Just When You Thought Kimberly Daniels Couldn't Get Any Weirder...

[danno]

Didn't MC Hammer have some tax issues with the IRS.... Nothing like an endorsement from a fiscally responsible celeb.  Oh wait a minute he is a pastor or something now... All is forgiven.  Who's next Wolsey Snipes??

[FlowerPower]

I really didn't want to revive an old thread, but its title said it all... This was reported in the T-U today

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/steve-patterson/2012-06-07/jacksonville-city-councilwoman-kimberly-daniels-files

"Make a note of this wording:

"The free exercise of religion is hereby recognized in the City of Jacksonville. Consistent with the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Florida, there shall be imposed no burden whatsoever upon the religious beliefs of people of faith including, but not limited to places of public accommodation, in religious worship or in the use of religious facilities, in matters of employment and in the rental of real property."

That's the text, without preamble, for a bill (2012-377) that Councilwoman Kimberly Daniels, a minister, is introducing at Tuesday's council meeting.

It's the latest installment in a back-and-forth about protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation and also protecting rights of people of faith who aren't comfortable with some of those orientations.

Although religious institutions are exempted from another bill (2012-296) banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, the references to employment and real estate rental echo fears of groups who oppose the orientation bill.

There is, of course, some overlap between the protection the bill covers and the First Amendment, which has been protecting rights of the faithful for quite some time.

But the preamble of the local bill, which quotes everyone from Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to late Supreme Court justices Joseph Story and Potter Stewart, gets a little defensive about outsiders messing with the ministry for malicious ends.

A "Whereas" section of the bill includes a pledge that "ministers, ministries and places of worship shall be protected from false attempts to stage private or public ministry requests (i.e. Undermining or misleading requests for prayer or ministry) to defraud or deceive with the intent to entrap, defame or sabotage through ridicule or opinionated judgment.  It shall not be acceptable to infiltrate, bear false witness, record or video any part of a counseling session or worship service for the purpose of propaganda or negative media ploys..."

It's not clear what would happen to someone who did any of this.

The next paragraph says that "places of worship and the property thereof shall be protected from acts of verbal or physical harassment or protests.  These acts shall not hinder the peace of the worship service or be in any way offensive to the congregation in nature."

By the way, another paragraph about the term "separation of church and state" appears to contain a short, uncredited passage by Daniel L. Dreisbach, an American University professor who authored Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (New York University Press, 2002)."

[mtraininjax]

No stranger than Redman, they will probably end up as Council Presidents though.

[strider]

With all these ordinances being bantered about that protect the rights of various individuals, perhaps it is time to get someone to propose one that protects the residents of Jacksonville from people running and getting voted into office that have a pronounced lack of common sense and a general lack of functioning brain cells.

[Garden guy]

Can te citizens have her removed for abuse to the public and abuse of the public trust? She is a complete embarrssement to the seat wich she sits..same with Redman....they both behave like complete idiots and we should all remember...the world is watching them and they will judge us based on these few behaving like complete idiots...

[wsansewjs]

I would dare to say that Kim Daniels is in a direct violation of the separation of church and state since she is a directly a minister fiddling with a government position.

With Ms. Daniels's "cuck-a-roo" irrational ideology, I do not recognize her as a minister for ANY church including her "own".

She is a "tell it all, but doesn't do it all". Basically, she is a smokescreen with lack of proper action supporting her reputation.

I can go on all day on this, but I am not going to bore you all.

-Josh

[iluvolives]

I bet Daniels doesn't realize that her bill would also protect people with religous beliefs that are different from her own...like muslims.

[Timkin]

I would dare to say that Kim Daniels is in a direct violation of the separation of church and state since she is a directly a minister fiddling with a government position.

With Ms. Daniels's "cuck-a-roo" irrational ideology, I do not recognize her as a minister for ANY church including her "own".

She is a "tell it all, but doesn't do it all". Basically, she is a smokescreen with lack of proper action supporting her reputation.

I can go on all day on this, but I am not going to bore you all.

-Josh

No, Please go on Josh!   I agree.   She needs to be ousted. The sooner the better.

[duvaldude08]

Not to mention that she is bias. Out of one breathe she says, " I dont have a problem with gay people." but she thinks we should discriminate against them. To be honest, in the end I think the language will be worked out and the bill will pass. And she will be looking really stupid at the end. (more so than now)

[carpnter]

I would dare to say that Kim Daniels is in a direct violation of the separation of church and state since she is a directly a minister fiddling with a government position.

With Ms. Daniels's "cuck-a-roo" irrational ideology, I do not recognize her as a minister for ANY church including her "own".

She is a "tell it all, but doesn't do it all". Basically, she is a smokescreen with lack of proper action supporting her reputation.

I can go on all day on this, but I am not going to bore you all.

-Josh

While I agree that Daniels is a few fries short of a Happy Meal,  saying that her service as a city council member is a direct violation of separation of church and state is not at all accurate.   The Constitution does not separate church from state in that manner.  Otherwise one could argue that anyone with any religious beliefs should not be permitted to vote.

[wsansewjs]

I would dare to say that Kim Daniels is in a direct violation of the separation of church and state since she is a directly a minister fiddling with a government position.

With Ms. Daniels's "cuck-a-roo" irrational ideology, I do not recognize her as a minister for ANY church including her "own".

She is a "tell it all, but doesn't do it all". Basically, she is a smokescreen with lack of proper action supporting her reputation.

I can go on all day on this, but I am not going to bore you all.

-Josh

While I agree that Daniels is a few fries short of a Happy Meal,  saying that her service as a city council member is a direct violation of separation of church and state is not at all accurate.   The Constitution does not separate church from state in that manner.  Otherwise one could argue that anyone with any religious beliefs should not be permitted to vote.

I am not talking about anyone's religious belief while maintaining a government official. i never talked about anyone's religious belief. You just took my statement and twisted it around.

She is a pro-active minister WHILE she is a government official which in my own opinion, a direct violation of the separation of church and state.

- Josh

[duvalbill]

I would dare to say that Kim Daniels is in a direct violation of the separation of church and state since she is a directly a minister fiddling with a government position.

With Ms. Daniels's "cuck-a-roo" irrational ideology, I do not recognize her as a minister for ANY church including her "own".

She is a "tell it all, but doesn't do it all". Basically, she is a smokescreen with lack of proper action supporting her reputation.

I can go on all day on this, but I am not going to bore you all.

-Josh

While I agree that Daniels is a few fries short of a Happy Meal,  saying that her service as a city council member is a direct violation of separation of church and state is not at all accurate.   The Constitution does not separate church from state in that manner.  Otherwise one could argue that anyone with any religious beliefs should not be permitted to vote.

I am not talking about anyone's religious belief while maintaining a government official. i never talked about anyone's religious belief. You just took my statement and twisted it around.

She is a pro-active minister WHILE she is a government official which in my own opinion, a direct violation of the separation of church and state.

- Josh

These councilmen and councilwomen have day jobs too; what you're suggesting is discriminatory and asinine.  Just because Daniels shows difficulty in separating the two, doesn't mean others would have such difficulty.  Take a lap.

[carpnter]

I would dare to say that Kim Daniels is in a direct violation of the separation of church and state since she is a directly a minister fiddling with a government position.

With Ms. Daniels's "cuck-a-roo" irrational ideology, I do not recognize her as a minister for ANY church including her "own".

She is a "tell it all, but doesn't do it all". Basically, she is a smokescreen with lack of proper action supporting her reputation.

I can go on all day on this, but I am not going to bore you all.

-Josh

While I agree that Daniels is a few fries short of a Happy Meal,  saying that her service as a city council member is a direct violation of separation of church and state is not at all accurate.   The Constitution does not separate church from state in that manner.  Otherwise one could argue that anyone with any religious beliefs should not be permitted to vote.

I am not talking about anyone's religious belief while maintaining a government official. i never talked about anyone's religious belief. You just took my statement and twisted it around.

She is a pro-active minister WHILE she is a government official which in my own opinion, a direct violation of the separation of church and state.

- Josh

The Constitution is silent on the occupations of elected officials.  There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, there is a restriction on Congress when it comes to establishing a religion and prohibiting its free exercise.

Article VI prohibits any type of religious test when it comes to holding public office.  This was originally intended to prohibit requiring elected officials from belonging to a specific religion or denomination, but you can also apply it to you wanting to prohibit Daniels from serving.  What you propose is still a type of religious test in that a minister cannot serve as an elected official.

Article I of the state Constitution also guarantees religious freedom and prohibits penalizing those who practice their religion, this too could be applied to Daniels,  you cannot penalize her and prohibit her from serving because she is a minister.

[Debbie Thompson]

Separation of Church and State came from a letter written to a group of ministers in Connecticut (I think it was CT.)  It was intended to be an assurance the US would not "endorse" or "force" a particular church on the population a'la the way the English King forced the Church of England on people, causing them to flee to the New World for religious freedom.  It was not meant to completely separate them as it has been interpreted in the modern age.

That said, good points.  It sounds like CM Daniels is asking to CC to say it's OK for religious persons to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

[Timkin]

^ Which is not at all fair from a religious aspect, or with human rights.   She should not be able to use her position on CC and as a "Minister" all in the same breath.  Do one or the other.  Id prefer she did the latter, and get the hell out of the CC. Seriously. She is not an asset to CC.  She is a major liabililty.