I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
If God gives folks options, I guess it would be foolish not to take advantage of them.......such as, how Ms. Davis explains why it was okay to go against God by getting divorced three times and commit adultery. Where was 'God's will' then?
I can guess what her answer would be to that.
I can guess too, but I don't disagree she cherry picks the parts she likes and discards the parts she doesn't, just like every other non-literalist Christian on the planet.
That is to say, I'd bet she has no issue wearing two different types of clothing, even though the Bible forbids it. She's probably eaten shrimp too, even though the Bible forbids that as well. Also on the list? Consulting psychics, *********ion, pornography, the wearing of jewelry, the consumption of bacon, tattoos, gossip, speaking in Church (as a woman) and disobeying the command of her husband.
We could talk to the end of days about the absurdities and contradictions in the Bible and why that makes the book unfit as a moral compass, but doing so in a country that reveres faith and religion, especially in its elected leaders, means breaking down that barrier first.
But with regard to Davis, the hypocrisy is simple. If you're going to cite Biblical law as a reason you refuse to adhere to a Supreme Court ruling by claiming "God's law" is above the laws of man, at the very least you should be a literalist and follow all the Bible's laws to a tee. Who is she, after all, to interpret which of God's laws apply to her, and which don't?
