Sometimes I’m quiet. Sometimes being quiet is good. Sometimes sitting back, taking time to reflect upon more angles of an issue instead of instantaneously reacting is a wise and wonderful thing. As mentioned multiple times, there is no issue the Intramuralist is unwilling to discuss. Sometimes, however, we will wait for the right time. Let’s discuss Kim Davis.
Actually, no. Let’s not discuss Kim Davis — the county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses and instead went to jail. Let’s not make it about the person — the individual who had her so-called 15 minutes of fame; let’s focus on the issue. Way too many people made it about the individual… and truthfully, that bothered me a bit…
I was bothered by those who made Davis into some sort of profound heroine… “Finally, a person who’s had enough and not going to take it anymore!”… a person who’s finally standing up to an over-reaching government. I wasn’t too keen on those who seemed to utilize standing with her as a personal, political opportunity…
I was also bothered by those who portrayed Davis as some sort of ignorant imbecile… those who justified the mocking and vilification — mocking her hair, her past, her physical appearance. I was bothered by the many who mocked her who often preach compassion and tolerance — but then, justified totally no compassion directed toward Davis… no tolerance either…
Same-sex marriages are the current law of this land; it is the law in Kentucky. We can like it, love it, or want no more of it. We can also change it, if desired. We can enthusiastically agree with the summer Supreme Court decision — or we can vehemently disagree with the court’s opinion that the Constitution provides any right to marry. We can be emphatically joyous that five black-robed justices decided the law of the land; we can also be disturbed that a mere five justices determined that law. We can be either. Good people are either. It is still the law of the land.
As a human resource professional, I have long hired persons to do their job. If they don’t do their job — or can’t do their job — then the reality is that the person should have another job; they can resign, be let go, or serve in another capacity. That is not heartless nor cruel nor lacking any compassion. I simply believe that it is the employer who decides what the job is — not the employee. Public or private, profit or non-profit, too many believe they can be the deciders of what they will and will not do. They ignore aspects of the job for which they were hired, elected, or assigned.
That said, I deeply admire persons whose faith affects their entire being — whose behavior is so obviously prompted by their authentic belief in the one, true, amazing, almighty God. There is just something within that depth of faith that is admirable, contagious, and good.
I also believe it’s true that religious freedom is a serious issue in this country. I think we need to find a way to address it absent of cruelty and hypocrisy. Let’s face it: this is tough for us; it’s tough for our entire country. We tend to support or oppose religious freedom depending on how it fits the angle and issue we’re coming from at that time…
Can we force the baker to bake? … the photographer to take? … how about the florist? Have you heard, too, about the current case before the court in which our federal government is actually suing an Illinois trucking company that requires Islamic truck drivers to deliver alcohol? The feds are fighting for their religious freedom. Why is freedom allowed one place but chastised elsewhere? Why are we not consistent?
Friends, this is messy. Religious freedom is messy. This can also be understandably, highly-emotionally charged. But we have to figure it out — and not just support or oppose it when it fits with the issues about which we are individually most passionate.
In my semi-humble opinion, the issue that arose in that Kentucky county last week was not about religious freedom. It was also not about Kim Davis; she was just the easiest target to attack. The issue that arose was the selective adherence to the law of the land. Is it ok to be selectively adherent?
… what about persons who justify breaking other laws? … what about those who broke Prop 8 when it was law in California? … what about those who continue to support illegal rioting and destruction?
In other words, do we get to decide what laws to adhere to?
Are we thus ever inconsistent or (God-forbid) hypocritical in our adherence?
Like I said, this is not about Kim Davis. It’s about following the law of the land… which each of us is sometimes good at… and sometimes not.
Respectfully…
AR