Support This Website! Shop Here!

Saturday, September 05, 2015

Thomas More and Kim Davis

Unserious people are arguing Kim Davis should follow Thomas More's example and just resign. Thomas More resigned his post as Chancellor rather than take an oath of office that named Henry VIII's marriage valid and Henry himself leader of the Church in England.

The comparison fails on several levels.

Personal Preservation
Thomas More stepped down, but still lost his head. Would Kim Davis' resignation really preserve herself or her family? She would lose her job, lose the ability to run for office, look like a coward to a lot of people, possibly become unemployable. Everyone is called to be a Christian, but we can choose our martyrdom. She's chosen jail over the alternative. That's her choice. It belongs to no one else.

As Chancellor of England, explicit public rebellion against the King on Thomas Moore's part would have part into question the very stability of England itself. The Pope had not yet publicly excommunicated Henry. More was well-known and well-respected. From a political perspective, public commentary would have been very harmful to Henry's rule.

Kim Davis' is a county clerk, essentially unknown outside of her county. Her refusal to issue marriage certificates does not cause political instability in America nor any particular political problem King Obama. Her refusal is not threatening the stability of the country.

Conflicting Laws 
More had to resolve a conflict between the law of the realm vs. divine law. Furthermore, the law he dealt with was a written law, passed by Parliament.

Kim Davis, on the other hand, is not fighting a written law passed by any legislature. It is merely a court opinion. The actual written law, the statutes of Kentucky concerning marriage, explicitly tell Kim Davis that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Given our legal system, states have rights with which federal courts, even SCOTUS, may not interfere. Kim Davis thus has a three-way conflict: (1) the states' rights to define marriage versus (2) a federal court's right to change that definition vs (3) divine law. And, in the Federalist papers (specifically #78), the Founding Fathers of the United States explicitly said that SCOTUS is not the last word on the law.

Here is the only point of similarity. More was clearly given an unjust hearing and beheaded on the basis of a liar's testimony.

As an elected official, Kim Davis cannot legally be removed from office except by impeachment in the state legislature (unlikely - the legislature passed the law saying same-sex marriage was idiotic) or her own inability to be re-elected to her office. Kim Davis' federal judge, who has a history of persecuting Christians in favor of homosexuals, and his allies knew they couldn't get impeachment and they certainly can't strip her of her office. So, they throw her in jail, where she continues to collect her pay. This is completely unjust, a violation of Kentucky law.

Clearly, the judge should resign for his insistence on persecuting Christians in violation of Kim Davis' Constitutional rights. Just as clearly, that won't happen.

Homosexuals, their judges and their MSM supporters created this circus and made Kim Davis a martyr. As a Christian, her course of action is perfectly acceptable. Her situation is so markedly different from that of St. Thomas More that - apart from the injustice against both More and Davis - no other serious parallels can be drawn between the two.

They desired acquiescence from Thomas More.
He gave them silence, and got beheaded.

They desired silence from Kim Davis.
She gave them resistance, and got jail.

It was pointed out to me that Daniel refused to resign his post under King Darius and was thrown to the lions. There is precedent for refusing to resign an official post.

Update 2:
Abraham Lincoln: "if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made...[then] in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

Update 3:
It's always nice to know the Pope agrees with me.

1 comment:

Mike said...

Steve - another mess up (by you). Davis is a member of a group called the "apostolic christian church" ... THIS GROUP WAS STARTED BY MEN IN ... 1917.

Could you enlighten us all ... and explain ... when, where, how, and why ... did Christ return to the world in 1917 and started the "apostolic christian church" ?

You must have answers to the above questions ... since you are saying Davis is Christian (which of course she isn't).

Davis is currently in the same state as you ... automatically excommunicated for heresy.