Christian Hypocrisy And Freedom Of Religion

Hypocrisy-WDGSAI am sure many of you are aware of Kim Davis, the Rowan Kentucky county clerk who is attempting to become the martyr of the day for not doing her job and issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

I rarely ever do social justice commentary because of the opposing, sometimes passionate views of both sides of the argument.  After following this story in its entirety for the last several weeks, I felt compelled to offer some thoughts on this civil servant’s ‘Freedom of Religion’ and the hypocrisy surrounding her motives.

After the Supreme Court denied her request for stay and demanded she begin issuing marriage licenses yesterday, she defied the court and again turned away same-sex couples who were there to get their license.  She said she felt obligated to tell them that there will be judgement (from God) for their actions.  All of this, in a public courthouse where all citizens are to be treated equally, under the law, whether she feels like they should or not.

No one, even those wanting marriage licenses, denies the fact that Kim Davis is free to practice her religion in her home, in her church (as is protected by the constitution).  The problem Davis runs in to is she is a civil servant (government employee) who took an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States.

Agree with it or not, as of June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are protected (under the 14th amendment of the constitution) when it comes to the civil, legal protections that marriage provides; the same constitution that protects her freedom of religion.  That means, as a civil servant, she can not deny individuals the same equal protections afforded straight couples because she doesn’t agree with it.  The failure to do her job has landed her in contempt of court, which means hefty fines, penalties, she will probably lose her job and could even serve jail time for not doing what she swore under oath she would do.

Many conservative Christian commentaries will paint her as a hero/martyr, when the sad truth is her hypocrisy will only give Christianity another black eye in a country that is already turning away from the church in droves because of this very same hypocritical, ‘do as I say not as I do’ attitude.

Why is she hypocritical you may ask?  Lets see:

  1. She wants to protect the sanctity of marriage, yet she has been married four times herself.
  2. If she is following the bible and turning away couples because of their sin, I would ask her when was the last time she asked a straight couple if they had sex before marriage or if the couple getting a license had been divorced before issuing a license.
  3. These kind of individuals who choose to cherry pick the bible to suit their own needs, while claiming to be righteous/holy is hypocritical by its very definition.

When did certain church folk decide the Love of Jesus was not enough.  A song, recorded by the Old Paths recently keeps running through my mind; “Love Them To Jesus”.

**I wanted to also talk about freedom of religion, which is making headlines (even from Presidential candidates), but I will save that for a future commentary.


11 thoughts on “Christian Hypocrisy And Freedom Of Religion

  1. Steve,

    Thank you for putting it so eloquently. If her convictions are so strong (and I imagine they are) she needs to find another job. While I morn for our country this is not a good witness. I left a job of 23 years when new ownership made changes I could not abide. It broke my heart but I had no choice. I pray for her and the situation but probably the best solution, hard as it may be, is to set aside. I ALWAYS enjoy your posts.

  2. Hi Steve. I mostly agree with your post, but I just wanted to point out one thing that may not be accurate. The United States Constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage that I know of, but it does talk about equal protection under the law as does our Declaration of Independence. One of the biggest catalysts that forced the gay marriage issue before the U.S. Supreme Court was that Michigan law, where I live, would not allow a Lesbian couple to adopt one another’s children. But our very stupid legislature would not simply FIX the law and allow a mutual adoption of children by non-married persons. Plus, the taxation laws that were unfair, hospital visitation, etc. But I do agree that this county clerk is not helping Christianity by her denial of these licenses since the Supreme Court ruled the way they did.

    1. Hello Jerry,
      You are correct. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law and that is the constitutional basis the Supreme Court used to uphold and recognize same sex marriage. While not clear, that was my intent in the commentary.

  3. So, if the Supreme Court declared that the value of pi was not an infinite decimal but exactly 3.14, would a university math professor be “not doing his job” by refusing to use the new definition of pi? He’s a public servant, after all, and this is what the court has decided, like it or not. Pi = 3.14 is the law of the land. Maybe he should go become a cashier if he won’t do his job, which is of course… teaching math. Oh wait.

    1. Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly in this matter in that all citizens are created equal and all citizens should have the same equal protections under the law.

      1. All citizens should be treated equally under the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean all relationships deserve equal recognition from the government. As individual citizens, homosexuals are still entitled to freedom of speech, freedom to assemble in a commitment ceremony, trial by jury, all the same rights any other citizen shares. Marriage is not a right, it’s a privilege, and there are a plethora of practical and social reasons even aside from the Judeo-Christian ethic that the government gave special privilege to the union between a man and a woman.

        If your argument is that all citizens deserve equal treatment, I ask again how you are accounting for adopted children who will be deprived of either a mother or a father by special government sanction. Are they not citizens too?

      2. I asked you that we respectively agree to disagree. You continuing to prod me on this doesn’t help your side of the argument. I outlined the legal protections/benefits of marriage that can only be afforded to married couples. A commitment ceremony will not give them that.

        And you best not bring adopted children in to this. These kids that same sex couples are adopting have been left abandoned/orphaned and many times abused by their mother and father. These kids are looking for love and a home. Would you rather them stay in an abusive home because their is one male and one female in the household, as to not harm your view of family?

        Let me make another thing clear, not all Christians are evangelical conservatives (gasp, I know).

        Since we know neither of us agree with each other on this topic we resign to discuss the one thing we do, Southern Gospel music.

      3. Let me try a thought experiment: Suppose a man decided that he wanted to “marry” three women at once. Obviously, the government does not recognize polygamous unions as marital unions. Using your logic, this man could claim that he is being denied “equal protection” under the 14th Amendment, because he should have the right to split benefits evenly among the three women he loves. “All three of these women are my soul-mates,” he could argue. “How dare you deny all but one of them the right to visit me in the hospital when I’m sick? How dare you deny all but one of them the right to be covered under my insurance? We are being deprived of our Constitutional rights.” The answer, of course, is that they’re not being deprived of any rights, because one man plus three women is not marriage, and no sane government should recognize it as such. But I don’t know, perhaps you would bite the bullet on that, in which case the only thing I can applaud is your consistency.

        For kids in (say) the foster system, who are already coming out of an abusive or broken home, it’s an apples and oranges comparison. Both situations are bad for the child in different ways. So, it’s a poor argument anyway, but you can’t make it at all for children who are adopted as infants, where loving heterosexual couples who would be willing to take them in can now be edged out by homosexual couples. Moreover, if you’re concerned that children have the best chance of getting adopted into a loving home that they can, you should be concerned that the government has been bullying Christian adoption agencies into shutting down altogether because they favored heterosexual couples. How does that help anybody?

        Consider it even from the perspective of a homosexual couple’s own best interests: Suppose one of them converts to Christianity and realizes he needs to leave the homosexual lifestyle? If there are children involved, the homosexual partner can claim parental rights and try to prevent the children and the converted partner from escaping the relationship together. This already happened in a civil union case in Vermont, and the woman literally had to flee the country with her little girl, while the Mennonite pastor who helped her escape was put in jail.

        I’ll leave it here, but I’m deeply disappointed to see that you’ve taken this position. While I cannot change your mind, I urge you to think about this from a common sense perspective, if nothing else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s