Language is magical

I was asked some time ago by a child why I use such “big words”. My response at the time was that I didn't realize I used *big* words but I read a lot which puts the words in my head so I use them automatically. I’m not just doing it to appear smarter than anyone else. These are my thoughts this morning about language. 

Language us magical. By making sounds, you can share with others the ideas in your mind and understand their ideas. With the use of symbols, we can carry that further and write our ideas which can then be shared with anyone who understands those symbols. 

The first sounds humans made were most likely grunts and gestures which later evolved into basic words. As we agreed upon which sounds meant what idea, we learned to use different words to express different nuances. I’m not saying it’s improper to use those basic words—we even still fall back on grunts and gestures at times—but there myriad ways to use words to express your meaning. 

To use someone else’s words,

“So avoid using the word ‘very’ because it’s lazy. A man is not very tired, he is exhausted. Don’t use very sad, use morose. Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women - and, in that endeavor, laziness will not do. It also won’t do in your essays.”  ― N.H. Kleinbaum, Dead Poets Society

If you can't do the job...

People are all worked up about some woman going to jail for refusing to do her job. Not all that long ago a judge put a mother in jail and said she would stay there until she signed consent for her four-year-old son to have elective, cosmetic surgery on his penis. A surgery he doesn't want. She tearfully signed under threat of continued jail and loss of custody. She signed because the judge was going to arrange that she never see her son again. [It's been months and she still hasn't seen him.]

I’m not the only one who posted about this on Facebook many times and posted pictures of her crying her eyes out—clearly horrified at what she had to do--as she signed. Few people commented and few shared it. Where was the outrage then? Major news outlets wrote about but not many people cared about it. Evidently, the violation of this boy’s right to make his own cosmetic surgery decision when he’s grown and this woman’s right to not sign consent under duress isn't near as important as this woman claiming she doesn’t have to do a vital part of her job because it conflicts with her beliefs.

Leaving Heather and Chase’s story aside for now, let’s examine this County Clerk case rationally.

First, important comments from U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning, the judge who ruled on her case:

"Her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense. I myself have genuinely held religious beliefs ... but I took an oath."

"Mrs. Davis took an oath. Oaths mean things."

Here are the facts of the case.

1. Issuing marriage licenses to people who are legally qualified to marry is a part of the County Clerk’s job.

2. Ms. Davis, in her capacity as a government official, swore an oath to uphold the laws of the United States.

3. By United States law, two consenting adults who are not already married (and in some states, not closely related) are eligible to marry.

4. Rewriting laws is not a part of the County Clerk’s job.

Ms. Davis evidently claims the right to make judgments and decide which marriages she’ll allow based, not on US law or state law, but on her own beliefs.

Based on the facts, Ms. Davis is refusing to do her job and is violating her oath.*

I respect a person who holds to her principles; however, if her principles make her not be able to do her job and cause her to break her oath**, she needs to resign*** instead of disrupting the business of the County Clerk’s office. I think that's pretty cut-and-dried. I would respect her for that whether I agreed with her beliefs or not.

Do you or I get to continue employment if we refuse to do our job? I once had a government job. I knew that at some point I'd be expected to do something that went against my principles. When that time came, I resigned the job. A job that paid quite well and wasn't especially difficult. However, it was a violation of the United States Constitution as I understand it so I couldn't continue in good conscience.

As I understand it. That's important in this case. Ms. Davis interprets the Bible the way many people do; however, numerous others have their own understanding. Nevertheless, Ms. Davis has the right to hold to her understanding of the Bible that gay people are forbidden to marry.

Now let’s talk about the fact that she’s a government official. That is an important fact in this case. By my understanding of freedom, if she had her own business, it should be up to her if she provided services to gay people. Example: In order to respect everyone’s rights, a person cannot be forced to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding UNLESS baking wedding cakes is a part of his or her government job. Of course, that’s not the way we do it in this country where we confuse what the government cannot do with the doings of private individuals.

Okay. So Kim Davis, County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky claims she cannot issue marriage licenses to couples if the Bible says they cannot marry. You’d think this issue would have come up long ago, what, with the way she refuses to issue marriage licenses to divorced people. Oh, wait...she doesn’t have a problem with that? Interesting.

What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage? 

Matthew 19

19 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

² And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

³ The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

⁴ And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

⁵ And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

⁶ Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

⁷ They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

⁸ He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

⁹ And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

1 Corinthians 7

¹⁰ To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. ¹¹ But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

¹² To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. ¹³ And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. ¹⁴ For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

¹⁵ But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. ¹⁶ How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

A couple of prominent Christians weigh in.

For example, in Deuteronomy 24 God seems to condone divorce, yet in Luke 16:18 Christ associates divorce with adultery. Reading “Matthew 19:3–12 gives the explanation: divorce was not God’s intent from the beginning, and divorce and remarriage for any reason other than sexual immorality is adultery.”

Don Landis,

https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/the-whole-counsel-of-god/

---

"When people get too focused on redefining marriage, you’re distracted from the bigger problem – fornicators and adulterers."

"If the people sitting in the pews are fornicators and adulterers, the church will destroy marriages much more quickly than those outside the church. When God’s people mock marriage, God doesn’t take that lightly."

"I think the greatest threat to marriage is not other people’s definition of marriage… The church isn’t taking God’s definition of marriage seriously. It’s not other people sabotaging marriage that’s the problem."

Kirk Cameron, http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2014/05/forget_gay_marriage_fornicator.html

Therefore, if Ms. Davis issues marriage licenses to people who have been divorced,**** she’s a hypocrite and all the talk about her so-called principles should be lying out in the cattle yard.

---

*If after reading this blog post, you have reached a different conclusion, please explain this to me in the comments. If I’ve overlooked any facts, please add them.

**An oath most likely given before God and with her hand on a Bible.

***Or, is this a test case that was set up?

****Not to mention the fact that she’s on her fourth marriage. Her supporters are excusing these as mistakes that we shouldn’t bring up. But this is no ad hominem. No, this is relevant to her claims of adhering to the Bible. Unless her divorces met the rules from the Bible, these were all blatant violations of what she claims to be her beliefs. I’m not judging her for three divorces and remarriages—as far as I care, she can marry and divorce all she likes—but, given the details of the case, she shouldn’t be expecting others to live up to a standard that she, herself, cannot meet.

Earthchild has spoken. Now it's your turn.