Author Topic: Women's Issues  (Read 392082 times)

MaryPage

  • Posts: 3725
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2120 on: September 29, 2015, 01:33:53 PM »
The scariest scenario explanation of how the Nazis got the peoples of Germany and other European nations to actually FAVOR exterminating the Jews and the "feebleminded," many of whom were brilliant autistics, is detailed in a book I am reading very slowly and taking in in dismay.  The book is NeuroTribes by Steve Silberman, and I recommend it highly.  Awful, awful truths I never knew about our very own American medical community, as well.  Hard to take, but me, I want to know the truth!

Steph

  • Posts: 7952
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2121 on: September 30, 2015, 09:12:07 AM »
The latest news report says that the terrible women clerk from Kentucky met with the pope in Washington.. How could he. That is interfering with our political system and I honestly thought he was better than that.. I am so disappointed.
Stephanie and assorted corgi

MaryPage

  • Posts: 3725
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2122 on: September 30, 2015, 09:21:47 AM »
Makes me ill.  As you say, disappointing.

mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2123 on: September 30, 2015, 12:36:04 PM »
As I said, he is better than most, but leaves a lot to be desired.

Jean

BarbStAubrey

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 11370
  • Keep beauty alive...
    • Piled on Tables and Floors and Bureau Drawers
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2124 on: September 30, 2015, 01:27:03 PM »
I doubt he scolded her since he does not appear to use scolding as his tool - her photo shows a calmer face - but we really do not know what he said - there will be interpretations not only by Kim but if it is hitting the news you know darn well those with a vested interest in her and her position will have adjusted what she says -

Yes, I can see him saying to stay strong but I can also see his saying say strong in your heart and do the loving thing - he would not have had time or the inclination to go through how he has come to the position of supporting gay marriages but I can see from the tone of all his speeches whatever he said would attempt to help her or at least question her going beyond the notoriety and speak from her mind and heart. 

I can see though, those she is the spokesmen for would use the meeting as a coup for their interpretations.
“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.” ~ Goethe

MaryPage

  • Posts: 3725
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2125 on: September 30, 2015, 01:55:19 PM »
Well, this leaves a lot more to be desired than I had hoped for.  I HAD, up until this news bit,  been where I felt these enormous heavings and implosions going on under all the pomp & circumstance of the papacy, with Francis being pretty much coming from the same place as John 23, but putting in clever Jesuit safeguards against the Curia killing him (not living in the palace, creating that committee of 8 to help him reign, etc.), and all was going well except for the continued discrimination against women; and even THAT area gave me a tiny hope, as Francis did manage to lift and do away with the investigation and overseeing of the American Nuns, two years before that was due to happen.
But I have long been leery of the seeming power of a cartel of ultra, ultra conservative men made up of both Roman Catholics and extreme fundamentalists for the purpose of promoting their mutual political goals.  And for years there has been a scream rising inside of me wanting to yell at the Catholics:  "Don't you KNOW those fundamentalists despise you and wish you harm?  You should not be getting in bed with them!"  But it has been an ongoing thing, and religious beliefs have been trumped by those political goals, which is maddening because the Princes of the Church who pride themselves in being ever so Machiavellian in these matters and think they can outsmart the fundamentalists in the long run, should push come to shove, are truly dirtying up their linens, not to mention the reputation of the Church they profess to love.
In the matter of Francis meeting with that woman, I see that very cartel controlling him to the extent, at least, of getting this on his schedule.  And she is, in my view, pure trash and filth and should NEVER have been granted an audience.  Well, 'tis done, and I hope the Jesuits give him an earful.  He needs to know who the fiercest enemies of the Church are!

BarbStAubrey

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 11370
  • Keep beauty alive...
    • Piled on Tables and Floors and Bureau Drawers
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2126 on: September 30, 2015, 02:02:00 PM »
Yes, YES, Yes - my only hope is that he can out-Machiavelli the Machiavellians - we shall see what we shall see - so far he has made a dent and with any dent there is more of a hue and cry than if the earth opened and swallowed the evil. However, like it or not and I do not - there are still women and nuns that their comfort level is 1951 much less even 2001 and wild rushing to cross the Red Sea before 2015 catches up with them
“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.” ~ Goethe

MaryPage

  • Posts: 3725
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2127 on: September 30, 2015, 11:31:49 PM »
I saw a film clip on TV tonight where apparently the Press Corps accompanying Pope Francis on the plane back to Rome were asking him what he thought of the Kim Davis matter (had they heard rumors of the meeting?  Who knows?), and he responded that each of us is entitled to be a conscientious objector where our Faith is concerned.

I conclude that either he knows the FULL STORY and shares the ultra fundamentalist point of view, OR he did not have it properly explained to him.

But how, in all honesty, can we explain the FACT that this meeting was held in such a clandestine manner? It did not appear on the pope's schedule as published and handed out, and it was not only conducted in secrecy, but was not announced until His Holiness had been safely back in The Vatican for a couple of days.  I believe this pope to be extremely smart, so based on that, I am forced, with huge sorrow, to believe he is a willing part of that ghastly occurrence.

I hope someone will explain to him that we Americans are all for conscientious objectors, but we also believe that when they have taken an OATH to uphold the laws of a state in performing the duties of their job, they must resign if their Faith gets in the way of them keeping that oath.

The various newscasters on MSNBC and their panels were deeply upset by this bit of news this evening.

BarbStAubrey

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 11370
  • Keep beauty alive...
    • Piled on Tables and Floors and Bureau Drawers
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2128 on: September 30, 2015, 11:48:57 PM »
Ya know I wonder if the meeting happened at all - I would love it if someone would check when he said something against the timing when Kim's people announced the meeting - I do not think he would make a fool out of her if the meeting did not happen -

The whole thing is confusing but then we may be looking at it from our eyes and we may not see what he sees - because frankly I thought it was a very poor choice of a candidate for Sainthood and that there was only one Saint announced without a balancing Saint was painful. It reminded me too much of not only white man's hegemony but the spread of the Roman Catholic Church regardless who or what groups were destroyed -

The history of the church is filled with folks made saints that I think acted brutally all in the name of growing the enrollment.

Maybe that is it - we would like the religious to be as perfect as we can imagine, more so than the rulers of a nation and this being both a nation state and a religion makes it more confusing with more expectations - if a religion spouts love and kindness we want to see what we believe is a loving and kind nature in all of the leaders of the religion -  it seems regardless the religion there is a dark side and weak spot in all of them. 

Here is a link to the BBC video of what Kim says, but in the plane the Pope does not name Kim - only a statement of being denied the right to protest - I am not convinced there was a meeting - there does not seem to be any gifts of a rosary to any other the Pope met with and meetings seem to be in groups - see what you think when you look at her face and eyes.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34385057
“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.” ~ Goethe

Steph

  • Posts: 7952
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2129 on: October 01, 2015, 08:47:50 AM »
Supposedly shehas been promised pictures.. to prove the meeting. The saint made no sense, but actually the whole concept of saints bother me.. A good many that I read about seem a lot more like  fable than truth.
I am sorry, the only thing I see in her eyes is glee that she is now famous.
Stephanie and assorted corgi

FlaJean

  • Posts: 849
  • FlaJean 2011
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2130 on: October 01, 2015, 09:40:27 AM »
On the Lawrence O'Donnell show last night, E J Dionne said the very conservative Bishop in charge of the residence where Pope stayed (I'm not familiar with the Catholic names) arranged the meeting against the wishes of the American Bishops.  EJ stated that the Pope doesn't read the American newspapers so possibly only knows what the Bishop has told him.  He said the Vatican needs to make a statement concerning this as the far right is making a big deal about the meeting.

mogamom

  • Posts: 9719
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2131 on: October 01, 2015, 10:21:46 AM »
I was asked earlier (sorry it took so long to answer here) if I agreed with someone breaking the law (not the exact wording, but the gist?  If not, please correct me.) :)

The quick answer is "Yes, I would advocate civil disobedience".  Please let me explain?  Every law has an either - or; either obey or suffer the consequences.  Christians facing certain death in the Colosseum chose to obey the 'OR' part of the law; as have people like Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, Christians in Europe who hid Jews in WWII, Martin Luther King, even Nelson Mandela.  All through history people have chosen the 'or' in order to keep from violating their conscience in obeying an immoral law.

I think what I saw in her eyes was relief.

This lowly clerk - following the procedures outlined in federal law and the laws of her state for registering as a c.o. in this instance - has undergone horrific verbal abuse, not to mention threats on herself and family  - and jail time.  Such vile behavior...such hatred.

And it all was so unnecessary, wasn't it?  There were 20 states who had passed bans on same-sex marriage.  The Supreme Court could have given them time to re-write the law to conform with their mandates and provide direct relief for c.o.'s - but they made compliance immediate.  Unwisely, I think.

The governor refused to call back legislators to write a law to bring them into compliance, or to begin impeachment proceedings against the clerk.  He also failed to issue a recall vote.  In either case, since 75% of the people of the state agreed with the ban on same-sex marriage, it would not likely have turned out as he wished.  So he did nothing.

As far as her having taken an oath - well, she was up-holding the law and how could she have foreseen this?  And shouldn't that thinkng be evenly applied?  As stated before, many individuals have violated their oath to up-hold laws they didn't agree with, including providing 'safe cities' and taking states to court for actually enforcing federal law; this includes officials high up in the administration.  I would like to see the same level of outrage against those violators? 

Don't we want to see more women standing for what they believe in?  Even if we don't agree with what they believe in?


MaryPage

  • Posts: 3725
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2132 on: October 01, 2015, 11:01:56 AM »
Bottom line, she can be against same sex marriage for all eternity for all I care, she just cannot keep a job wherein she is the HEAD OF the department that issues marriage licenses and then break her oath to the state and refuse to do so. 
Her only alternative is to resign.
I cannot understand why the system is allowing her to continue to refuse.
She SHOULD resign.
She is not fulfilling the requirements of her position.  She is not performing the duties the taxpayers are paying her for.  She has no right to pick and choose what she will and will not do in this instance.  Let one of these people who are praising her to the skies HIRE her.
I heard last night that she is "writing a book."  Actually has signed a contract for one, which the publisher is going to have a ghost writer do for her.  Money, money, money!  She is famous, and now she is going to be RICH!

mogamom

  • Posts: 9719
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2133 on: October 01, 2015, 12:58:58 PM »
I keep in mind that all she asked was to have her name removed from the form - a form which has already been altered.  Anyway, all the angst against her is well noted.  I expect there to be the same for those I mentioned earlier? 

Maybe the image on the ten dollar bill should be Lady Justice - to remind us every day of the even-handedness, impartial aspect of the law. :)

MaryPage

  • Posts: 3725
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2134 on: October 01, 2015, 02:23:07 PM »
I don't think that is QUITE all she did.  I myself, and millions of others, saw her on television day after day telling people NO marriage licenses would be issued on that day in that county.  No two sex, no single sex.  No marriages, period.  I don't think she was being a willing participant in a reality show, albeit she is most definitely a drama queen.

mogamom

  • Posts: 9719
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2135 on: October 01, 2015, 02:43:27 PM »
Oh, no...lest I'm misunderstood.  In filing for c.o. She was asking that her name be taken off the forms.  The problem is that legislators don't return until Jan.  If she had issued licenses, she would not be able to get c.o. status.  It was really all so unnecessary!

BarbStAubrey

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 11370
  • Keep beauty alive...
    • Piled on Tables and Floors and Bureau Drawers
“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.” ~ Goethe

nlhome

  • Posts: 984
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2137 on: October 01, 2015, 10:09:36 PM »
I'm one of those who has no sympathy with Kim Davis and no respect for her. She certainly has a right to her beliefs, but she has a job to do as an elected official. Part of that job is to issue a marriage license to couples who have met the requirements for that license. That doesn't mean she has to approve of the marriage itself; she is not expected or entitled to pass judgment on the couple.  If she is going to accept payment for her position, and if she is truly the ethical person she claims to be, then she needs to do her job. Otherwise she needs to resign. What I see instead is a woman who is glorying in the attention she is getting.

Steph

  • Posts: 7952
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2138 on: October 02, 2015, 08:52:08 AM »
What are you using for the co status. if You are talking of Conscientous Objector, I do know something about that being a quaker. I guarantee she does not fall in that category. That form of C.O. does not ever talk in public on tv and newspapers.. it is a very very private and complicated part of life.. I remember Viet Nam too vividly. Rosa parks did not break the law,, just a custom, at least I had always thought that. Martin L.King did break some laws, no question and got really  famous for it.. I honestly do not care what she believes.She can believe anything she wants, but the law is to be obeyed.She ran for office and at some point swore to uphold the law. All of the examples did not...repeat....did not do that.
Stephanie and assorted corgi

MaryPage

  • Posts: 3725
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2139 on: October 02, 2015, 10:14:56 AM »
Well, exactly!

If Davis had simply resigned her job because her work had come into conflict with her religious faith, and disappeared from the scene, I, for one, would have believed in her sincerity, if not her dogma.

As it is, with all this drama reeking of martyrdom and publicity events, my stomach curdles over the LACK of sincerity in any of the characters who have jumped into this media event. 

In the long run, Love & Peace will conquer all and happily married couples will rejoice in the sunshine of Acceptance, while the reciters of litanies of hate will find the limelight of Fame denied them.

mogamom

  • Posts: 9719
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2140 on: October 02, 2015, 01:00:23 PM »
Wasn't segregation the law in the south of Rosa Parks?   And, remember - President Obama and Eric Holder did take oaths.  And violated them.

Quaker rules may be different than just C.O. in general - as outlined by federal and state law?  These laws cover any violation of conscience; you don't have to have a religious objection?

I can see both sides here.  But - honestly - I don't know what I would have done.  Again, it would have been handled quietly if the governor had called the legislature back into session to adopt a law: they could have used North Carolina's law, as they anticipated the Supreme Court ruling and had legislation prepared.  And there would have been no hoopla or fame.  It seems like some people have an investment in making her an example, which is one reason why the judge put her in jail.  But, there's no way she could hand out licenses until Jan. and then petition for C.O.

Saying "just step down" is easy, but not so easy to do, I think?  She is obviously a long-time resident of this community,  one she has - and still does - represent well, as 75% of the state agrees with her.

And she has worked in this office for 27 years with no problem.  Twenty-seven years!  Think of all she has invested in that job.

       Orthodox Christianity   (I am not familiar with her particular faith):

1.       Kim Davis is not violating but rather upholding Romans 13:1, which says, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities."  The sovereign secular authority in the United States is the Constitution, and in Kentucky it is the state constitution, which is why Davis swore obedience to both when she took her office as county clerk.  It turns out that the Kentucky Constitution defines marriage as exclusively involving a man and a woman.  It also turns out that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government from issuing decrees on matters like this.[1]  Davis did not swear an oath to obey the U.S. Supreme Court, who, as pointed out by the four dissenting judges, committed an act of lawlessness in mandating homosexual marriage in the United States.  Davis is right to refuse to obey their usurpation of authority, just as Abraham Lincoln was right to ignore the Dred Scott decision in 1857.   For more details on Kim Davis' upholding of the Constitution, read Harry Reeder's excellent article, with which I wholly agree.

2.       Kim Davis is fulfilling her God-given duty as the lesser magistrate.  It is the calling of lower government officials to protect the people from the tyranny of the higher magistrate, here the federal government.  This biblical principle was used to justify, among other things, the American Revolution against the British sovereign.

(There are two additional sections here which I will be happy to post if you'd like.)


BarbStAubrey

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 11370
  • Keep beauty alive...
    • Piled on Tables and Floors and Bureau Drawers
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2142 on: October 02, 2015, 06:47:15 PM »
I read a report that her attorney wiggled her in - she was received in a room of 100 - he breezed past with a 10 second blessing for each of the 100 and there was no way she could have had the conversation as reported - the meeting he had with the gay couple he knew the one man from South American and he brought his family to introduce to the Pope - he took the minute to shake hands with each and then onto the next room where he met with the 100.

Another article from the Guardian in Manchester talked about how the gay community and the those who support them all fell for the outrageous bit of skulduggery arranged by her attorney. 
“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.” ~ Goethe

MaryPage

  • Posts: 3725
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2143 on: October 02, 2015, 07:37:26 PM »
What I have heard is she was slipped in by the ultra conservative archbishop here in Washington DC who runs the Nunciature, or Vatican embassy, and the Pope's entourage knew nothing about it in advance.  Will we ever know?

I had a wonderful visit from a local priest this afternoon, and told him EXACTLY how I felt.  When I was finished, he laughed heartily, gave me a big hug, and said he thinks much the same.  I did not just carry on about this matter, as I had not seen him for, oh, probably at least a month; so I covered the whole visit to the States and, indeed, all impressions of this pope to date.  Great fun for me, but apparently for Father, as well.

Steph

  • Posts: 7952
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2144 on: October 03, 2015, 08:43:07 AM »
Segragation differed from state to state.. so it depended on where you lived.. Many of the so called laws were really customs. wrong,yes,, but customs.
Conscientous Objectors..  I dont know now, but in Viet Name in order to be ruled as one, you went through hoops... No, it was not only religion, but a sincere PRIVATE matter that brought you before the draft board. You did not go on tv or in the paper and declare your faith.. Trust me on that one.
We will never agree and no I dont think the President or Eric broke any laws, but I know the very conservative right do. The U.S. constitution is the final word. The civil war was mainly fought to prove that one.
Stephanie and assorted corgi

MaryPage

  • Posts: 3725
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2145 on: October 03, 2015, 09:29:43 AM »
That is right, Steph.  Rosa Parks did not violate any state or national law, so far as I remember.  It was a RULE of, as you say, tradition; and bus drivers saw that it was adhered to.  People, white and black, would come from other areas of the country and, not knowing the local ways, whites would make the mistake of sitting in the back and blacks of sitting in or towards the front, and they would be corrected.  As I remember, it took only a word from the bus company owners or managers to drop the rule.  I am not trying to stand up for segregation here, but only to tell it the way I remember it.  The same was true for the soda fountains and lunch counters, etc., where, in the South, if you were black you could only order from down at the end of the counter while standing up, and take out.  Simply local custom.  Once the manager said they would go ahead and serve blacks sitting down, it was done.  These were old Southern ways, and, like a bunch of barnyard chickens whose territory was invaded by a chicken way down in the pecking order, white males got really agitated if anyone made a mistake regarding the various black & white protocols.  They could be dreadfully nasty and demeaning, and I hated it.  They really did not want to see things change, because, and this is the basic truth, they clung to the pleasurable sense of superiority they had,  regardless of possibly being lacking in all other respects.  This is also why you saw efforts to change things coming principally from the well educated and well heeled.  The upper and middle classes did not need that special status, but instead came to feel strongly about the unfairness of the system.

We have the same thing, in a different form, but the same basic human instincts exhibiting themselves in all their ugliness with the systemic hatred of "the other."  Gays, Women, Immigrants.  "We have to be taught, before it's too late, to hate all the people our relatives hate.  We have to be carefully taught."

And then there is the law.  THE law.  The very ancient law:  "Love One Another!"

I remember reading about conscientious objectors in World War I going off to war as medics.  They were perfectly willing to die in duty to their country of birth, but not willing to kill.  I remember knowing some of these in World War II, where they were more accepted by their communities than was true in World War I.  People were more understanding, and not so quick to call them cowards.  I am now and always have been in sympathy, as there is no way under the heavens that I could kill another human being.

MaryPage

  • Posts: 3725
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2146 on: October 03, 2015, 09:54:22 AM »
I just had a vivid memory, something I had forgotten all these many years.  But it proves a point, the point that Southerners had no real aversion of any sort whatsoever toward blacks, but it was all a matter of status:

IF you were a black woman tending a white child, and you had to take that child on a bus for whatever reason, you were entitled to sit in the front of the bus.  No WAY that white child would have to sit in the back!  Same thing if you were a black woman tending an old white woman or man.  The white could only be up front, and the attendant was then entitled to stay with them so as to tend to their needs!

Steph

  • Posts: 7952
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2147 on: October 04, 2015, 09:27:07 AM »

during the Viet Nam era when there was still the draft, getting conscientous objection status was truly hard.. The draft boards were in charge up to a point. Yes, I knew many quakers who served as medics and in WWI, they were close to the only ones who would go on the battlefield to save the wounded.
Stephanie and assorted corgi

mogamom

  • Posts: 9719
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2148 on: October 05, 2015, 08:49:54 AM »
The C.O. laws I'm referring to are federal and states.  An individual can opt out of many things.  North Carolina wrote their laws on same-sex marriage with an 'opt-out' clause so that officials would not have to go through this as long as they opted out of performing services for both same-sex and heterosexual marriages (which is why she tried this first, I think; refusing both).  A simple solution - and a win-win for everyone. :)

As you say, the Rosa Parks example may have been custom, I don't know; I thought these things were covered under Dred Scott?  But the others were clearly practicing civil disobedience.

President Obama and Eric Holder violated their oaths by refusing to enforce certain laws: DOMA, immigration laws, etc.  and even sued states for enforcing them.  AND that was before the Supreme Court had ruled on either.  Clearly, officials in 'safe cities' are also violating their oaths of office by refusing to enforce immigration law.  Lois Lerner also comes to mind with her practice of asking illegal questions and changing requirements arbitrarily for conservative groups seeking non-profit status.

The law should be evenly applied.

[Conscientious Objection for the draft in Vietnam was a different case.  Near the end of the draft - because they were having difficulty filling the quotas - they were finally refusing all c.o. statuses.  My husband and I went through that wait to hear his number being called up, so I do know how that went.  Agonizing to be sure!]

Steph

  • Posts: 7952
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2149 on: October 05, 2015, 08:56:06 AM »
way before the end in Viet Nam they were refusing c.o. status. I volunteered in the Philadelphia Quaker organization for three years and know how agonizing the whole thing was. I do not honestly know that C.O. would apply.. no more draft and C.O. was strictly about your conscience and war.. What laws are you referring to. I checked with my home meeting house and they were puzzled.
Stephanie and assorted corgi

mogamom

  • Posts: 9719
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2150 on: October 05, 2015, 08:57:49 AM »
Let me get out my materials, Steph.  I'll put them up later? :)

BarbStAubrey

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 11370
  • Keep beauty alive...
    • Piled on Tables and Floors and Bureau Drawers
“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.” ~ Goethe

BarbStAubrey

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 11370
  • Keep beauty alive...
    • Piled on Tables and Floors and Bureau Drawers
“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.” ~ Goethe

BarbStAubrey

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 11370
  • Keep beauty alive...
    • Piled on Tables and Floors and Bureau Drawers
“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.” ~ Goethe

BarbStAubrey

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 11370
  • Keep beauty alive...
    • Piled on Tables and Floors and Bureau Drawers
“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.” ~ Goethe

BarbStAubrey

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 11370
  • Keep beauty alive...
    • Piled on Tables and Floors and Bureau Drawers
“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.” ~ Goethe

BarbStAubrey

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 11370
  • Keep beauty alive...
    • Piled on Tables and Floors and Bureau Drawers
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2156 on: October 05, 2015, 09:07:44 AM »
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3334790/posts - this compares the three choices both women had
“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.” ~ Goethe

mogamom

  • Posts: 9719
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2157 on: October 05, 2015, 10:30:46 AM »
Lots of work here - and appreciated!  For me, though, the issue isn't Rosa Parks?

These are the laws in brief - I can post sites or you can google them:

Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and some similar state laws) also allow people to get some exemptions from work rules imposed by employers (including private employers)...

and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed into law by President Clinton after a 97-3 vote in the Senate.  [The RFRA applies "to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise", including any Federal statutory law adopted after the RFRA's date of signing "unless such law explicitly excludes such application]

States also enacted versions of the federal RFRA law, Kentucky included.

And - at least as I understand it - a 'religious' exemption can be cited by any individual, whether they are affiliated with a church group or not?  It just has to be a 'strongly held personal belief'.

A question posted regarding Indiana’s RFRA law might help?

“Do Religious Freedom Protections Hurt Gays?
It is entirely consistent to favor broad religious freedom protections and also favor gay rights. Many gays are religious, and so themselves benefit from religious freedom protections like RFRA. But even where gay Americans and religious Americans find themselves in conflict, there is ample room in communities to peaceably coexist. That’s the point of a RFRA. No side gets an automatic-victory card. The interests of all sides gets weighed."

I appreciate the work in here.  My whole life I've been hearing from men - and women - that women 'think with their emotions', that they 'can't be objective, especially if they feel strongly about something', they're too emotional to be impartial and logical as they 'let their feelings get in the way'.  To me, it's important to re-visit old beliefs - even strongly held ones - and understanding/admitting one's biases is the first step to finding truth? :) 

mogamom

  • Posts: 9719
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2158 on: October 05, 2015, 11:43:30 AM »
This is by no means the only source, but I found it helpful in putting the issue in perspective by giving other examples of the laws being used for objectors:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/

Steph

  • Posts: 7952
Re: Women's Issues
« Reply #2159 on: October 06, 2015, 08:23:48 AM »
Ah, I see where you are coming from.. Society of Friends does not get involved in religious disputes of this type. My strong feelings are about war and violence. I do believe however that if you work in public office, you must obey the rules. I know she is trying to fall back on Kentucky rules, but honestly from the beginning of our country, the Supreme Court has the last word , unless congress enacts a new law and even then the law must be measured against the constitution.. Lets face it, I believe that guns should be regulated and that counting corporations as people is wrong.. I also believe that the Supreme
Court should not have interfered in the Bush-Gore election, but they have the last word, not me.
Stephanie and assorted corgi