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
1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two
stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
1 : a representation of something in outline;
especially : a human head or face represented or seen in a
2 : an outline seen or represented in sharp relief : CONTOUR
3 : a side or sectional elevation: as a : a drawing showing a
vertical section of the ground b : a vertical section of a soil
from the ground surface to the underlying unweathered material
4 : a set of data often in graphic form portraying the significant
features of something *a corporation's earnings profile*;
especially : a graph representing the extent to which an
individual exhibits traits or abilities as determined by tests or
5 : a concise biographical sketch
6 : degree or level of public exposure *trying to keep a low
profile* *a job with a high profile*
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
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!
Collegiate Dictionary, 2003, Merriam-Webster Inc.
article Red Meat.
additional reading on the misuse of words.
April 4, 2012 Created.
April 4, 2012 Made minor changes in wording and format.
April 13, 2012 Added footnote citing reference for dictionary