kathryn Steinle case. She was shot & killed by an illegal who had been deported several times in the past. It's a sad, long story, but from what I've read, could have been prevented were it not for San Francisco's sanctuary city status.

 

As for Kim Davis, I've said before that I don't defend what she has done, even though she & I have the same views regarding gay marriage. Honestly, as someone who doesn't support gay marriage, I don't want her as the face of my side of the argument, but she is.

 

I just think that her story, and how people view it...it's primarily about gay marriage. The vast majority of those who oppose what she has done also support gay marriage. The vast majority of those who support her are opposed to gay marriage.

 

I'm also not attempting to attack anyone on either side. I'm simply making an observation as to why this woman is so frequently & heatedly discussed.

I can respect that. I have been wrong many times and will be wrong again. But I am a old man who has read it and asked for understanding from God on how he sees it. I will be judged on what I have done and how I have treated people and whether I have accepted Jesus and tried to follow him. I try to help everyone in real life and I do, both Gay people and sinners and Christians alike. If you knew me you would know that but alot here dont know me and I understand that. I see no sexual preference when I interact with people and I dont hate anyone. Thats a common theme to put on anyone who disagrees with the gay marriage question that just because I dont agree with something does not mean I hate them. If I did I would be very very wrong.

 

So you just don't think they should have equal rights? Just like women shouldn't have the right to vote, or blacks right?

How do you get that from what he said? Pretty big jump there IMO.

In the courts??

 

I don't know, but should it matter?

 

Is it okay to shirk federal law so long as there's no legal challenge?

I don't know, but should it matter?

 

Is it okay to shirk federal law so long as there's no legal challenge?

 

Yes, it absolutely matters.