Misunderstanding Martyrdom, or "You have not the authority."

                                                           +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

Let me ask you something:

Do you know the difference between a victim and a martyr?

I ask this because to me it seems like the majority of people don't know the difference. So, as a quick review:

A victim is someone harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action; a martyr is someone killed for their beliefs. You can kill someone for a reason other than their beliefs, and hence that's why all martyrs are victims but not all victims are martyrs.

I bring this up in light of the news reports of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who refuses to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Many articles have come out proclaiming her a martyr for the fight against gay so-called marriage. This might make sense since all the pro-side has is the poorly thought out Supreme Court ruling (whereas the righteous side has the Constitution)….

…but a martyr? Really? 

You can see how people like me might take offense at someone being called that when a) the people giving the label are not the ones who have authority to do so and b) if one were to look at all the declared martyrs, one will find besides their deaths, they were also consistent in what they believed.

This is key because much like certain beliefs (such as the Christian view on God, the concept of the Davidic Kingdom and the End Times), Christianity gets its view of martyrdom from the Jewish faith. 
In Judaism, martyrdom must include dedication to your faith; in other words, one must be consistent in what you believe concerning your faith. In fact, martyr comes from the Greek word for witness (as in, a witness for Jesus) but to be a witness, one must follow all teachings of their Divine Master. 

In news reports, it was pointed out the clerk had been married multiple times and even had children out of wedlock, both actions condemned by Jesus. Granted, these happened before her conversion, but I have yet to see any indication of whether she thinks both actions are wrong now or if she ever repented of her past misdeeds. 

Thus, it's not clear whether the martyr label works here.

As I predicted when I first heard of this case, someone has made a connection between her and St Thomas More, especially in light of her being sent to jail. Much like the martyrdom claim, this comparison doesn't work either.

For those not familiar with the story (or the 1966 film A Man for All Seasons), Thomas More was Lord High Chancellor under King Henry VIII. Although he had an historical disagreement with Henry on whether Henry could divorce his wife Catherine of Aragon, More resigned from office rather than keep his job by signing an oath that made the king supreme head of a church. That, combined with other events (one of which included not attending Henry's marriage to Ann Boleyn and several others that involved him saying "you have not the authority), More was tried, convicted and beheaded for high treason. He was noted 

Let's look at some key points again: resignation, appearances in relation to belief, and proper authority.

In relation to these, I conclude she should resign her position, because as long as she remains county clerk, her signature remains on the marriage licenses, thus she is legally culpable for these abominations and thus she appears to be supporting it. While she is correct in saying no court and no earthly authority has the right to redefine marriage, she is wrong in her approach. 

These sick people hate God's word and all responsibly it stands for. Stop giving them an inch and heed the lesson from St Thomas More: