Conservatives against Kim Davis

Which side are you on?

That’s the question that fuels most of our culture-war animosity. Instead, the question we should all be asking is this: What’s the right thing to do? In the case of same-sex refusenik Kim Davis, some conservative intellectuals and pundits are willing to break ranks and see the bigger picture.

In case you’ve been milking the last warm days of summer and haven’t seen this story, Kim Davis is the Kentucky county clerk who has been jailed and released for her refusal to issue same-sex marriage certificates. Opportunistic conservative politicians such as Mike Huckabee have promoted Davis as a conservative Christian hero, stage-managing Davis’s release as an American triumph, equal parts Christianity Triumphant and Rocky III.

Governor Huckabee’s shameful pandering to frustrated Christian voters should be an embarrassment for every conservative out there. But progressives also could stay a little classier in this case. For those like me on the progressive side of things, the furor and venom over the Kim Davis case burst onto our Facebook feeds like a sweaty middle-school pimple. I don’t agree with Davis’s refusal to do her job, but I also think it is counter-productive and petty to attack Davis’s hairstyle.

Missing the point...

Missing the point…

We could all learn a lesson from a few conservatives who refuse to conform to their culture-war scripts. Fox News anchor Shep Smith, for example, earned the ire of conservative viewers for pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in the case. Critiquing the Huckabee rally, Smith commented,

They set this up as a religious play again. This is the same crowd that says, ‘We don’t want Sharia law, don’t let them tell us what to do, keep their religion out of our lives and out of our government.’

Predictably, conservative Fox News viewers reacted furiously, calling Smith a “puke” and accusing him of “anti-Christian bias.”

But Smith was not alone. Conservative intellectuals also took issue with Davis’s brand of publicity-hogging culture-warriorism. Writing in the pages of The American Conservative, crunchy conservative Rod Dreher warned that Davis had ignored the central point of civil disobedience. Dreher argues,

It’s clear that there are many Christians who support Kim Davis because she’s doing something, even if that something is arguably counterproductive. This is unwise. . . . If the public comes to think of religious liberty as the constitutionally guaranteed right to ignore the Constitution whenever it suits us, the cause of religious liberty — which is guaranteed by the First Amendment — is going to suffer tremendously. Conservatives are supposed to understand the difference between the vice of cowardice and the virtue of prudence. If religious liberty means that even officers of the state can defy the law without consequence, then it makes every individual a potential tyrant.

Writing from the conservative bastion of the Southern Baptist Convention, Russell Moore and Andrew T. Walker made a similar point. While Moore and Walker bemoaned the “judicial overstep” and “government inaction” that led to this situation, they did not excuse Davis’s reckless behavior. “We must recognize,” they note,

the crucial difference between the religious liberty claims of private citizens and government officials. Let us be clear: Government employees are entitled to religious liberty, but religious liberty is never an absolute claim, especially when it comes to discharging duties that the office in question requires. While government employees don’t lose their constitutional protection simply because they work for the government, an individual whose office requires them to uphold or execute the law is a separate matter than the private citizen whose conscience is infringed upon as a result of the law. It means the balancing test is different when it comes to government officials because of their roles as agents of the state. Government officials have a responsibility to carry out the law. When an official can no longer execute the laws in question due to an assault on conscience, and after all accommodating measures have been exhausted, he or she could work for change as a private citizen, engaging the democratic process in hopes of changing the questionable law.

We must be very clear about the distinctions here between persons acting as an agent of the state and persons being coerced by the state in their private lives. If the definition becomes so murky that we cannot differentiate between the freedom to exercise one’s religion and the responsibility of agents of the state to carry out the law, religious liberty itself will be imperiled.

For these brave conservative commentators, agreement with Davis’s opinion of same-sex marriage did not mean an automatic endorsement of Davis’s actions. All of us could learn from their example.

Those of us who consider ourselves progressives should commit to examine every case with the same gimlet eye. Just because we agree with someone’s position in general does not mean we must agree with their actions in every case.

Conservatives should be reminded to differentiate between today’s headlines and the big picture. Civil disobedience is a right and duty of us all, at times. But not every act of civil disobedience is equal, and civil disobedience has never meant simply flouting the laws we don’t like.

More important, we must all be willing to speak up against our own “side” when it is in the wrong. The first question should not be “Which side are you on?” but always “What is the right thing to do?”

Advertisements
Leave a comment

8 Comments

  1. Yet what you and most others ignore is this was the persecution of a Christian to pander to the queers and their enablers. If she was a devout Christian whose choice purportedly somehow “damaged” queers the court would never have been involved; she would have been simply removed from her position through the normal, established means to do so.

    You don’t have to agree with her in the least to side against those who put in her a gulag in order to force her compliance with their agenda.

    Reply
    • Jonolan, I disagree. But more important, I’ll ask you to refrain from using terms such as “queers” in this context. If you mean homosexual people, please use neutral terms such as “homosexuals” or “same-sex couples.”

      Reply
      • Ah, so those are specific names you personally prefer. OK. Given that I’ve been accosted for using all of them, I normally just go with “queer” – as opposed to my generation’s more normal but nastier “faggot.”

        But, more importantly – though still not objectively important – of course you disagree with me. You a leftist and your sort always hate religion because its one of the foundations of American culture, which your sort wants to destroy.

      • Thank you for making my point. Your scattershot anger and unnecessarily provocative tone only serve to deepen culture-war trenches. Whenever anyone on either side tries to think more broadly about these issues, he or she will be mislabeled and dismissed by both conservatives and progressives.

  2. I don’t really see my anger as “scattershot.” It’s quite targeted against the enemies of normative American culture, belief, and morality and especially at the various attempts to use the law as weapon to enforce societal change. In that I similar in opinion to Moore and Walker, who “bemoan” the judicial overstep and government inaction that led to this situation.

    As for the culture-war trenches and your point – your whole post proved your point as it were because you dug in yourself. Of course, I don’t see that as inherently a bad thing. This is, after all, a war, one that will be fought in the trenches and one in which the middle ground is rightfully better called the “No Man’s Land.”

    Reply
  3. These are not “conservatives” in a meaningful sense. They are angry, miseducated fundamentalists who have been lied to, manipulated, and miseducated by their religious and political leaders. The are the willing dupes and victims of political propaganda and policies that conservative elites have laid on them. Hold these leaders accountable — especially cynical frauds like the formerly thoughtful moderate Huckabee who has completely remade himself for the age of Herr Donald Drumpf.

    Reply
  1. 12 Sept. 2015 Religion and Atheism News | Evangelically Atheist
  2. Heroic Teacher, Terrible Bureaucrat | I Love You but You're Going to Hell

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s