Liberals call it being polite and respectful
Conservatives call it a limit on free speech and truth
What do you believe?
Conservatives call it a limit on free speech and truth
What do you believe?
politically correct
- Thread starter aspen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I'd probably side with the more conservative side of the equation for a couple reasons:
1) PC is as false as anything else of the world. Whether or not it gets said, it's still thought, felt, and believed. I think the hypocrisy of this has come out with the recent political events of the past say 12-18 months. I've found that those who are most PC are the ones who go off when they get hot and enter the complete hypocrisy realm. Like him or not, witness Herman Cain for that.
IE: Months ago, the Tea Party - the same Party where Cain draws his support from - was branded as a bunch of white racists. One Congressman said that TP'ers wanted to see black officials hanging on a tree. Up comes Herman Cain the polls and suddenly he's a white whipping boy as one columnist implied. Just look up what other commentators were saying about him.
So to rewind when the movement starts up it's racism because it doesn't agree with the liberal establishment. It's not PC to say that we need to cut entitlements and it's not PC to disagree with a black President. Enter Herman Cain, and suddenly he's hit with every racist barb in the book.
While there are certainly times to be tacit and sympathetic in one's speech, creating a false sense is just as evil.
2) PC tends to become hypersensitive for motives. It's a way for people to distract from the message. Often I see these statements are made as the result of feelings and emotions to invalidate an argument made on say economics or statistics. It seems like we can become "offended" at anything if we don't want to talk about it or address it head on. It becomes a cop-out and that becomes the central issue, not the original subject. I'm trying to stay away from Libs vs Cons, but this is something that Libs are very good at and not just in politics. For example, if you look at the Bible, it could be branded as a racist/nationalist document (hello, chosen race of Israel) by PC definitions.
3) While we as Christians do certainly need to be sensitive to others, there's a point where PC seeks for us to suppress our own culture for someone else's. Cultural imperialism in reverse is no better than cultural imperialism itself. I see being PC and being respectful as two different things. I've used this example before. I'm a true southerner on both sides of my family. I am proud of most of my heritage. I, however, don't agree with slavery. I do not fly Stars and Bars and don't wear clothing, own the logos, etc because I understand it's hurtful for some.
Without trying to idealize the past, PC is an attempt to return to more positive and polite speech in some sense, but it does not address the heart and its basically just putting a fresh coat of paint on an old, crumbling wall. I think there is a happy middle ground where you respect the person, but at the same time that respect is mutual and not entirely self-serving. It's important that we're not looking to be offended.
1) PC is as false as anything else of the world. Whether or not it gets said, it's still thought, felt, and believed. I think the hypocrisy of this has come out with the recent political events of the past say 12-18 months. I've found that those who are most PC are the ones who go off when they get hot and enter the complete hypocrisy realm. Like him or not, witness Herman Cain for that.
IE: Months ago, the Tea Party - the same Party where Cain draws his support from - was branded as a bunch of white racists. One Congressman said that TP'ers wanted to see black officials hanging on a tree. Up comes Herman Cain the polls and suddenly he's a white whipping boy as one columnist implied. Just look up what other commentators were saying about him.
So to rewind when the movement starts up it's racism because it doesn't agree with the liberal establishment. It's not PC to say that we need to cut entitlements and it's not PC to disagree with a black President. Enter Herman Cain, and suddenly he's hit with every racist barb in the book.
While there are certainly times to be tacit and sympathetic in one's speech, creating a false sense is just as evil.
2) PC tends to become hypersensitive for motives. It's a way for people to distract from the message. Often I see these statements are made as the result of feelings and emotions to invalidate an argument made on say economics or statistics. It seems like we can become "offended" at anything if we don't want to talk about it or address it head on. It becomes a cop-out and that becomes the central issue, not the original subject. I'm trying to stay away from Libs vs Cons, but this is something that Libs are very good at and not just in politics. For example, if you look at the Bible, it could be branded as a racist/nationalist document (hello, chosen race of Israel) by PC definitions.
3) While we as Christians do certainly need to be sensitive to others, there's a point where PC seeks for us to suppress our own culture for someone else's. Cultural imperialism in reverse is no better than cultural imperialism itself. I see being PC and being respectful as two different things. I've used this example before. I'm a true southerner on both sides of my family. I am proud of most of my heritage. I, however, don't agree with slavery. I do not fly Stars and Bars and don't wear clothing, own the logos, etc because I understand it's hurtful for some.
Without trying to idealize the past, PC is an attempt to return to more positive and polite speech in some sense, but it does not address the heart and its basically just putting a fresh coat of paint on an old, crumbling wall. I think there is a happy middle ground where you respect the person, but at the same time that respect is mutual and not entirely self-serving. It's important that we're not looking to be offended.
- Dec 31, 2010
- 5,190
- 2,392
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
And John the Baptist looses his head over the issue of adultery. How popular would he be today?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLqafYWE4A0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLqafYWE4A0
The idea of "political correctness" (PC) is more of a 'psy-ops tool' more than anything else. It's simply a new label applied to a psychological tool that has existed of old and used by many political factions of history, like Hitler's Nazi Party, the Communist Party, and by many of history's dictators that took power over the people. It has been used by governments, kings and queens, even in local politics between political parties.
It's desired effect is towards a certain 'standard' for the people to follow. And how it has been used in past history has not always meant a standard in the positive or good sense, i.e., Hitler's Nazi Party, Mussolini and Fascism, Marxist-Leninists and the Communist Party, Polpot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, etc.
For "political correctness" to have effect upon the people, and since it's a psychological tool, influence of popular opinion must be used to sway the people's opinion in its direction. In Georgetown history professor Carrol Quigley's 1960's book Tragedy And Hope, he named twenty five of the most influential newspapers in America, the goal of what he called "the establishment" was, that if they could get control of those twenty five most influential American newspapers, then the rest of the news media in the nation would follow them.
Thus "political correctness" would have never been possible as a psychological tool if the "establishment" insiders had not first gained control of sources to influence... popular opinion. This is the real reason for the existence of many popular talk shows, editorial opinion newspaper and periodical columns, etc. They serve as tools for influencing the people's opinion.
The sad truth is that the majority of the peoples do not have the resources, know-how, and time to verify and make educated-informed opinions on the major problems plaguing the world today. It's not that people are not capable of forming their own opinions for themselves. It's that the media outlets exist to do that for them, if we the people allow the media and politicians to form our opinions for us.
It's desired effect is towards a certain 'standard' for the people to follow. And how it has been used in past history has not always meant a standard in the positive or good sense, i.e., Hitler's Nazi Party, Mussolini and Fascism, Marxist-Leninists and the Communist Party, Polpot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, etc.
For "political correctness" to have effect upon the people, and since it's a psychological tool, influence of popular opinion must be used to sway the people's opinion in its direction. In Georgetown history professor Carrol Quigley's 1960's book Tragedy And Hope, he named twenty five of the most influential newspapers in America, the goal of what he called "the establishment" was, that if they could get control of those twenty five most influential American newspapers, then the rest of the news media in the nation would follow them.
Thus "political correctness" would have never been possible as a psychological tool if the "establishment" insiders had not first gained control of sources to influence... popular opinion. This is the real reason for the existence of many popular talk shows, editorial opinion newspaper and periodical columns, etc. They serve as tools for influencing the people's opinion.
The sad truth is that the majority of the peoples do not have the resources, know-how, and time to verify and make educated-informed opinions on the major problems plaguing the world today. It's not that people are not capable of forming their own opinions for themselves. It's that the media outlets exist to do that for them, if we the people allow the media and politicians to form our opinions for us.
The easiest and most genuine way around the psychological tool called "political correctness" being used upon the peoples, is with going to the main source for true opinion given to mankind, and that Source is our Maker, our Heavenly Father in His Holy Writ, The Bible.
If you'll notice today, those pushing the idea of "political correctness" are pushing ideas that directly oppose many basic principles given in The Bible. In other words, God's Word is not... very popular today with those on "political correctness" ideology. So if the standard of popular opinion that "political correctness" doctrine pushes was of any true value, would it not agree with basic principles written in The Word of God? It should, if the "political correctness" ideas were actually true. Because of that major difference we know "political correctness" is nothing more than an attempt of men to control how we the people think, and what we think. That's how we know "political correctness" is a pyschological and political tool, and nothing more.
If you'll notice today, those pushing the idea of "political correctness" are pushing ideas that directly oppose many basic principles given in The Bible. In other words, God's Word is not... very popular today with those on "political correctness" ideology. So if the standard of popular opinion that "political correctness" doctrine pushes was of any true value, would it not agree with basic principles written in The Word of God? It should, if the "political correctness" ideas were actually true. Because of that major difference we know "political correctness" is nothing more than an attempt of men to control how we the people think, and what we think. That's how we know "political correctness" is a pyschological and political tool, and nothing more.
Prentis
New Member
Honesty comes above all.
A humble person can take a hard message and learn from it. A proud man rejects it.
God often puts an offense, something that is not 'politically correct', so that only the meek, the humble, and those with atleast little faith would follow.
'Unless you eat my body and drink my blood' he said, and many left him that day. Not exactly politically correct! Christ doesn't care about numbers, but about depth. 2 spiritual disciples do more for the Kingdom of heaven than 200 carnal ones.
A humble person can take a hard message and learn from it. A proud man rejects it.
God often puts an offense, something that is not 'politically correct', so that only the meek, the humble, and those with atleast little faith would follow.
'Unless you eat my body and drink my blood' he said, and many left him that day. Not exactly politically correct! Christ doesn't care about numbers, but about depth. 2 spiritual disciples do more for the Kingdom of heaven than 200 carnal ones.
Sorry, liberals believe it means "agree with me or you're being impolite".
Conservatives have it right on.
Prentis
New Member
I couldn't care less for man's politics... God's on the other hand... 
We've so often made God into our God, the democratic politically correct God. Some think he's conservative, others think he's liberal....
But God is not into any of this 'political correctedness'. He is a king, and his kingdom works according to his will, not man's.
It is a dangerous thing to confuse the two.
We've so often made God into our God, the democratic politically correct God. Some think he's conservative, others think he's liberal....
But God is not into any of this 'political correctedness'. He is a king, and his kingdom works according to his will, not man's.
It is a dangerous thing to confuse the two.
Veteran is spot on.
If i was a member of a political party, one could say that one was out of line as to there political party position and that person would have to pull his head in and tow the line or he would be cast out. and that's fine.
But when a government is a socialist or Como dictator type then all the people have to be PC in their country or you are then called an enemy of the state.
This PC rubbish is the work of the Devil.
They try to brain wash our people with every trick just like Hitler and Starlin did, and in our schools it is idolised full on..
If i was a member of a political party, one could say that one was out of line as to there political party position and that person would have to pull his head in and tow the line or he would be cast out. and that's fine.
But when a government is a socialist or Como dictator type then all the people have to be PC in their country or you are then called an enemy of the state.
This PC rubbish is the work of the Devil.
They try to brain wash our people with every trick just like Hitler and Starlin did, and in our schools it is idolised full on..
justaname
Disciple of Jesus Christ
- Mar 14, 2011
- 2,348
- 149
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
With mutual respect for mankind you do not need political correctness.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
One should not suppress truth for fear of hurting someone's feelings. Sometimes truth is best received with more subtle words, but sometimes it is best received like a blunt object to the head.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
One should not suppress truth for fear of hurting someone's feelings. Sometimes truth is best received with more subtle words, but sometimes it is best received like a blunt object to the head.
I agree that political correctness is not necessary if everyone loved one another, but the reality is that people are far from loving towards one another. If everyone loved one another sin would not have enteered the world either.
Also, if loving one another is a solution for the need for political correctness then why are Christians oppossed to it? Every time we fail to be politically correct we should simply self correct by loving.
Frankly, the call for political correctness seems to be a call for a new social norm.....instead of minority groups being the only people called to politeness towards the majority........we are now held to the same standards we relating to people outside or race, gender, and class.
FHII
Well-Known Member
- Apr 9, 2011
- 4,833
- 2,494
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I believe Liberals call it limit on free screach and what we say is truth
Concervatives call it total free speech and whatever truth we show you and we'll deal with whatever truth comes down the pipeline.
I don't like nonfiction... but it reminds me of the end of George Orwell's Animal farm... I don't know which one's the pig and which one's the human!
Hey, I don't believe in political correctness.... It sounds like a contradiction in terms. Politics... Correct.... Huh? Politics have been correct as much as shrimp have been "Jumbo"
I am for graciousness, politeness, understanding, conversation and even compromise when called for. But above all, let there be Truth. It is truth that is the foundation of all things that are really good. Not even love and compassion. Those are wonderful things, but without truth, they are simply stealing.
FHII
Well-Known Member
- Apr 9, 2011
- 4,833
- 2,494
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Well, sort of, but not the way mankind makes it to bel. TRUE love and Truth are the same. Love and Truth aren't.
I agree. We are called to True love and nothing less. So how is True love different than the love of the world?
justaname
Disciple of Jesus Christ
- Mar 14, 2011
- 2,348
- 149
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Sin entered the world because God made it enter, for we live in His story. It is by Him for Him, we as Christians point to Him, hopefully humbly.
Christians do self correct by loving, thereby we don't need the law(political correctness), and can be spotted by our fruits.
God does not sin, therefore, He cannot use evil to teach us about good, in fact, He cannot use it at all. He works it for our good, but He would never introduce it. We brought it into our story.
If Christians do self correct instead of having to follow the new norm of political correctness then why do Christians seem to be the biggest critics of it? Shouldn't we be leading the pack?
justaname
Disciple of Jesus Christ
- Mar 14, 2011
- 2,348
- 149
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
God does not sin, therefore, He cannot use evil to teach us about good, in fact, He cannot use it at all. He works it for our good, but He would never introduce it. We brought it into our story.
God created both good and evil.
Isaiah 45:7
Throughout much of Israel's history they did evil. Israel is a major part of His story. I have learned from Israel's mistakes.
It is not our story, it is His.
John 1:3
Colossians 1:16
Romans 11:36
God created both good and evil.
Isaiah 45:7
Throughout much of Israel's history they did evil. Israel is a major part of His story. I have learned from Israel's mistakes.
It is not our story, it is His.
John 1:3
Colossians 1:16
Romans 11:36
Evil is not a force - it is a lack of good. The definition of evil relies on good, good does not rely on evil. The verse in Isaiah refers to natural calamities like earthquakes and tornadoes, not big E evil. The Devil sinned by glorifying his gifts - thereby misusing them as a means to an end. Then he suggested to Eve that she should misuse the tree by eating the fruit.
To believe that evil is a force opposing good is to believe in dualism, which is a heresy. God cannot sin - that doesn't mean that He is free to sin against Himself and call the sin good. Hypocracy is not apart of God's character. If it was, the devil and God would be equal in character.
Prentis
New Member
God can turn anything for good... Yes, the evil of men for our spiritual growth... After all, as Paul says, He works ALL things for the best of those who love him.
Truth cannot be the same since we are told to speak the truth in love... Speak the truth in truth... Or speak the love in love??? :huh: Makes no sense! Paul also said we can hold the truth in unrighteousness. That is, have the truth but not love, since love is the fulfillement of the law (righteousness).
Blessings
Truth cannot be the same since we are told to speak the truth in love... Speak the truth in truth... Or speak the love in love??? :huh: Makes no sense! Paul also said we can hold the truth in unrighteousness. That is, have the truth but not love, since love is the fulfillement of the law (righteousness).
Blessings
Similar threads
