Politically correct? Sick of it or love it?

[Guest stevej]

Politically Correct?

For many years i have observed Christians and churches attempt to be politically correct. What i find unacceptable is the watered down version of the Gospel because we don't wish to offend. Jesus was both spiritually correct and politically incorrect in some instances.

I do not see our Saviour backing down from the Religious leadership when they were incorrect. When confronted with the woman caught in adultery, i believe Sinner is correct in his analysis that the scribes understood exactly what He was writing in the dirt. Their sins! If you notice it was the scribes who left not the pharisees.

This may sound radical to some, but where have we lost our backbone to call sin what it is Sin! Christians and churches..and yes pastors and leadership in churches need to stand up for the Lord. If people are offended by the message, maybe the message is ringing to true. If at least some people are not offended by the message..the message needs to be checked.

Thats my 2 cents worth!

[eric]

Steve, you're right and we can only blame ourselves because we have sat back and kept quiet about it and the churches are as bad. Until the late 70s -early 80s a homosexual was called queer or poof but now they're called gay. Won't be long until society or the libertarians will have a pc term for murderers and rapists. We are not supposed to call the kids money box a piggy bank in case we offend the muslims. Frankly, pc makes me want to puke.

[Iryssa]

Well, I don't think it's necessary to call homosexuals "queers" or "poofs," but yeah. Political correctness has gone way overboard. I understand its early uses to keep people from being unnecessarily and deliberately offensive...but come on! The fact that retailers aren't allowed to say "Merry Christmas!" anymore is just rediculous.

[Leonard]

Now that I am "chronologically enhanced" I'm become "political correctness-challenged"!

[buckthesystem]

Political correctness seems to be at the root of a lot of evil today. Even more so than when it was first invented in (I think) about 1920 in Russia with Lennin's doctrine where it was used to "redefine truths".

Politically correct ideas are dangerous because people accept them so readily. When words that used to have an obvious meaning are twisted and distorted to mean "anything you want them to mean" and are used as a way to justify all sorts of (previously thought of as strange) ideas, it is time to ask a lot of questions and examine motives more closely. An example would be the word "safety". The word used to mean simply "the fact of being safe". Now it is used as an excuse to put walls around playgrounds, imprison and fine people for not putting lockable fences on their swimming pools, "wimp down" playgrounds etc. And if anyone objects they are ridiculed by the words "you don't want to make children unsafe, do you?"

Another example of using language to control peoples' thinking is this: I remember some years ago being involved in the education system just when it was "fashionable" to close all "special needs" classes at primary schools and "mainstream" physically and mentally disabled kids into ordinary classes. The education system anticipated some objections to this so they came up with a wonderfully simple plan. They merely called it "inclusive education", and told anyone who dissented from this idea "now you don't want to "exclude" these children, do you?"

Political correctness can also be used to win (or rather halt) any argument whatsoever, i.e. if anyone said they were sick of illegal immigrants coming into their country all I need to do is yell at them that they are "racist" or "anti-multiculturalism" and most will back down. Or if anyone is arguing that there is a fundamental difference between men and women, again, all that is needed is to yell "sexist" or "anti-feminist" and that ends the conversation. Likewise anybody who claims that homosexuality is a sin can be labelled "bigotted", "homophobic", "intolerant" or "gay bashing"

We now have "lesbian fathers", "prostitutes" are merely "sex workers" or "working in the sex industry" and anyone who disputes this is just being "negative and discouraging". I recently found out that for sports games for the under 13s they don't even keep score any more because "everyone is a winner" and "it is not about winning but participating".

Some of the most incredible ones I have come across lately are "fiscally challenged" = "short of money" or "cashflow neutral" = "absolutely broke".

A couple of years ago now I was completing an application form for work at a department store and came across: Gender - male, female or "other" (I was very tempted to tick "other") and the question: "Are you differently abled"? - The manager explained to me that that word used to be "disabled" but it was changed because some might find it offensive.

I will always remember years ago my daughter coming home from school with a certificate with gold stars on it, for coming "11th in the form I girls' section" in the cross country running race". I asked her how many "form I girls" were in the race and she said "11".

One of the most sinister applications of political correctness is that calling someone a racist is like calling someone a witch in seventeenth century Massachusetts. It inspires fear and dread and loathing and otherwise sensible people collapse and wilt when you accuse them of being a racist. The onus is never on the accuser to prove it. The onus is always on the accused to show that he is not. It overturns the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

But probably one of the most insidious affects of political correctness is that it tries (and succeeds on the surface anyway) to change attitudes, an example being that "there is no sin any more, there are just lifestyle choices".

Another aspect of political correctness that is particularly sinister is "affirmative action". This is a true evil because, amongst other outcomes, particularly successful and hardworking black individuals are automatically suspected of being "Affirmative Action" beneficiaries.

However, the absolute winner tonight in the "politically correct euphemism stakes" must be "a foetus is really just a part of a woman's body and she must have control over her own body so therefore abortion of a pregnancy is not snuffing out a life but giving back to the woman control over her own body". This, combined with redefining the word "accidental" to include "accidental pregnancies" (I have always wondered just how you can get pregnant purely by accident - maybe you fell off a ladder onto your husband or some other guy) makes it very hard to persuade any young person that abortion is a sin.

Maybe we should see who can come up with the most euphemisms or politically correct redefinitions of words.

Gee, I hope I haven't offended anyone.

[LadyGunivere]

I'm just bumping the topic for sake of everyone to see..Hopefully that is alright?

[Jesus Admirer]

The Bible warns against calling good evil and evil good, and the liberal agenda is to call evil good and good evil in politics today. The atheistic A.C.L.U. is working overtime to diminish and snuff out Christianity by defending UnGodliness or anything contrary to Christianity.

So the gay/lesbian agenda is defended in the name of diversity! Abortion is defended in the name of choice. Filthy music is defended in the name of freedom of expresion, while Christianity is under attack by the A.C.L.U.

The A.C.L.U. claims to defend liberties, while fighting against Christian liberties. (Calling good evil and evil good.) They disguise their evil agenda by calling gay/lesbian life styles diversity, abortion choice, and filty music freedom of expression.

Yet! Their diversity agenda doesn't include Christianity in schools and politics, as they fight to get Christianity and the Bible out of schools, so a Christian student dorsn't have a free choice what book to read in school. (So much for their free choice agenda!) The A.C.L.U. fights to get Christian expression censored in all public places, because they say it might offend someone, yet they have no concern as to how a humanistic atheist agenda offends a Christian in school. (The atheist humanists will teach and push anything they choose, while putting a gag in the mouth of Christianity!)

Godly Truth: God created us male and female, which is what God intended! Abortion isn't about choice! It's about snuffing out a heartbeat, while prolifers fight to keep that little heart beating.

Good link exposing the A.C.L.U.: http://www.debrajmsmith.com/

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Edited February 13, 2007 by Jesus Admirer

[Jesus Admirer]

One thing that needs to definately be politically corrected is the separation of church and state issue.

There are some secular organizations that believe the first amendment of the United States Constitution Bill of Rights would suggest that there be separation between Church and State. Here's the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. (U.S. Constitution.)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Notice that it says (congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) But also notice that it says or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) Which means congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion. Yet! There are many who believe in laws that would prohibit freedom of religion in schools and politics.(But above, the constitution forbids laws that would deny the freedom of one to exercise their faith)

Also notice it goes on to include freedom of speech, the press, and the right of people to peacefully to assemble.. Since freedom of speech, the press, and right to assemble are included in this first amendment, then Christians have the right to exercise their religion, just as much as the press has their right to write articles, and also people have the right to free speech. (The press has their rights in schools and political affairs, and they defend their right to be involved with government from this first amendment.) But notice that freedom to exercise ones religion includes everywhere the press is allowed to exercise their freedom of press. Both religion and press connected to the same thought in the first amendment.

Truth Is: The phrase "separation of church and state" isn't mentioned or exist in the Constitution of The United States of America. It appears in the old Soviet Union's Constitution in Article 52: Religion, it states,

[Oh Hamburgers!]

I like political correctness to a point, because it helps respect people of all different backgrounds. Today however things are getting a bit out of hand. I mean, calling a dog an 'animal companion' is just ridiculous. Does a dog care what you call it? No! So call it whatever you want!

But political correctness is good to a point, as has been described earlier with the "n" word, and calling homosexuals 'poofs' etc. It's just good manners, and a good thing to do to treat people with respect.

[kittyjo]

Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times

Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton

Monday, April 8, 2002

News Max

Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose?

I looked it up. It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the "Frankfurt School." It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

The problem? Why wasn't communism spreading?

Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.

What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.

And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.

One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices.

And call it something that sounds positive: "Political Correctness."

Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930s, wrote an article on the "correct" handling of contradictions among the people. "Sensitive training"