I was reading an article on CNN where it was reported that Pope Francis met privately with Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to give marriage licenses to same sex couples (the Vatican neither confirms nor denies this). The pope has apparently stated that conscientious objection is a human right. I never thought of this as conscientious objection, but it kind of makes a point (although it shouldn’t allow her to prevent other staff members in her office from issuing the license).
Yep, I don’t want to work in a slaughterhouse, so I don’t. If I was the receptionist at a slaughterhouse, and they told me they needed me to slice up a few hogs today, I guess I’d have to do my job or quit.
It would be a very weird thing to say, at least in terms of what “conscientious objection” means in the version of English I speak. the term is usually used to describe a person who refuses to serve in war, not someone who doesn’t like a new rule at work.
I’ve never heard the term used to describe anything other than a refusal of compulsory military service. Davis’s position is neither compulsory, nor (obviously) military. Even if we stretch the definition to cover her, conscientious objectors are generally not given the same positions as non-objectors. They’re either excused from service entirely, or given some other position (medic, file clerk, etc.) that doesn’t require them to violate their conscience. Or they’re locked up, if the judge doesn’t buy their excuse, and they refuse to serve anyway.
Comparing Davis’s position to a conscientious observer would only make sense if we allow, say, a major in the military to decide he doesn’t want to fight, but still keep his rank and command.
While I completely disagree with her views, I could consider what she did a form of principled civil disobedience. We have a history of that sort of thing in the United States, and at times it’s led to good changes. So Davis can engage in that sort of behavior if she wants, but she can also accept the immediate consequences (jail time, hopefully losing her job) and the long-term effects (going down in history as another George Wallace, albeit a less important one).
Right - a recruit doesn’t get to quit the Marines if he has a sincere objection to being made into a badass killer. It seems fair to afford some consideration to their moral beliefs and whether those would interfere with them performing their basic duties.
Government clerks can quit for any damn reason they want, at any time.
The Vatican has now confirmed the meeting. The Pope apparently praised her for her courage, thanked her and gave her a rosary. She isn’t a conscientious objector in any sense that I’m familiar with though.
It’s still civil disobedience. She’s breaking a law she thinks is wrong. If the law forbid SSM and a clerk issued SSM licenses, wouldn’t that be cilvil disobedience?
Is there a requirement to “apply the Bible equally to all” (whatever that even means) in order for there to be a principle involved?
I said a “form” of civil disobedience. I didn’t say she was doing it very well.
But I take your point - she’s a government actor, which puts her on the other side of what we usually think of when we say civil disobedience. But however illogical, and not equally applied, I do think she is acting out of her (misguided) principles. So I’m willing to extend the definition to her. But yes, I’m perhaps being too generous.
Actually discharge from the US military given a sincere change in moral beliefs that make you a CO is a thing. If he knew he had an objection up front he wouldn’t have been eligible to enlist in the first place. The all volunteer force is different than the old mandatory service / draft model.
Yes, it can be fairly called civil disobedience. Generally I expect a little more principle behind someone in a position of power refusing to do their job.
Even if an individual soldier decides to be a conscientious objector - that doesn’t mean that the rest of the military has to go along with her objection. If a captain is ordered to lead a mission, and the captain decides that she’s a Quaker now, and a pacifist - the rest of the army doesn’t just throw up it’s hands and say, “Oh, well, I guess the mission’s off, then.” The major would get to step aside but another person would be designated the leader and the mission would proceed.
That’s what Kim Davis is trying to do. She wants to become a conscientious objector and then refuse to step aside so that everyone else will have to throw up their hands and say, “Oh, well, I guess we can’t get married here, then.” If she would step aside and let someone else handle it, she wouldn’t have a problem. She doesn’t even have to quit her job. She just has to stop trying to force the entire government to run according to her private beliefs.
That’s how Kim Davis is different than a CO, which I refuse to try and spell a second time.
I am curious as to who set up the meeting.
I also note that the pope has made no public statement in regard to Ms. Davis.
Beyond that, nothing that the pope said, according to Ms Davis’s account, actually endorsed her position, only telling her to stay strong without actually stating that her actions were correct.
I am still curious who set up the meeting. Did Pope Francis invite her to the embassy? Or did some Catholic official who was looking to get him to take sides get her an invitation?
At this point I’m almost wiling to concede that the meeting took place, but I have to wonder if Pope Francis had any idea who he was meeting and why; it certainly has the look of a set-up to me, if not an outright case of fraud.
