By now, the changing of the language has been a topic for countless pundits, political or otherwise. But what does it really mean, this penchant for removing the solid foundations of the way we communicate with one another? It means the death of our society.
Just as an earlier post on this blog recognized that the SCOTUS had destroyed the rule of law (and with it, in the philosophical realm, the nation), the destruction of the language is the destruction of the civilized society that remains.
We need a consistent understanding of language to communicate. Without communication, we cannot build nor maintain a society. The Bible makes this quite clear in the account of the tower of Babel.
"1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."~ Gen 11:1-9
This twisting of the language means that justice is unobtainable - both because the law is become as malleable as the language and because the people are become unable to communicate. If one believes strongly that justice will consist of one thing, but society has decided that justice is whatever the individual with the most powerful voice declares it to be, then where is true justice to be found?
If a government cannot provide that most basic function of government - consistent legal standards through which judgement and justice may be obtained by the population, then such a government forces the people to take justice into their own hands. And, when enough people decide to do so, there will be violence because there is no other recourse.
The government of the USA was set up to leave the authority of the government in the hands of the people. However, such a safeguard REQUIRES a shared set of ethics, morals and values among the people. And a shared set of morals, values and ethics requires a shared language.
Islam demonstrates the insidious power of language as a weapon very well. A muslim will say "Islam means peace"and be quite truthful about it. A non muslim will hear that as; "islam means non-aggression/absence of conflict". A scholar of islam will recognize that, when spoken by a muslim "peace" means "submission to islam, which is a very different thing.
How does a society reclaim it's language in such times as these? When we have come so far down the road towards destruction that one cannot be sure what is meant by such basic words as "man" or "woman" unless one knows the political views of the speaker and possibly not even then? How may we fight when we have no words that may be relied upon to define the enemy?
"Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding." ~ Prov 23
Showing posts with label legislation by redefinition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation by redefinition. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 1, 2019
Sunday, September 13, 2015
A Matter of Convenience
Because I seem to end up having this conversation very often of late, I am posting here the last reply I have made on it because It will be easier for me to simply come here and copy it and paste it into those conversations where it has become necessary to make the points therein or to grab the url and paste that. My apologies to those looking for something more substantive.
As far as the government is concerned,(at least, when you strip away all the nonsense, it should be thus) the word "marriage" is a term that defines a specific legal contract. That contract, at it's most basic level, says:"The two parties to the contract agree that, if the resources of their bodies are to be used to produce children, they will be used in that manner only with the other party to the contract."
It has the three required elements necessary to make a contract; an offer, an acceptance and a consideration.(The consideration being that they give up the right to produce children with the resources of their bodies with any person aside from the other party to the contract.)
This contract neither requires the production of children, nor does it prohibit adoption. A same sex couple must go outside of that contract to produce offspring, therefore they may not make that contract - and, indeed, I should think that any court would void such a contract between same sex couples because it would deny them their self-evident and unalienable right to procreate. (This is not a problem for couples who are infertile or damaged in some way that would ordinarily preclude the production of offspring because, between a man and a woman it is always theoretically possible for them to produce a child.)
I am shocked that the members of the highest court in America decided to exercise WILL rather than JUDGEMENT(in the sense outlined in Federalist paper #78) in a matter so basic to the health and well being of society. They did the same thing a few days before this ruling, when they exercised WILL rather than JUDGEMENT to rule by the corruption of the dictionary, in the health care subsidies case.
You (the individual to whom this was a reply said this)say that no individual has a "right" to the definition of a word - but societies, and particularly societies governed by the rule of law, do. A word in the law, MUST mean what it meant when it was first written, else the law becomes of none effect. A mere thing of clay in the hands of the judiciary. And, if you want to live in a society where the definition of words in the law is constantly changing to suit the whims of those in power, I suggest you move someplace where the rule of law is not respected. A communist nation perhaps.
May the definition of a word be changed from time to time? Yes, but only with the gravest consideration and proper notice that from this time forward this word now means something other than what it has meant heretofore and even then, if one has a proper respect for history, there must be a new term created to describe what that term meant before it was changed, and all the laws containing the original term must be changed to the new term. Indeed, the whole process would be so cumbersome that I cannot imagine - especially with a term that has had such usage since the very foundation of this nation, a term such as "marriage" - that anyone would see it as the viable alternative to doing what should have been done in this case.
To wit: find a term that describes the contract same sex couples could make and let them go through the same legislative process that married people went through to get the same benefits. To do otherwise is to essentially destroy the rule of law by creating a precedent that says an individual or group may gain a legislative shortcut to their desired goals by having the courts legislate through redefinition as has happened here. And, since the courts are prohibited from creating law by the Constitution, whether through outright declaration or through jiggery-pokery, the SCOTUS ruling is not law and should result in every member of that court who voted for it to be removed from the bench for bad behavior.
As far as the government is concerned,(at least, when you strip away all the nonsense, it should be thus) the word "marriage" is a term that defines a specific legal contract. That contract, at it's most basic level, says:"The two parties to the contract agree that, if the resources of their bodies are to be used to produce children, they will be used in that manner only with the other party to the contract."
It has the three required elements necessary to make a contract; an offer, an acceptance and a consideration.(The consideration being that they give up the right to produce children with the resources of their bodies with any person aside from the other party to the contract.)
This contract neither requires the production of children, nor does it prohibit adoption. A same sex couple must go outside of that contract to produce offspring, therefore they may not make that contract - and, indeed, I should think that any court would void such a contract between same sex couples because it would deny them their self-evident and unalienable right to procreate. (This is not a problem for couples who are infertile or damaged in some way that would ordinarily preclude the production of offspring because, between a man and a woman it is always theoretically possible for them to produce a child.)
I am shocked that the members of the highest court in America decided to exercise WILL rather than JUDGEMENT(in the sense outlined in Federalist paper #78) in a matter so basic to the health and well being of society. They did the same thing a few days before this ruling, when they exercised WILL rather than JUDGEMENT to rule by the corruption of the dictionary, in the health care subsidies case.
You (the individual to whom this was a reply said this)say that no individual has a "right" to the definition of a word - but societies, and particularly societies governed by the rule of law, do. A word in the law, MUST mean what it meant when it was first written, else the law becomes of none effect. A mere thing of clay in the hands of the judiciary. And, if you want to live in a society where the definition of words in the law is constantly changing to suit the whims of those in power, I suggest you move someplace where the rule of law is not respected. A communist nation perhaps.
May the definition of a word be changed from time to time? Yes, but only with the gravest consideration and proper notice that from this time forward this word now means something other than what it has meant heretofore and even then, if one has a proper respect for history, there must be a new term created to describe what that term meant before it was changed, and all the laws containing the original term must be changed to the new term. Indeed, the whole process would be so cumbersome that I cannot imagine - especially with a term that has had such usage since the very foundation of this nation, a term such as "marriage" - that anyone would see it as the viable alternative to doing what should have been done in this case.
To wit: find a term that describes the contract same sex couples could make and let them go through the same legislative process that married people went through to get the same benefits. To do otherwise is to essentially destroy the rule of law by creating a precedent that says an individual or group may gain a legislative shortcut to their desired goals by having the courts legislate through redefinition as has happened here. And, since the courts are prohibited from creating law by the Constitution, whether through outright declaration or through jiggery-pokery, the SCOTUS ruling is not law and should result in every member of that court who voted for it to be removed from the bench for bad behavior.
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
"Marriage"?
From the standpoint of our government,(not God), the word "marriage" refers to a very specific contract. [i.e. a contract between two parties wherein the offer, acceptance and consideration is that the parties to the contract are agreeing that if the resources of their bodies are to be used to create children they will only be used with the other party to the contract.]
The term "marriage" has, from the founding of this nation, referred to only a man and a woman. [And in, truth it can only refer to a man and a woman because same sex couples would be required to go outside of that contract to produce children. This would deny them their self evident and unalienable right to reproduce and therefore would not be a lawful contract for them.] In fact, in many states homosexuality was a capital offence.
What the SCOTUS has done, is to give a specific group a legislative shortcut to benefits by redefining the term marriage. This has, at it's essence, destroyed the rule of law. Because if words in the law do not mean what they meant when they were written, then the law is of no effect, because who knows what words may have their meanings changed tomorrow by such a capricious court? "Child", "Adult", "color", "speed" "limit"? Imagine the chaos that will ensue.
The proper course of action would have been for the SCOTUS to advise the homosexual community to get their own term to describe their contract and go through the legislative process just like married people did while leaving the decisions of whether or not to grant benefits of that nature to this new contract to the individual states.
This is not what the SCOTUS did and for their destruction of the rule of law,(along with their usurpation of the powers of Congress to legislate and to "control the purse strings" in the deathcare ruling the day before the "marriage" ruling, they should be removed from the bench.
Is it possible to remove a justice from the bench? Yes, and it starts in the House. Call your Rep.
"18 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: 3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. 4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; 5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. 6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. 7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? 8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" ~Luke 18:1-8
2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: 3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. 4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; 5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. 6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. 7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? 8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" ~Luke 18:1-8
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Marriage in Wisconsin and the United States
One of the most appalling things about the entire "gay marriage" issue has been the failure of the judiciary to recognize the fundamental meaning of the term "marriage" from a strictly logical standpoint. Marriage is a contract between two individuals regarding the production of children in which the parties to the contract mutually agree that any children they produce from the resources of their bodies will be produced with the other party to the contract. This contract does not require the production of children, nor does it prohibit adoption. Such a contract does, however, require that the parties to the contract be one male and one female because that is the only combination of individuals that can produce offspring between them.
No religious arguments are necessary. In fact, I am convinced that they are merely a red herring to distract and demean any who might oppose the efforts of the lgbt political power seeking machine..
Homosexual couples say they want the legislative benefits that come with marriage, but they do not want to go through the legislative process to get them. This undermines the rule of law
To redefine a legal term like marriage to provide a legislative shortcut for one group of people is nothing less than to undermine the rule of law itself. Words, particularly words as powerful as "marriage", must mean what they meant when they were written in the law. If they do not then no legislation is binding. It cannot be, because next week or next year key words may be subject to having their definitions changed to provide more legislative shortcuts.
Here is the 500 pound gorilla in the room that everyone sees but that no one wants to talk about: It is also necessary to legislate these benefits by redefinition because a sane society will not condone such an unhealthy lifestyle choice, nor should it. But the problem is that this method of handling the challenges of homosexual couples who are raising children has serious, long term consequences that should not be ignored or shoved under the rug to make people feel good about themselves. The destruction of the rule of law by undermining the integrity of the language is not something reasonable people should ignore.
This is reflective of a society which has rejected the existence of absolute moral values as their guiding principles. In other nations this might not be such a big deal, for the people in other nations are under the authority of their governments. For America, however, it is a disaster of epic proportions.
This government was DESIGNED for a moral and religious people. Not because the founders were religious fanatics(although I have no doubt that they would be counted as such in today's society) but because in order for a people to be the repository of governmental authority, the people must have a shared set of absolute values outside of the government in order to promote trust and consistency in the society itself.
It is shameful that the judiciary of this nation is so lacking in logic skills that they cannot work out this simple thing. I do not expect the same selfish people who value their own appearance of patriotism over the lives of our military to understand or sacrifice for the preservation of the most successful nation in the history of the world, but I do expect it from the judiciary.
"But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors."~James 2:9
No religious arguments are necessary. In fact, I am convinced that they are merely a red herring to distract and demean any who might oppose the efforts of the lgbt political power seeking machine..
Homosexual couples say they want the legislative benefits that come with marriage, but they do not want to go through the legislative process to get them. This undermines the rule of law
To redefine a legal term like marriage to provide a legislative shortcut for one group of people is nothing less than to undermine the rule of law itself. Words, particularly words as powerful as "marriage", must mean what they meant when they were written in the law. If they do not then no legislation is binding. It cannot be, because next week or next year key words may be subject to having their definitions changed to provide more legislative shortcuts.
Here is the 500 pound gorilla in the room that everyone sees but that no one wants to talk about: It is also necessary to legislate these benefits by redefinition because a sane society will not condone such an unhealthy lifestyle choice, nor should it. But the problem is that this method of handling the challenges of homosexual couples who are raising children has serious, long term consequences that should not be ignored or shoved under the rug to make people feel good about themselves. The destruction of the rule of law by undermining the integrity of the language is not something reasonable people should ignore.
This is reflective of a society which has rejected the existence of absolute moral values as their guiding principles. In other nations this might not be such a big deal, for the people in other nations are under the authority of their governments. For America, however, it is a disaster of epic proportions.
This government was DESIGNED for a moral and religious people. Not because the founders were religious fanatics(although I have no doubt that they would be counted as such in today's society) but because in order for a people to be the repository of governmental authority, the people must have a shared set of absolute values outside of the government in order to promote trust and consistency in the society itself.
It is shameful that the judiciary of this nation is so lacking in logic skills that they cannot work out this simple thing. I do not expect the same selfish people who value their own appearance of patriotism over the lives of our military to understand or sacrifice for the preservation of the most successful nation in the history of the world, but I do expect it from the judiciary.
"But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors."~James 2:9
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
