Christianity and Political Correctness

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tommy999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Son_of_Niall said:
You might try reading your own signature.
Click to expand...
The problem is that what liberals call offensive is Christ. Thus LA just threw the cross off their city symbols, and academics refuse to use BC/AD. There are two different ideas of offensive being used.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Lucretius said:
The problem is that what liberals call offensive is Christ. Thus LA just threw the cross off their city symbols, and academics refuse to use BC/AD. There are two different ideas of offensive being used.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
Click to expand...
The BC/AD thing is silly anyway because even when they use ‘BCE’ it still acknowledges a starting point: the birth of Christ.
 
:juggle: :hmmm:

The bottom line is, they keep moving the target. Retarded is literally correct; growth or development was retarded in some way - prevented from reaching full potential.

Now the polite word is disabled. Pretty soon, that’ll be a no-no. Whatever word becomes common starts to lose its true meaning and starts to be applied incorrectly or with derision, and then suddenly we must invent newer, longer, more convoluted ways of saying the same thing.

The whole thing reminds me of the thief saying, “I don’t call it stealing… I prefer ‘borrowing without permission’.”

The whole political correctness thing is an exercise in denying reality.

Rude people will be rude. You can ignore them or walk away. If what they say is really so intolerable, let them stew in their own juices. If they hang around people who are just as rude as them, fine - why do you have to go near them at all? The bottom line is that people have the right to say whatever they want, stupid or not, true or not. We don’t have to listen, and we don’t have to take them seriously, but free speech is all or nothing.

I voluntarily modify my behavior according to who I’m with. This is something we all do. But I tend to hang out with people with whom I do not have to mind certain niceties I put on elsewhere. This is everyone’s right. And truthfully, the hypersensitive annoy me, because it becomes obvious the problem is their sensitivity, not anything external.

No one minds my sensitivities. No one cares. I either deal with it, ignore it, or vacate the premises. Maybe everyone should focus a little more on that, instead of running around being offended all the time. What a thought! :eek:
 
Son_of_Niall said:
The BC/AD thing is silly anyway because even when they use ‘BCE’ it still acknowledges a starting point: the birth of Christ.
Click to expand...
Liberals aren’t offended of Wodin, Thor, and Friyya, and so they tolerate the cultural convention that names the fourth, fifth, and sixth days of the week. But because they are offended by Christ, they remove the names even though the substance of the calender still is based around Christ. It’s not motivated by religious tolerance, but religious intolerance and hatred of Christ.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Lucretius said:
Liberals aren’t offended of Wodin, Thor, and Friyya, and so they tolerate the cultural convention that names the fourth, fifth, and sixth days of the week. But because they are offended by Christ, they remove the names even though the substance of the calender still is based around Christ. It’s not motivated by religious tolerance, but religious intolerance and hatred of Christ.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
Click to expand...
EXACTLY. I will NEVER use anything other than BC and AD, and no good Christian should, either. It’s always been called that, I never agreed to change it, the vast majority of the world was never consulted. There is no ‘Common Era’ - that’s just pathetic. What was common about it? What is it common to? Nothing, other than it happened BEFORE CHRIST. This is ridiculous. Language is important, and it belongs to US. We have the right to keep the Godless from taking it away from us.
 
SilverShadow22 said:
EXACTLY. I will NEVER use anything other than BC and AD, and no good Christian should, either. It’s always been called that, I never agreed to change it, the vast majority of the world was never consulted. There is no ‘Common Era’ - that’s just pathetic. What was common about it? What is it common to? Nothing, other than it happened BEFORE CHRIST. This is ridiculous. Language is important, and it belongs to US. We have the right to keep the Godless from taking it away from us.
Click to expand...
The irony is that the use of the term “common era” implies that Christ’s life is still cardinally important to all of history, to the “common history.”

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
spiderweb said:
While we should strive not to be offensive to people, that doesn’t mean we go to stupid extremes. While certain terms almost always have a derogatory meaning, some do not.

But I also notice that often times the same people who are offended have no problems being offensive themselves. Example: Among the gay community, “straight” people are very commonly referred to as (due to politeness: word omitted) and it’s usually not intended as a compliment. But the politically correct crowd has no problems with that.

Being “politically correct”, also includes a subtle form of control and censorship. Unless you conform to this one way of speaking, you have no right to speak. Since you have no right to speak, anything you say has no value. You have no credibility as a person. You are a “bad person”, which is looked at by many as being sub-human.

We see this happen all the time. If you don’t use the politically correct term, you are a bigot, racist, prejudiced, etc, and just by that so-called “fact” alone, you have lost all credibility. It is defamation of character.
Click to expand...
This. And now we have some college students who want to get rid of the First Amendment in regards to free speech. This is what so-called “political correctness” can lead to.

I am polite and considerate of others’ feelings, but I tell the truth without rancor, and if someone does not like it, that is not my problem. I do not scream, raise my voice, get sarcastic, etc. which I have seen over and over again in the PC crowd when they don’t like something.
 
While it’s not in the OP’s definition, the connotation “political correctness” has for me, that simple politeness, and certainly Christian charity, doesn’t have, is one of insincerity. That a person who is PC, is avoiding the use of certain buzzwords merely for the sake of appeasing certain groups, NOT because they actually are devoid of prejudiced thoughts against them.

I also think many who are obsessed with being PC do so as a form of “slacktivism”, focusing on easily correctable injustices then patting themselves on the back for it. For example, the term “colored person” used to be standard and not considered offensive at all, the NAACP included the term. Then it became un-PC. Note the whole brouhaha over the term “CP time” at a recent Democratic political event. Even though much of the news coverage of it actually had to explain why the term might be offensive: “the term implies that black people are often late”. Well, if you have to explain to the general public why something is offensive, then maybe it’s not that offensive at all.

However, I also know that “person of color” or “POC” is currently one of the preferred adjectives. I just don’t seen any significant difference between the PC term and the non-PC one. Indeed, I can even imagine someone arguing that expecting a POC to arrive to an event on time is a bigoted expectation born out of ethnocentrism about the importance of timeliness that is only valid for a WASP culture.

On the other hand, I do think it is courteous to call a group or individual what he, she, they, etc., want to be called. But I’d call this common courtesy. I’m not Catholic, and I for the longest time had a block against calling priests “Father”, nuns “Sister”, etc. And indeed, most of the clergy and religious I know would likely NOT run around proclaiming how offended they were if I didn’t. However, I have become more comfortable calling them what they want to be called.
 
CB_Catholic said:
This. And now we have some college students who want to get rid of the First Amendment in regards to free speech. This is what so-called “political correctness” can lead to.

I am polite and considerate of others’ feelings, but I tell the truth without rancor, and if someone does not like it, that is not my problem. I do not scream, raise my voice, get sarcastic, etc. which I have seen over and over again in the PC crowd when they don’t like something.
Click to expand...
Good example, CB Catholic. I try to do that as well.
 
Well, honestly, if you don’t believe in their right to be called ‘Father’ … Then don’t call them ‘Father’.

I would not call a Protestant clergy Father, because I don’t believe they have the right to it. Only a validly ordained priest, to my way of thinking, merits that title, other than my actual father.

I believe I’d settle for Sir, in cases where someone merited respect, but I would not, for instance, call a leader in a different religion something that implied I accepted their religious authority.

It’s my nature to be precise, and above all honest to myself; and I don’t begrudge other people their particular standards, nor do I expect everyone to live up to mine. It’s just how I am. 🤷
 
ToeInTheWater said:
While it’s not in the OP’s definition, the connotation “political correctness” has for me, that simple politeness, and certainly Christian charity, doesn’t have, is one of insincerity. That a person who is PC, is avoiding the use of certain buzzwords merely for the sake of appeasing certain groups, NOT because they actually are devoid of prejudiced thoughts against them.

I also think many who are obsessed with being PC do so as a form of “slacktivism”, focusing on easily correctable injustices then patting themselves on the back for it. For example, the term “colored person” used to be standard and not considered offensive at all, the NAACP included the term. Then it became un-PC. Note the whole brouhaha over the term “CP time” at a recent Democratic political event. Even though much of the news coverage of it actually had to explain why the term might be offensive: “the term implies that black people are often late”. Well, if you have to explain to the general public why something is offensive, then maybe it’s not that offensive at all.

However, I also know that “person of color” or “POC” is currently one of the preferred adjectives. I just don’t seen any significant difference between the PC term and the non-PC one. Indeed, I can even imagine someone arguing that expecting a POC to arrive to an event on time is a bigoted expectation born out of ethnocentrism about the importance of timeliness that is only valid for a WASP culture.

On the other hand, I do think it is courteous to call a group or individual what he, she, they, etc., want to be called. But I’d call this common courtesy. I’m not Catholic, and I for the longest time had a block against calling priests “Father”, nuns “Sister”, etc. And indeed, most of the clergy and religious I know would likely NOT run around proclaiming how offended they were if I didn’t. However, I have become more comfortable calling them what they want to be called.
Click to expand...
Agreed, ToeInTheWater. If I remember correctly, Martin Luther King even referred to his race as “negro” in some of his Civil Rights speeches. That term apparently is out of favor now. I have used “black” and “African American” but do not always keep up on current terminology as I get older so I am somewhat concerned I will slip up inadvertently some day, kind of like how I lost track of the current “cool handshake” when I see my nephews at family gatherings. Alas, I fear I am becoming an old fart – or is that not politically correct to say anymore, either? 🙂
 
Tommy999 said:
As Spiderweb mentioned, being “politically correct”, also includes a subtle form of control and censorship. Unless you conform to a particular belief or a specific way of speaking, you have no right to speak. Since you have no right to speak, anything you say has no value. You have no credibility as a person and are labeled such things as a bigot, racist, anti-this or anti-that.

For example, if you disagree with abortion like I do and have religious, moral, and practical reasons for opposing it, you may be labeled as “anti-choice” or against women’s health by politically correct secularists who think of you as some sort of bigot or intolerant person.

I think political correctness can be used as a means of silencing those who disagree with something or to stain the reputation of people whose beliefs or opinions differ with those who are in political power or who control the media at the time.
Click to expand...
You basically pinned down the whole problem with PC: it’s just a tool to be used by the Powers that Be.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Tommy999 said:
Agreed, ToeInTheWater. If I remember correctly, Martin Luther King even referred to his race as “negro” in some of his Civil Rights speeches. That term apparently is out of favor now. I have used “black” and “African American” but do not always keep up on current terminology as I get older so I am somewhat concerned I will slip up inadvertently some day, kind of like how I lost track of the current “cool handshake” when I see my nephews at family gatherings. Alas, I fear I am becoming an old fart – or is that not politically correct to say anymore, either? 🙂
Click to expand...
The PC term would probably be something like an “elderly gaseous rectal emission”. 😉
 
Tommy999 said:
Agreed, ToeInTheWater. If I remember correctly, Martin Luther King even referred to his race as “negro” in some of his Civil Rights speeches. That term apparently is out of favor now. I have used “black” and “African American” but do not always keep up on current terminology as I get older so I am somewhat concerned I will slip up inadvertently some day, kind of like how I lost track of the current “cool handshake” when I see my nephews at family gatherings. Alas, I fear I am becoming an old fart – or is that not politically correct to say anymore, either? 🙂
Click to expand...
Yep. And it’s especially daft when they start calling black people in France African-American. Like I’ve heard done before.
 
Tommy999 said:
What are your thoughts on political correctness and whether Christians should adhere to it at all or not.

For the sake of discussion, I found this definition of it on the Internet, although this wasn’t the only one, but it gets the point across:

** Political Correctness:
“Agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people” **

Do you think it is good or bad for society?

Should Christians be politically correct?

Do you consider yourself to be fully politically correct, partially, or not at all?

Here are a couple of examples of what I consider to be politically correct statements:
  1. Referring to a homosexual as “gay”.
  2. Referring to a child who misbehaves on a regular basis as “behaviorally challenged”.
As for me, I try to follow the Golden Rule and treat others as I would like to be treated but sometimes I get the sense that political correctness has gone too far, as in the case in California last December where a neighbor of terrorists didn’t report their suspicious behavior because she didn’t want people to think she was prejudiced. It turned out that her neighbors were indeed terrorists who later killed a bunch of people at a Christmas party.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what I think about all this. I get so irritated with it all. However, there may be some good from it all. Stopping to think before one speaks is not a bad thing. We can learn ways to speak honestly yet with kindness. That doesn’t mean the we should hide our heads under the sand and pretend that there are not awfully stupid things going on. I sometimes think that the liberal extremists seem to know which buttons to push and Christians fall for it every time. I wish I had a better answer.
 
As far as I can tell those who uphold being against political correctness are those who don’t believe in being polite. Of course, that may be because I was taught by someone was born in 1932 and trained by nuns who had no patience with rudeness (some of whom were her aunts and cut her no slack).

We have become a nation of extremely rude people who think everyone must believe exactly like we do just because we say so. We no longer believe that example is good enough.You must believe because I said so.

And we wonder why people don’t believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top