Sophia's Lexionary

[jasd]

PC (Political Correctness); censorship by stealth

[Woody]

dgrimm ... Ahhh come on. Tell us how you really feel.

[phkrause]

I second that dgrimm.

pk

[SivartM]

Of course, some people who are so proud of themselves for not being "politically correct" are just plain rude.

[Nan]

PC-ness seems cyclic....I think it was more PC to be PC 15 years

ago than now, at least in this part of the world.

[jasd]

>>Of course, some people who are so proud of themselves for not being "politically correct" are just plain rude.<<

Indeed, sometimes honesty is perceived as rudeness. That said, might one not prefer a bit more honesty – whatever form or direction it takes – rather than all the sinistral deceitfulness characterized by the demands of presently restrictive PC?

PC leaves little room for individual discretion; such as might, simple concern...

[SivartM]

I wasn't talking about honest people, I'm talking about people who don't know when to stop yammering and think about other people's feelings. People who cast of PC can also sometimes eliminate any tact or empathy in favor of "honesty".

[Neil D]

Honesty with out kindness is cruelty.....a problem with anti-PC people...Of course, THEY will see it as "being honest"....but they can not be honest when they are "being honest".....and that is a problem with cruel people..

[jasd]

>>I'm talking about people who don't know when to stop yammering and think about other people's feelings.<<

Yammerings? you appear to be very close to the subject – and surely, you take unnecessary umbrage.

Okay, so your brief is with insufficient and/or demonstrable empathy; mine is with idjitcy. Example: no Xtianity, not Jesus Christ, no Xtian Gd, no Bibles, no nada, zip, zilch as concerns our heritage... are permitted in our public school classrooms – whilst we renovate restrooms in those same facilities – to accommodate footwashing for Akbarites; forced immersion of our kids into Islamic rituals; the Quran placed in honor above all other books in those same classrooms, etc.

Yumpin’ yiminy! even in the movie 2012, the producers showed no qualms depicting the destruction of St Peter’s Basilica together with High Personages glorifying Gd; likewise, Christo Redemptor in Rio de Janiero was destroyed without hesitation, etc. However, for fear of PC and its attendant consequences,

Hollywood balked at showing Mecca destroyed and left Mecca standing whilst the entire earth was destroyed. Tchah! on “kindliness” and all forms of PC where it is countenanced to the exclusion of good sense and where it is forced upon the sensibilities of others.

>>People who cast of PC can also sometimes eliminate any tact or empathy in favor of "honesty".<<

“Simple concern” should suffice...

[Guest]

I have to agree with you jasd.

[SivartM]

People are teaching Islam in public schools? And when did they ban Bibles or private prayer from public schools? I must have missed something very important.

Of course, Christians do tend to be the least favored religion in places like that. But we're supposed to be happy when we're persecuted, and not allowing us to Christianize public schools doesn't even really count as "persecution". We should thankful that we aren't in a country where our religion is outlawed altogether. But, incidentally, private Bible reading and prayer are perfectly legal in public schools, and everywhere else in the country.

Also, a movie depicting the destruction of the world in 2012 is not what I would consider PC as a whole. And what the producers have to say about this religion vs. that religion doesn't really concern me.

What's the difference between "simple concern" and tact and empathy? Are those things bad or are they good?

[Guest]

People are teaching Islam in public schools? And when did they ban Bibles or private prayer from public schools? I must have missed something very important.

Siv are you serious? Where have you been for the last decade?

If you pray in public school, you better not let anyone know about it. It's not so much that it is persecution as compared to what is coming, but can you not see the direction that all this PC is leading? In the media, in the government, and ultimately it has it's effect in the people.

When a movie shows the whole world being destroyed except for Mecca, that leaves an impression, and makes a statement in the minds of people young and old, but especially the young.

PC is the reason why the president nor the military either one, will call that Hassan guy a terrorist, which is what he is. They make all kinds of excuses for him, and come up with all kinds of reasons why he did what he did. Anything except stating the plain and simple fact that he killed all those people because he was a radical Islamist. We used to be at war with radical Islam. Not anymore. Our fearless leader says we can't use that word anymore. It wouldn't be PC.

Something like PC may appear harmless at first, but you have to look at the bigger picture, and look at where it's leading.

Just because something may not directly effect you today, dosn't mean that it won't effect you tomorrow.

[SivartM]

The US Department of Education says students can feel free to pray in school.

Quote:

For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," [ 12 ] and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Likewise, local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, [ 13 ] but they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against student prayer or religious speech. For instance, where schools permit student expression on the basis of genuinely neutral criteria and students retain primary control over the content of their expression, the speech of students who choose to express themselves through religious means such as prayer is not attributable to the state and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious content. [ 14]

http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html

I'm in no way in favor of making sure we're all PC and don't offend anyone and must use PC terms and blah blah blah... I'm just saying that some people who are very proud of how non-PC they are are in reality just rude, but they just say they're being "honest". A poor cover-up for lack of interpersonal skills, if you ask me. They get mad when people are rude to them, but if they're rude to others they just boast about how politically incorrect they are.

Really, is it that hard to be nice? Wait, that's another word they hate...

[Guest]

I'm plenty nice, but I'm just looking ahead at where all this is leading.

[phkrause]

I disagree Sivart that people who are PC are rude. I for one am very much not into being PC. I try to be Christian in my responce to people not PC.

pk

[phkrause]

I'm not sure where this is all leading Richard but I do agree we can all be polite to those we don't agree with, without being PC.

pk

[SivartM]

You're all misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that everyone who is not PC is rude. I'm saying that some anti-PC people are rude under the guise of "honesty", and they boast about how non-PC they are to try to justify their rudeness. And PC people can definitely be rude as well (even more so sometimes because they are trying to sound politely rude). I'm just saying that we shouldn't extol the virtues of not being PC as if PC is our only problem.

Instead of conjuring up images of how terrible PC is and if we continue on the hell-bound PC path we shall all perish (yes, I know I'm exaggerating; you don't need to tell me that), we should try to be Christlike with other people, as pkrause said (even though he didn't know what I was talking about, which was why I just clarified what I was talking about).

So since I just clarified my position, please do not think that

1. I think everyone who is not PC is rude

2. I think everyone who is PC is rude

3. I am for PC

4. I am a radical Muslim out to get you

By the way, is this conversation making anyone think about computers?

[phkrause]

I can buy 1-3 about you, but that #4, I have to wonder. hahahahaha Just kidding Sivart.

pk

[jasd]

>>People are teaching Islam in public schools? And when did they ban Bibles or private prayer from public schools? I must have missed something very important.<<

‘pears that you’ve indeed missed matters of extreme importance.

“private prayer”! you temporize, sir – why ought prayer in our public schools be relegated to such as “private”? Say what!? --Pogo

“...in 1892, in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that America is a "Christian nation." ”

Regardless, the opinion of this or that person..., the ruling above has not since been reversed or otherwise overturned by our highest Court. To submit otherwise is to forward arguments constructed from whole cloth, as it were. However,

one cannot fail to recognize that there is a divide between what is de jure and what is de facto. Example: our kids, wishing to have communal prayer are often forced to “gather at the flagpole” to do so; our kids still have their depictions of things Xtian confiscated by their educators; public school principals are known to literally ‘trash’ our kids Bibles in the waste; etc. To provide honesty to our posterity in their school environs – require constant legal action.

Say what!? –jasd

One can probably trace much of the problems re our teacher’s and our children’s rights to honesty and justice ( Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District) to a PC and/or gross misinterpretation of the so-called “establishment clause”.

>>Of course, Christians do tend to be the least favored religion in places like that.<<

No, local, and not so local, officials disfavor Xtian practices in both public schools and other forums for reason of PC – Federal rulings notwithstanding...

>>But we're supposed to be happy when we're persecuted, and not allowing us to Christianize public schools doesn't even really count as "persecution".<<

Okay, Biblically you may have a point; however, was Writ speaking to the spiritual man or to practical realities? and, it may be more correct to state, “reChristianize public schools”.

>>We should thankful that we aren't in a country where our religion is outlawed altogether. But, incidentally, private Bible reading and prayer are perfectly legal in public schools, and everywhere else in the country.<<

“private” is noted; and although aspects of the above are true, it is not so in its entirety.

>>Also, a movie depicting the destruction of the world in 2012 is not what I would consider PC as a whole.<<

To encompass the many particulars of PC other than by example by increment – would require volumes that should prove prohibitive given this format; that said, I propose that Theo van Gogh probably gave as much thought to PC and the Muslim community in his own country.

>>And what the producers have to say about this religion vs. that religion doesn't really concern me.<<

One should readily apprehend the portent...; as the producers admitted that they left Mecca standing as to avoid the foreseeable consequences of ‘offending’ Islamic extremists, as it were. THAT OFFENDS ME! We are not Dar Al-Islam. We are a

nation which covenanted with the Xtian Gd before our forebears left the Mayflower to set foot upon this land. Our Colonies, likewise, covenanted with a Xtian Gd in their separate constitutions. We are that Biblically prophesied “nation of nations” – Gd’s.

>>What's the difference between "simple concern" and tact and empathy?<<

“tact” (loosely: constrains one to emphasize the ‘delicacies’ of the other);

“empathy” (loosely: identifying with another’s ‘driving forces’);

“simple concern” eschews the color of altruism indicated by both “tact” and “empathy” – addressing more the entire concerns of a matter – particularly, including self.

>>Are those things bad or are they good?<<

Both good and bad.

[SivartM]

The 1st amendment says that the government can't endorse any particular religion. Which means that, fortunately, we're no more a Christian nation than we are a Deist nation (many of the founding fathers were deists). We should not be trying to force people to pray and be indoctrinated into Christianity in public schools, regardless of former practice. However, if you read the link I quoted from, the government's guidelines say that if a student initiates religious activities and does not try to force anyone to participate in religious activities, there is nothing the school can do to stop them. I'd say to show that to all the radical people who want to keep free exercise of religion out of public schools. The only thing prohibited is for the school itself to endorse a religion.

Separation of church and state is a good thing, jasd. If we were a "Christian" nation, we could just as easily be Catholic as Protestant, or Mormon as Evangelical.

If you lived in a country where there was an official religion, you'd have it forced down your throat all the time and there would be nothing you could do about it. State religion was what we had during the Dark Ages (and that was 'Christianity'), and how well did that work out?

Schools were un-Christianized for a good reason: for a public government-run school to endorse a certain religion and alienate people of other religions in a supposedly "free" country is unconstitutional.

Actually, according to traditional Adventist understanding of prophecy, America is the beast in Revelation that was like a lamb and spoke like a dragon, and forced everyone to worship the first beast--the papacy. Which is what will happen if we Christianize our country.

Anyway, we've sort of gotten off track... the main point is that, regardless of what words you use to describe kindness and the way we should act, some people who abandon PC also abandon that. And if you knew any of them you'd probably agree, because they aren't very pleasant to talk to. For some examples you can look on the internet (maybe even this forum...) and on certain conservative radio talk shows.

[jasd]

>>The 1st amendment says that the government can't endorse any particular religion.<<

1st Amendment “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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

>>Which means that, fortunately, we're no more a Christian nation than we are a Deist nation (many of the founding fathers were deists).<<

Except by placing a meaning of ‘de facto practice’ upon it, you are wrong. Read the particulars of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States – to find that, indeed, we are a Xtian nation. Per your mention of “a Deist nation”, our early and founding documents reference a specific and definite [Xtian] Gd, not an indefinite and/or numinous ‘divine power’ of Deist thought. Anyway, there remains Holy Trinity v.

>>We should not be trying to force people to pray and be indoctrinated into Christianity in public schools, regardless of former practice.<<

Forced? indoctrinated? that is not only opinionated but in essence, pejorative.

>>However, if you read the link I quoted from, the government's guidelines say that if a student initiates religious activities and does not try to force anyone to participate in religious activities, there is nothing the school can do to stop them.<<

That is true as pertains privileges due clubs and sundry similar sorts; however, the ACLU (and other like-minded groups) has and does file so many suits against local governing entities – that whatever guidelines ‘set forth’ in Federal opinions are translated to whatever the locals (school boards, etc) deem them to be.

>>I'd say to show that to all the radical people who want to keep free exercise of religion out of public schools. The only thing prohibited is for the school itself to endorse a religion.<<

On substance, I’d tend to agree except in the matter of preferment as opposed to endorsement; after all, I reiterate, we are, Holy Trinity v. not having been vacated, de jure, a Xtian nation...

>>Separation of church and state is a good thing, jasd.<<

“Separation of church and state” was a concept found in a private letter of Thomas Jefferson and had nothing to do with the First Amendment. The “establishment clause” has been crudely misunderstood and misinterpreted.

>>If we were a "Christian" nation, we could just as easily be Catholic as Protestant, or Mormon as Evangelical.<<

The Supreme Court held that this nation is Xtian; do you not believe the above three .orgs are Xtian?

>>If you lived in a country where there was an official religion,<<

The First Amendment proscribed Congress from making a “law respecting an establishment of religion...”

For centuries Xtianity, almost to the exclusion of any other religion, was practiced in America – forming the foundation which led to our becoming the Greatest Nation ever to take its place in known history.

>>...you'd have it forced down your throat all the time and there would be nothing you could do about it.<<

Neither our founding fathers nor I make the argument for an “official religion”.

[jasd]

>>State religion was what we had during the Dark Ages (and that was 'Christianity'), and how well did that work out?<<

Several things: if you attempt to advance a ‘cause and effect’ argument that Catholicism equated to the Dark Ages, it would be unmerited; moreover, Western Civilization owes a large measure to Catholic Xtianity. Extreme weather variance and subsequent hardships, as noted in the few writings still extant – caused, and for the most part, sustained the Dark Ages. It is to the RCC credit that they shepherded the remains of civilization through the Dark Ages.

>>Schools were un-Christianized for a good reason: for a public government-run school to endorse a certain religion and alienate people of other religions in a supposedly "free" country is unconstitutional.<<

That may be; however, as matters currently stand, it is beyond the pale when our kids are being disinherited in their country.

>>Actually, according to traditional Adventist understanding of prophecy, America is the beast in Revelation that was like a lamb and spoke like a dragon, and forced everyone to worship the first beast--the papacy. Which is what will happen if we Christianize our country.<<

Don’t you think that Gd-inspired Writ misleads when, after having identified Persia as a Ram, it then goes on to correlate a beast with lamb-like horns to other than Persia/Iran? and isn’t it Persia/Iran who today speaks as a dragon? whilst we seem to be diminishing on many fronts? moreover,

the Papacy!? as it has historically stood? how so?

Non, non, it appears that should it be the papacy which symbolizes the first beast – it would be a papacy no longer recognized as the entity which contributed so much to Western Civilization, but one, I believe, Islam will destroy.

>>Anyway, we've sort of gotten off track... the main point is that, regardless of what words you use to describe kindness and the way we should act, some people who abandon PC also abandon that.<<

What of those who will not and have not embrace(d) PC? rejecting it as manipulative and indisputably junk.

>>And if you knew any of them you'd probably agree, because they aren't very pleasant to talk to.<<

I’ve never cared for oily-talk – preferring and subscribing to straightforward truths and principles.

>>For some examples you can look on the internet (maybe even this forum...) and on certain conservative radio talk shows.<<

Search the internet to see what you can find on the “Wilding of Palin” – and see from whence truly vile, vile, vile dialogue originates – if not from the most vocal of PC subscribers.

[SivartM]

Since church/state is not the subject of this thread, I'll just reply to this statement:

Quote:

I’ve never cared for oily-talk – preferring and subscribing to straightforward truths and principles.

That's fine and dandy. But when Jesus told us to treat others like we would want to be treated, I don't think He meant to treat others as if they have the same mindset as u, but that we should treat others as we would want to be treated if we thought the way they did. Which, for most people, would be gently, since most people are too stubborn in their thinking to recognize what you call "truth".

What if someone called you ugly? Would it make any difference if they said that they were just telling the "truth"? What if someone said that you weren't smart enough to know what they were talking about? Would it make any difference if they said, "Hey, I'm just telling you the truth. What, do you think I should be PC or something?"

We all have different ideas about "truth". To me, your opinion of religion in schools is not true, and to you my opinion is not true. It won't make any difference for either of us to say to the other, "It's just true."

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I’ve never cared for oily-talk – preferring and subscribing to straightforward truths and principles.

>>But when Jesus told us to treat others like we would want to be treated, I don't think He meant to treat others as if they have the same mindset as u,<<

Matt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

And, of course, Jesus Christ’s words also state that we ought not to do unto others what you don’t want them to do unto you.

I’m good to go there, as I don’t scrue others and don’t expect anything from them – that doesn’t already and inherently belong to me. I’m certain that most good and true Americans are disturbed by what is happening to our country – as well its traditional values.

Here are more of Gd-inpired Writ: “Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.” (Heb 12:16)

Harsh?

>>...but that we should treat others as we would want to be treated if we thought the way they did.<<

That’s the rub, eh? that we all should think as faceless arbiters decide. Example: profiling – bad. Remember when our airline personnel could not pull a Middle Eastern guy from line – but did pull blue-haired grannies aside for the ‘whole nine yards’? Like, poor grannie fit the profile of an in-country terrorist! PC at work, goodfellow. Good for Nat’l Security, yes?

>>What if someone called you ugly? Would it make any difference if they said that they were just telling the "truth"?<<

Been called worse.

>>What if someone said that you weren't smart enough to know what they were talking about? Would it make any difference if they said, "Hey, I'm just telling you the truth. What, do you think I should be PC or something?"<<

What? I should think that I know what half the illiterate are talking about!? Truth I can deal with; PC? Yikes!

>>We all have different ideas about "truth". To me, your opinion of religion in schools is not true, and to you my opinion is not true. It won't make any difference for either of us to say to the other, "It's just true."<<

“It’s just true.” Indeed, that would be error on your part – as one has only to recourse back to the beginnings of our country – when the Bible was the primary textbook in our schools and Bible-thumpers founded our institutions of higher learning. I submit that

PC is massively contributing to our nati’l decline and serves, again, sinistral interests – to our immeasurable detriment.

“the same mindset as u”

[SivartM]

Of course, some people who are so proud of themselves for not being politically correct are just plain rude.

And they don't even know it.