Insidious Words

Have you ever noticed the words labeling things politically incorrect?  If you look closely, the original meanings of the most important relate to the ability to exercise clear judgement.  Consider the following pre-postmodern definitions of some words of political correctness:¹


The word prejudice also is an improper substitute for impartiality in that life requires many preliminary judgements  to guard against some harm or danger.  Women prejudge men regularly to avoid predators.  Others have to make judgements to avoid becoming the victims of fraud, murder, theft, or any other danger presented by the world.  As it is the world system would rather make us a prey than violate their imbalanced political worldview.

If you believe in the possibility of Freudian slips, this redefinition of words previously associated with critical thinking could be a major betrayal of political intent.  This may raise a serious question.  Is it possible that someone would use emotionally charged politics to subvert individual critical thinking?

This twisting of words began during the civil rights movement.  A movement that began with Christian help and approval was seen by a then silent minority as a means to push through their agenda.  Those who advocated sin freedoms had no basis to challenge the prevailing moral climate directly, but they could use another movement having a legitimate claim for change to advance theirs if they could gain their side.  They would ride this movement in silent hypocrisy, cleverly injecting their agenda whenever possible in the course of helping the other advance their more noble one.  This positioned them to coin the vocabulary of the movement.  The could not just say hatred of people is sin, or that God requires impartiality because their own consciences were contrary to those words.  The correct words were associated in their minds with others condemning the murder of infants, easy divorce, hidden homosexuality, theft in the guise of socialism, and other evil that they wanted to legitimize which were condemned by the Bible.  As unwitting minions of satan, they would coin new words:  words not pricking their conscience, words satan would give them, words seeking to subvert the critical thinking required for the public at large to recognize the insidious advance of their agenda, politically correct words.

If you think the sin faction of liberalism is not using their ethnic allies, consider the way they persecuted Herman Cain.  Uncle Tom from the mouth of liberals?  What hypocrisy!  In this light, liberal politics is just as suspect as any for the apparent defamation of his character.²  The possibility that he could split the vote they thought due to Obama could not allow his campaign to continue.

If you question that Christianity, not politics, is the real friend of the oppressed, consider history.  The abolitionists that could not bear with slavery were Christians.  They were not liberals either.  The evangelist Charles Finney was as fundamental as any abolitionist might be (although  the fundamental label had not been invented and converted to smear all Bible believers yet.).  On a side topic, it is interesting that after the issue of slavery had been raised, that the Civil War was actually fought over the issue of states rights versus federal rights.  Politics always has its own agenda in spite of its rhetoric.  Christian friendship with the oppressed was again demonstrated in that Evangelicals marched with peaceful protesters in the 1960's before racial politics took a hateful bent.  Even now, Word of Faith churches are giving the oppressed more help by encouragement of faith that creates prosperity than do failed political handouts that enslave rather than set free ever would.

In contrast, sin activists have worsened race relations by unwise policies that only create more hatred.  Steal from the working poor to give to others and the former are more impoverished and the latter are the more enslaved and both hate one another all the more.  Grand larceny in name of fairness; isn't the devil subtle?

This agenda does not end with choosing the words of political correctness.  It seeks also to censor voices aligned against its evil and sin generally.  Having programmed many not to think for themselves, they rally the same against opposing voices on the basis of a newly invented morality, one which is no morality at all.  Under their system, no one is allowed any longer to say that living together is whoredom or fornication, or that abortion is murder, or that homosexuality is an abomination.  Otherwise thoughtful Christians have been beguiled into self-censorship of Constitutionally protected religious free speech under false guise of "judge not."  Those who dare to speak boldly against sin in this culture are given a sermon by the ministers of political correctness in return, that the true words they speak are wrong by the standards of the new morality, a morality where the only wrong is to say there is a wrong according to Bible standards.  If some in the right in this thing accidentally use words of strong condemnation against sin without tact, this system rolls over them as if the wrong they condemned gained virtue by way of their human mistake.  Then evil gains ground on the basis of some hypocrisy or fluke.

Some time ago, I read the results of a reputable survey that revealed that in excess of eighty percent of Americans identify with or claim to be Christian.  How then can an elite minority silence or attempt to silence Christianity's voice on any pretext?

Take heed, we have been beguiled under false pretenses and our democracy with it!


¹Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary, 2003, Merriam-Webster Inc.
²See article Red Meat.
³See article Critical Thinking Required for additional reading on the misuse of words.

Document History
April 4, 2012  Created.
April 4, 2012  Made minor changes in wording and format.
April 13, 2012  Added footnote citing reference for dictionary definitions.