Religious Liberty and Spider Monkeys

What else could explain public support for Kim Davis, the elected clerk of Rowan County in northeastern Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on her religious beliefs?
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Either America is infested with elected officials at the highest levels of government, some with aspirations of becoming commander in chief, who are unable to pass a high school civics course, or worse, they maintain a brazen disregard for issues that do not align with their political agenda.

I sincerely hope it is the former and not the latter. But what else could explain public support for Kim Davis, the elected clerk of Rowan County in northeastern Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on her religious beliefs?

Judge David Bunning ordered Davis to jail for contempt of court. Having been subsequently satisfied that Davis' office is now issuing marriage licenses to all couples, Bunning released her.

Several GOP presidential candidates decried that her religious liberty has been violated.

Here's what presidential candidate Ted Cruz said about Davis' ordeal:

"Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. [...] Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their religious faith-or be sent to jail."

Another presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, characterized Davis' incarceration as "criminalization of Christianity" and "judicial tyranny."

After Davis' release Huckabee issued the following:

"Today, I was proud to stand with Kim Davis as she was released from jail. Kim Davis should have never been locked-up for being a Christian and for following her conscience and the law...I am appalled at our government's willingness to accommodate the religious beliefs of all religions, but Christianity."

To listen to Cruz and Huckabee, one would think Bunning was reenacting the Spanish Inquisitions. Oh wait, that was conducted by Christians; how about 4th century CE before Christianity was backed by the might of the Roman Empire? Actually, this case has as much to do with a violation of religious liberty as the spider monkey's influence on the combustible engine.

Huckabee doubled down on lunacy by equating Davis' plight with the Dred Scott decision of 1857. This sad non sequitur omits that the Dred Scott decision was part of a pernicious legacy beginning with the Founders where every branch of the federal government participated in the entrenchment of blacks to a permanent second-class status.

The Constitution "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion."

This was instituted as part of the First Amendment to protect citizens from government intrusion. Government bears the responsibility to treat everyone equally--see 1960s Civil Rights Movement. Imposing one's particular religious beliefs on others equates to intolerance.

For three years, Tonya Parker, an openly lesbian judge in Dallas, refused to perform any marriage ceremonies until same-sex couples could wed. Not surprising, this became the apples to bananas comparison used to prove the Davis ordeal was indeed an attack on Christianity.

There are two problems with this simplistic reasoning:

First, Parker did not prohibit anyone else from performing wedding ceremonies--something that Davis failed to do.

Second, it wasn't part of Parker's duties to perform wedding ceremonies. Some judges perform them voluntarily, while others charged a fee.

Moreover, religious liberty as it is erroneously defined in this noncontroversial controversy, does not nor should not render one free from consequence. She broke the law and went to jail.

If one reads Mark 12:17, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's," with a similar understanding employed by those in support of Davis, could they claim their religious liberty has been violated when arrested for not paying taxes?

This is such a sad commentary on our republic. An elected official willfully broke the law and was subsequently arrested because her faith instructed her to do so. And? To find this controversial should be the height of improbability.

This is not some Augustinian notion in that an "unjust law is no law at all." Nor does it give rise to a revised edition of the "Letter from Birmingham Jail."

It is also a sad commentary on Christianity. A faith that has inconvenient love at its epicenter has been co-opted by politicians desperately trying to move the needle on their uninspiring presidential aspirations and those fearful of change who sadly cling to the rope of hatred in order to be classified as victims.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot