# Kim Davis and conscientious objection **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 30, 2015, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072 "2015-09-30T19:41:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/41 "2015-10-01T14:13:58Z")
> [@GypsySooner](#): > > I just saw that the meeting with the Pope was confirmed by the Vatican. I really hate to know that. > > I’m an atheist but I was beginning to like this Pope. The one, and only, religious leader that I’ve ever known, and liked, was a Catholic priest from South America. I met him when I was in the mountains of Peru right after an earthquake in 1970. I was there to convert… You had me scared there for a minute until I read the rest of the sentence 🙂 > [@](#): > > …a dirt road into a runway for the relief effort. . ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/42 "2015-10-01T14:16:02Z")
Maybe one of our resident lawyers can chime in, but isn’t C.O. a term of art? If so, in the US doesn’t only apply to the military? I’m not aware of civil service having a C.O. outlet, but I’m willing to be educumated to the contrary if they do. ---
**Author:** ![Poysyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Poysyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poysyn)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/43 "2015-10-01T14:30:12Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Actually, the military would have the major in question jolly well shut up and soldier. Filing for conscientious objection is a long Kafkaesque process and they don’t just take your word that you’re a Quaker now - you have to demonstrate that those are sincere beliefs that have affected multiple facets of your life for a long time. Suddenly finding the good lord before a suicide mission ? Not so much. > And of course in a modern all-volunteer Army, I suspect you can jolly well fuck off with all that peacenik shit on the grounds of “you signed a contract, son” :o. > > Which, incidentally, would be what applies in this case. Davis took an oath and signed a contract. She can’t take them back whenever it suits her, although she’s free to resign or file for a transfer at any bloody time. Refusing to follow a lawful order would result in an arrest and facing a court martial. The mission would go ahead with someone else (possibly a 2iC) leading. You can’t just decide, before stepping off, that you don’t want to do this job anymore. It doesn’t work that way. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/44 "2015-10-01T14:41:29Z")
Well, you _can_, if you’re willing to face that arrest and court-martial instead. Which is what you’re actually supposed to do if you believe the order you’ve been given to be illegal. But the point is, you refusing the order doesn’t actually stop the mission: Someone else does it instead. The only way the mission is stopped is if _everyone_ refuses it and faces court-martial instead, or if enough people refuse it that the officer giving the order reconsiders it. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/45 "2015-10-01T14:47:07Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Little bit of both, I’d say, and I too have mentioned before how people on both the “right” and “left” of a particular issue are so quick to jump up and down going _“OMG OMG OMG did ya see/hear that, SO RADICAL!!!”_ whenever he says or does something that’s just restating the same established policy, only in a nicer, more diplomatic, less abrasive manner. Indeed. Did anyone really think that Pope Francis was secretly in favor of LGBTQ rights and was going to bring them to the Vatican? If so, did you pay any attention to his comments on the issue when he was a Cardinal in Argentina? Just because he believes in treating LGBTQ folks with a little bit more dignity and love doesn’t mean he’s all for equal rights. The Pope is Catholic, after all. ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/46 "2015-10-01T15:03:55Z")
Kim Davis has nothing to do with conscientious objection, and attempting to make that comparison is heinously flawed. If a servicemember claims CO status, and their claim is approved, they are immediately ejected from the service. They cannot claim to be a CO, stay in the service, and then refuse to participate. If Kim Davis wishes to object on similar grounds, she must be ejected from her position. She cannot hold her position and at the same time refuse to perform that position’s duties. If, hypothetically, a person in the military refused their duties but at the same time refused to seek CO status, they would be subject to courts-martial. It should come as no surprise, then, that Kim Davis faces legal sanctions. Davis’ protests also miss the fundamental point… She claims she is trying to exempt herself, but does not acknowledge that in doing so she is using the state’s authority to inflict her religious beliefs on others, which is against the core principles of the Constitution that she swore to uphold. If she cannot uphold her oath, then she must be relieved of its responsibilities. I don’t know what oath they use for her position, but the military oath of office very specifically includes the phrase, “…without mental reservation or purpose of evasion…” to address this exact circumstance. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/47 "2015-10-01T15:13:59Z")
> [@Bill\_Door](#): > > It doesn’t matter to me if she’s a conscientious objector or not, as a head of state Pope Francis has no business interfering in our internal affairs, especially as he’s here on a state visit. It’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that privately meeting with a former political prisoner (a stupid one who deserves to rot in jail, but a political prisoner nonetheless) is “interfering in our internal affairs.” ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/48 "2015-10-01T15:14:01Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Indeed. Did anyone really think that Pope Francis was secretly in favor of LGBTQ rights and was going to bring them to the Vatican? If so, did you pay any attention to his comments on the issue when he was a Cardinal in Argentina? Just because **he believes in treating LGBTQ folks with a little bit more dignity and love** doesn’t mean he’s all for equal rights. The Pope is Catholic, after all. But it’s better than the hate that’s the current favored attitude. And with the Catholic Church, all you’re going to get are baby steps. But even a baby can walk a thousand miles. (Old saying I just mangled) ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/49 "2015-10-01T15:22:50Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > But it’s better than the hate that’s the current favored attitude. > > And with the Catholic Church, all you’re going to get are baby steps. But even a baby can walk a thousand miles. (Old saying I just mangled) No doubt. I actually think Pope Francis has done a great job in changing the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/50 "2015-10-01T15:41:32Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that privately meeting with a former political prisoner (a stupid one who deserves to rot in jail, but a political prisoner nonetheless) is “interfering in our internal affairs.” A head of state while here on an state visit at the invitation of our head of state should be governed by custom and tradition if not simple courtesy to his or her host to stay out of purely internal affairs period. Clearly that was expecting too much. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/51 "2015-10-01T15:43:48Z")
Well, he’s still less meddlesome than Bibi. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/52 "2015-10-01T15:46:48Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that privately meeting with a former political prisoner (a stupid one who deserves to rot in jail, but a political prisoner nonetheless) is “interfering in our internal affairs.” She wasn’t jailed for politics – she was jailed because of her actions, which broke the law. Her politics are irrelevant – it’s her actions that were sanctioned. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/53 "2015-10-01T15:53:17Z")
She was jailed for politics. That is not to say it’s not 100% her fault, but she was jailed for politics. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/54 "2015-10-01T15:57:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > She was jailed for politics. Can you explain why you think that? I’m not seeing it ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/55 "2015-10-01T15:59:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > She was jailed for politics. That is not to say it’s not 100% her fault, but she was jailed for politics. I don’t see how. She broke the law. Her politics didn’t break the law. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/56 "2015-10-01T16:00:40Z")
Davis disagrees with government action, and took a principled stand\* against it. Then she was sent to jail. That is pretty much the definition of a political prisoner, whether it’s one being charged for vocal dissent, attempting to register to vote, or whatever. You may disagree with her methods, her views, and much else (in fact, you should) but that doesn’t mean she isn’t a political prisoner. That term does not necessarily connote that a person _should not_ be in jail. \*A moronic and wholly self-serving stand that has rightly made her a figure of ridicule, but a stand nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/57 "2015-10-01T16:10:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Davis disagrees with government action, and took a principled stand\* against it. Then she was sent to jail. That is pretty much the definition of a political prisoner, whether it’s one being charged for vocal dissent, attempting to register to vote, or whatever. You may disagree with her methods, her views, and much else (in fact, you should) but that doesn’t mean she isn’t a political prisoner. That term does not necessarily connote that a person _should not_ be in jail. > > \*A moronic and wholly self-serving stand that has rightly made her a figure of ridicule, but a stand nonetheless. She was in jail for contempt of court. That’s not political imprisonment. She had any number of ways to avoid that without compromising her principles. What she wanted was to keep a job that she refused to do. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/58 "2015-10-01T16:10:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > She wasn’t jailed for politics – she was jailed because of her actions, which broke the law. Her politics are irrelevant – it’s her actions that were sanctioned. Heh, it’s debatable. For example, if you burn your draft card and refuse to go to Vietnam to shoot at poor people, you’re not thrown in jail because of your beliefs either - you’re technically jailed for defacing government property or refusing to obey the law or whatever. But it’s still, fundamentally, a political act grounded in one’s principles (assuming you’re not just doing it to not get killed). So is being jailed for saying “The Party sucks all the dicks” - you’re not jailed for your opinions, you’re jailed because it’s illegal to say negative things about the party. And so on. I’d agree that granting that turd nugget the rather grandiloquent (and, well, “noble”) label of political prisoner is eyebrow-raising because she wasn’t exactly sent to the fucking gulags ; but it is \*technically \*correct. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/59 "2015-10-01T16:11:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Davis disagrees with government action, and took a principled stand\* against it. Then she was sent to jail. That is pretty much the definition of a political prisoner, whether it’s one being charged for vocal dissent, attempting to register to vote, or whatever. You may disagree with her methods, her views, and much else (in fact, you should) but that doesn’t mean she isn’t a political prisoner. That term does not necessarily connote that a person _should not_ be in jail. > > \*A moronic and wholly self-serving stand that has rightly made her a figure of ridicule, but a stand nonetheless. I don’t think that’s what a political prisoner is. According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_prisoner), it’s “someone imprisoned because they have opposed or criticized the government responsible”. By this definition, Davis doesn’t fit – she wasn’t jailed because she opposed or criticized the government; she was jailed because she broke the law. By your definition, someone who opposed the government’s action on arresting them for murder, fights off the arresting cops, and is finally taken into custody could be a “political prisoner”. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2015, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072/60 "2015-10-01T16:28:24Z")
> [@Poysyn](#): > > Refusing to follow a lawful order would result in an arrest and facing a court martial. The mission would go ahead with someone else (possibly a 2iC) leading. You can’t just decide, before stepping off, that you don’t want to do this job anymore. It doesn’t work that way. I was hoping you’d chime in. I know you’re military, but I couldn’t remember in what capacity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kim-davis-and-conscientious-objection/733072.md?page=4)