We take our freedoms so much for granted in this country that it's easy to forget that, for most of human history, they didn't even EXIST, certainly not as we enjoy them. Slavery, rule by despots and the surpression of opposing views have been the norm, not the rule.

Simply put, the freedoms that we enjoy in America are but a brief eyeblink on the scale of history. They are in danger, too -- and ironically, from people who often claim to be defenders of the First Amendment to the Constitution. On ALL sides.

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately, and if I had to sum up Political Correctness in one phrase, it would boil down to, "I can't believe he/she would say that."

From that point, it's only one tiny further step to, "I must prevent him/her from saying that."

If you're a conservative Christian, maybe you feel that way when you hear a prominent liberal or atheist say something which you consider blasphemous. If you're a liberal, maybe it's something that you heard Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy say on talk radio.

This is not a conservative/liberal thing. Even though conservatives are the ones who co-opted the terms "Politically Acceptable" and "Politically Correct" to describe it, they're just as guilty as their liberal opponents.

And in any event, it's wrong.

As the Supreme Court ruled in a recent case, ALL speech -- even offensive speech -- must be protected and IS protected by our Constitution. But I fear that this protection is eroding.

Not by the government; not by any specific law or decree passed by a bureaucrat, but by we, the people ourselves. Let's be honest: we've never been terribly tolerant of opposing viewpoints, but can't we at least TRY?

As a Christian, do you have any idea how concerned I get when homosexual groups, for example, try to get the Bible legally classified as "hateful" because of its condemnation of homosexuality? Or, more to the point, claim that those who believe the Bible on this issue should be considered as such?

Likewise, I doubt my fellow Believers really understand how badly it frightens and concerns liberals when *we* propose controlling what appears on cable television. Once you allow censorship of *any* form, you've opened a Pandora's box that ultimately devolves into subjective determinations of what constitutes "good" and "bad" speech.

I don't know what the complete answer is, either, but I do know that the first step is to look in the mirror and say, "there's the problem." We are intolerant.

My job, as a Christian, is to convince my fellow Believers that, as long as we are left alone to follow our consciences, we should grant the same to others -- even those whom we find offensive. It HAS to be that way.

I like to use this illustration: Byzantium (which represented Orthodox Christendom) and Persia (non-Christian) were long-standing enemies. And yet, for the sake of realpolitick, they were able to hammer out a compromise that worked for centuries: the Greeks agreed not to prevent or harass sun worshippers in Byzantium, and Persia agreed to the same for Christian temples in their empire.

Why can't we do the same?

Tell me your thoughts. You Christians: am I wrong? SHOULD we attempt to impose our views on society? Are we failing God somehow if we don't do this?

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

Answers

Those of you who disagree with me politically and philosophically, tell me how YOU would tell YOUR friends to leave US alone. Show me the compromise from the other point of view.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

So, we should not compromise on our insistence that people compromise? Curious.

There is a point of diminishing returns somewhere. The state that takes toleration to the point where it tolerates treason won't survive, and neither will tolerance. Same with a discussion forum that tries to tolerate various DOS attacks.

As Justice Holmes once wrote, the freedom to swing your arm ends where the next man's nose begins. But the world is full of lawyers figuring out some way to stick their noses everywhere they possibly can where it is not yet *prohibited*. And so it goes.

For a fascinating fictional examination of these issues, I recommend the book "Adiamante" by L.E. Modesitt. Your questions may not be fully answered, but they are most wonderfully posed.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

Stephen, the difficulty I have with decrying political correctness is that the most common form of it is simply fighting speech with speech. A vile or offensive thing is said and someone else speaks up and says, "you shouldn't use such vile offensive speech."

I fully agree with you that the expressed intent of "you shouldn't" implies a desire to prevent the speech or censor it, and in my mind such censorship would be wrong (and where it is employed, it is wrong).

However, I see the mirror image just as often, if not more often - where the speaker who objects to vile speech is counterattacked by trotting out the label "politically correct" in an effort to make it appear that there is something wrong with speaking out against vile or offensive speech. There isn't. Political correctness is as much protected speech as any.

Those who use "PC" to label their opponents are often attempting to stifle opposing speech, pure and simple. Then it becomes a situation of "the pot calling the kettle black."

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

Think:

Perhaps we need some agreed-upon definition of what "political correctness" is. My personal definition (which seems to match the definition used by those opposed to PC) is that it is not generalized at all, but rather carefully directed. Certain defined groups are granted Protected Status, and ordinary (and even clearly justified) criticism, which is OK when directed at anyone else, becomes "vile speech" when directed toward these protected groups.

To me, Political Correctness is simply a form of favoritism. This is an issue quite different from the issue of the appropriate and necessary limits of tolerance. But that's just my understanding. What's yours?

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

How come the people who oppose "PC" are always the ones who want to censor expressions that they disagree with like pornography?

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

Am I being PC if I say this article in National Review is horribly offensive?

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire021501.shtml

Read down a bit to get to the good part.

And if the SOB wrote about my daughter like that, I'd either beat the hell out of him or kill him.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

I must have missed something here. If your view is unalterable, as indicated in your title, why are you even bringing it up for discussion? It seems to me that you've already accepted your prejudice as a part of yourself, and if you like who you see when you look in the mirror, that's a good thing.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

Porn is acceptable as long as the actors in the movies are saying politically correct lines, especially during the hot lesbian midget action scenes.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

I guess I should relate my views on this one, since I opened my mouth already.

IMO, it's always interesting to hear the viewpoints of others, at least once in a while. OTOH, life's a lot like T.V. in that we can change channels if we disapprove of the content.

I enjoy the 1st amendment. I'm not interested in pornography, but I'll defend someone's right to see it. I didn't like what the author in Paul's article said about Chelsea, but I'll defend his right to say it. I'm not a Christian, but [believe it or not], I do have some Christian friends. These friends tend to LIVE their faith, and foremost in their minds is the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" slogan [and, luckily for me, the aren't masochists.]

I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh. Like so many others, I'm not interested in the hate he spews. If someone came to my home and used terms like Nigger, Kike, Wop, Chink, Butt-Wrangler, or any other derogatory term, or proselytized in ANY area of non-interest to me, I'd listen graciously and then excuse myself to cut the evening short and never invite them back again, nor accept an invitation to their home.

There's room for opposing views in the world, but that doesn't mean we must avail ourselves of them.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

Yo, CJS!!...LOL...still as kinky/funny as ever.

Good to see ya :)

Sorry for the interuption, please continue..heh!

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001

Much the same way I feel about it, Anita.

And I don't correct people about their nonsense either, except to ask them to take it elsewhere if they are bugging me about it.

The (few) people who actually try to get this sort of thing into law (mostly college regs, actually), are the left equivalent of those old maids on the right who want to pass laws limiting sexual expression to reproduction.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001

Well, I'll first say this in general. I should have thought that what I said, and the specific example that I used (Byzantium and Persia) made it clear that I was referring to (a) PUBLIC intercourse and (b) the need to compromise as a society in tolerating other viewpoints, but apparently, I didn't make that clear enough. :)

What people say in my house is an entirely different thing from public criticism, public censorship and plain ol' public namecallin' and PC MacArthyism.

Anita:

I must have missed something here. If your view is unalterable, as indicated in your title, why are you even bringing it up for discussion?

Well, the quick answer would be, because it's my forum and I can do whatever I want, but that would sound "snippy" (to quote the Al Boy), so I won't say it. :)

(That was a JOKE.)

The more accurate answer would be, I WASN'T bringing my opposition to political correctness up for discussion. I wanted to discuss how free speech is being compromised in this country, on the one hand by right wingers who claim to sleep with a copy of the Constitution, and on the other, by left-wingers who try to present themselves as the Great White Defenders of Free Expression.

My specific offer was, I'll try to help my folks understand that ALL of us should have freedom of conscience and belief. Will you do the same?

Free speech is in very real danger in this country and it concerns me deeply. THAT'S what I wanted to discuss.

Paul:

I thought that article was in terribly bad taste, myself. One thing you've got to give the right wing, they can have terrible lapses in taste and civility at times.

David Horowitz's "SlapHillary" website is a case in point. What purpose does this serve?

BUT ... in keeping with what I said above, it would be wrong to try to get that site taken down. He has a right to do that, even if I happen to find it offensive.

(Well ... more silly and infantile than offensive, but you get the point.[g])

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

OK, here is a *perfect* case in point: The Third Circuit Court Of Appeals has ruled that the State College School District's "Anti-Harrassment" policy violates the First Amendment.

The District Court had ruled that "harassment has never been considered to be protected activity under the First Amendment." It's especially heartening that the appeals court said,

We disagree with the District Court's reasoning. There is no categorical "harassment exception" to the First Amendment's free speech clause.

I fully support this decision, and this is one of the things that I was trying to get across above. You MUST permit freedom of speech (within reason; giving state secrets to enemies obviously doesn't fall under this heading, and so the courts have ruled), even offensive or speech that some might consider "harassment" or "hateful." There is no consistent way to permit freedom of conscience for some while disallowing it for others.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

You want PC? try some of these on for size...Decoding Bushspeak: The Start of a Republican-to-English Dictionary

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

I'm not trying to get anyone's website taken down.

OTOH, there is a principle here that I think needs to be expressed.

I fully support freedom of speech in every way. You have the right to speak. I have the right not to listen. I don't have to give you a soapbox, a hearing or even the time of day. Furthermore, in the past, a part of freedom of speech was taken to be the freedom to express disapproval of a speaker, which, traditionally, takes the form of throwing tomatoes at him/her.

Now, toss a tomato, physical or verbal, and you are accused of assault with a deadly tomato, or of being PC.

So it all goes around in a circle. I don't think any sort of rules should be drawn up formally limiting free speech, but I don't think a few people shouting down a speaker they find offensive is the end of liberty, either. If the rest of the audience is not interested enough to force them to shut up or eject them, then the speaker isn't really drawing anyone to his/her side.

Heck, just by chance I happen to know Penn State is having some kind of Lesbian lecture/demonstration soon. I don't think I'll be protesting (not interested either way), but no doubt somebody will. Free speech in action, and both sides will no doubt claim the other is the devil incarnate, determined to stifle liberty.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

After three tries, I FINALLY got into that court case that Stephen posted, but I STILL went away wondering what started it all.

Can someone provide the Cliff Notes, so I can understand why Stephen supports a lack of rules regarding offensive speech in schools?

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

Link

Thursday February 15 10:32 AM ET Court Overturns School Policy

By DAN LEWERENZ, Associated Press Writer

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) - A federal appeals court overturned a school district's sweeping anti-harassment policy, saying the guidelines violate the free speech rights of students.

The suit had been brought on behalf of two State College Area School District students who wanted to express their view that homosexuality is a sin.

In its ruling Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) said the district went too far when it prohibited harassment based on everything from race and sexual orientation to ``other personal characteristics,'' including clothing, appearance and social skills.

Experts said the ruling could force hundreds of school districts to reassess their own policies to ensure they comply with the ruling.

While the court acknowledged the district has a compelling interest in promoting a safe and conducive learning environment, it said officials failed to explain why it anticipated disruption ``from the broad swath of student speech prohibited under the policy.''

Judge Samuel A. Alito wrote that the policy, enacted in August 1999, ``appears to cover substantially more speech than could be prohibited'' under existing U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) precedents.

A school may categorically ban ``lewd, vulgar or profane language'' and may regulate speech to meet a ``legitimate pedagogical concern,'' he wrote. But other speech may be limited ``only if it would substantially disrupt school operations or interfere with the rights of others.''

David Warren Saxe, a Penn State University assistant professor and member of the state board of education, sued the district in October 1999 on behalf of two students, for whom he is legal guardian.

``They believe, and their religion teaches, that homosexuality is a sin,'' the suit said. ``Plaintiffs further believe that they have a right to speak out about the sinful nature and harmful effects of homosexuality.''

Saxe argued that rules were already in place that prohibited violence and other physical harassment.

``What this policy was about is the content of somebody's speech,'' Saxe said, ``and it chilled the First Amendment rights of every child in that school, every teacher, every visitor.''

The appeals court ruling overturned a lower court. The U.S. District Court had rejected Saxe's suit, saying harassing speech has never been protected under the free speech protection of the First Amendment.

Rulings by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are binding over federal judges in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the Virgin Islands.

Superintendent Patricia Best said she was disappointed with the decision, but had not had a chance to review it with other district officials or with the district's attorneys. She said she didn't know whether the district would appeal.

One expert told The Philadelphia Inquirer in Thursday's editions that the ruling could have a sweeping impact.

``I don't know how many school districts have policies as broad as State College's, but it is probably a significant number,'' said Michael I. Levin, a lawyer for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

Yeah, the formatting of the actual decision at that link leaves a lot to be desired. For one thing, the separator lines don't start the next page; the page number does; that annoyed and confused me several times while I was reading it.

Basically, the court struck down the State College guidelines as being too vague and thus likely to limit free speech and expression. If you *can* read the decision (not easy, I'll admit), they give illustrations.

For example, it's one thing entirely for me to look at a female employee and say, "sleep with me or I'll fire you." That's direct, unambiguous harassment. But it's another entirely for me to say, "I personally believe that your behavior is a sin."

The latter is an expression of opinion and belief, which *is* (and always has been) protected by the First Amendment.

But an atheist should also have the right to say, "I think that Christians are stupid, superstitious morons" in public. Fair is fair and I would applaud a court decision granting THAT as much as the one linked to above.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

Thanks, Peg, although I STILL don't understand the EXACT circumstances.

Was a gay rally held on school grounds and these Christians showed up to heckle? I would, in such a situation, agree completely that they are within their rights under the 1st amendment to say whatever they want. [Which, I might add, is why schools tend to not allow ANYONE to hold meetings or rallies on school property.]

OTOH, if these students sat in the same classroom and disrupted the educational experience of a gay student by offering their thoughts, I have objections to that. I'd have the same objections to an atheist or anyone else disrupting the educational experience of a Christian student by offering THEIR thoughts.

This is how gangs were formed in MY youth. There'd be the asshole in the back of the room who would say something to [just as an example] a black kid in the class. "Hey, Nigger. Yeah...YOU. Fucked your mama last night, and D A M N she was good."

You could bet your bottom dollar that there would be a race-riot over this after school, not to mention that NO ONE in the class was inclined to concentrate on the presented material. We all just sat there shaking in our seats, knowing what would take place later.

I support the 1st amendment, but I don't believe that freedom of speech belongs in a school setting. I understood completely when my kids wanted to hold "club" meetings on school grounds and the principal said, "No." I understood completely when my kids showed up with shoe-strings in their shoes of different colors and the principal said, "This could signify a gang symbol. It's not allowed." School should be a haven, IMO.

Back to your original thought, Stephen, I do NOT see the 1st Amendment rights being eroded. In addition, MY friends hate no one, so there's no need for me to suggest that they become more tolerant.

IMO, schools SHOULD provide a haven for students, of ANY type,

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

Poole and Anita:

Explain to me why, at the present moment, being anti-PC is not being PC. Just my point of confusion.

Thank You,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

Z:

I can't speak for Stephen [as you know.] In MY life, I was raised to extend common courtesies to people different than I. I never even chuckled when the fat girls in 3rd grade couldn't swing their legs up to the rings. I thought it discourteous to chuckle at someone else's disability. *I* could have been a fat kid, too, but for the roll of the genetic dice.

I may have barged in on a thread in which I have no knowledge of the terms PC or un-PC. I've never felt common courtesy to be either.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

Z,

PC is usually associated with protected classes, those who are permitted to say things that the rest of us aren't.

Anita,

Sure, there's room for courtesy, too, and the specific example that you gave (some guy using the "n" word and possibly setting off a Rumble in the Bronx) was touched on in the court's decision. As a teacher, you have to keep the peace, too.

(Sad thing is, back when I was a kid, it was Johnny pulling Suzie's hair. Now it's Johnny pulling out a AK-47 and threatening to kill Suzie while calling the teacher a "facist mo-fo."[g])

It's not an easy area to either legislate or litigate. There are no cover-all solutions.

That's like the question I asked on an earlier thread: HOW could you craft a law that would permit black churches to engage in political activity, but not white ones? I don't think you can, at least, not one that would pass Constitutional muster.

What the courts seem interested in protected is freedom of conscience, which is always a good thing. I can even see circumstances where my right to speak CAN be limited (the classic example is "fire" in a crowded theatre).

(Of course, nowdays, most movie goers would think it was a cool new special effect from Dolby(tm) and Industrial Light and Magic(tm) and would perish without ever knowing what killed them, but that's beside the point.[g])

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2001

Stephen:

PC is usually associated with protected classes, those who are permitted to say things that the rest of us aren't.

Would you name three for me, because I don't "get it" either?

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2001

Anita, these might not be Stephen's but they come to mind.

1) anything in fact or percieved as "minority".

2) anything in fact or percieved as "artistic".

3) anything in fact or percieved as "enviornmental".

A fair start?

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2001

i before e after what?

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2001

Carlos,

That depends on whether "e" is bigger than "I" and if "e" really wants to go first. :)

Yeah, that's not a bad general summation of three "protected classes."

Environmentalists are probably my favorites. I think I've said this before, but the evidence is actually split (badly) on things like global warming and CFCs harming the ozone layer. If you make the mistake of saying publicly, for example, that you think it's more likely that a Model T Ford could drive straight up into the ionosphere and affect things (given that the average corn-fed CFC is considerably heavier than air -- something that most junk scientists conveniently ignore), you will immediately be excoriated by the left as someone who "wants" the environment to ooze with poisons and gunk. Or, you're in the pocket of the Evil Corporations. Or, you're just dumb. Or, whatever.

Of course, there's no possibility that the emperor might actually be naked in this case, because there's just NO WAY that all those scientists (sucking in gubbmint grant money like there's no tomorrow, and who have a VESTED INTEREST in concern over ozone so that their grants will be renewed) could be wrong. Right? Right.

:)

My first exposure to PC was with the infamous Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70's. While I certainly supported equal pay and equal access for women (and still do), and was opposed to sexual harassment (and still am), I was considered a "male chauvinist" because I didn't support that amendment (because it was WAY too broadly worded for my tastes).

PC issues are usually associated with litmus tests like this. If you're a good Environmentalist, you love Earth Day and hate auto manufacturers and oil companies. Provable scientific facts have very little to do with it.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2001

Poole:

Environmentalists are probably my favorites. I think I've said this before, but the evidence is actually split (badly) on things like global warming and CFCs harming the ozone layer. If you make the mistake of saying publicly, for example, that you think it's more likely that a Model T Ford could drive straight up into the ionosphere and affect things (given that the average corn-fed CFC is considerably heavier than air -- something that most junk scientists conveniently ignore), you will immediately be excoriated by the left as someone who "wants" the environment to ooze with poisons and gunk. Or, you're in the pocket of the Evil Corporations. Or, you're just dumb. Or, whatever.

[I posted the above statement into Word and Bill Gates’ grammar checker had a fit]. *^))) I can agree with some of what you said. I have found that [even at scientific meetings] there are some things that you can’t question [strange since questioning everything is the basis of scientific advancement]. You have mentioned a few; others, include nuclear power, the validity of clinical research in medicine, etc. For me, I still drive my SUV. The sports car was getting too confining.

Still my original point was valid. In a certain subgroup of the population [including many in the Dubya camp], being mindlessly anti-PC is PC. Don’t you love the irony.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2001

"If you're a good Environmentalist, you love Earth Day and hate auto manufacturers and oil companies. Provable scientific facts have very little to do with it."

Jeez, Stephen, how many (INCORRECT) sweeping generalizations can you make in one thread? You just spout (over and over and over) the standard "right-wing party line". People like you have absolutely bastardized the term "liberal" into a four-letter word.

(Yeah, I know; that's not what you "meant" and you insert your little "caveats" such as, "oh yes, this applies to REPUBLICANS too" almost as an after-thought. Keep saying that and even you will believe it someday.)

(But god help the world if someone even perceived as "left- leaning" makes a generalized statement about the right or the Christians.....)

I can tolerate people who have opposing political views, but not the Rush-like crowd. (Yes, I know; he's only entertaiment. He doesn't actually lie. Again, if you say it enough times.....)

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

Jeez, Stephen, how many (INCORRECT) sweeping generalizations can you make in one thread?

Twelve. (I counted.)

:)

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

Y'all know that Patricia and I will be "rumbling" tomorrow because SHE spells Jeez with a J and *I* spell geez with a G.

Stephen, I think you're getting a little "hung up" on this whole evangelism thing. I don't know what your denomination is, but my impression from reading the bible [twice] was that Jesus, himself, was a liberal, not to mention that his teachings weren't far astray from those of the other religions of his time.

Foremost in all his teachings was tolerance. Read the book again [without someone telling you what passages on which to concentrate] and come back and tell me this is not true.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2001

Anita,

More proof that you don't know me, or are determined to believe things about me that aren't true. I am quite aware that Jesus was liberal for his day. Saying things like, "sell all you have and give it to the poor" didn't exactly resonate with the conservative viewpoint of that time period, y'know. :)

So, in this case (touching on Z's observation), in Judah at that time, the "politically correct" viewpoint was ultra-conservative and the opposite of what Jesus was saying. In fact, it was revolutionary; Judah was looking for a King to throw off Roman rule. Jesus instead told them to love the Romans.

(Tax collectors, too![g])

He also made it painfully clear that, while he loved everyone to death (and died to prove it), he expected us to live righteously. The part about greed and richness was just part of it (albeit the part most-oft quoted by liberal theologians today; they ignore the rest).

For example, take the famous case of the woman caught in adultery; the crowd was ready to stone her and Jesus said, "let him who is without sin throw the first rock." The crowd dispersed. But Jesus' last word to the woman was, "go and sin no more." He had saved her; but he expected, in return, that she henceforth change her behavior.

This is a key component of Christianity, and one most often misunderstood. When I say that I don't "hate anyone," that's not a plattitude. I really mean it. So did Jesus. He wants everyone to come to him for forgiveness, but he also expects those people to allow him to work through them to change and become better people.

(The disputes, I suppose, would be over the definition of "better people."[g])

Nor did Jesus shy away from doctrinal disputes, when, to our minds, the "gentlemanly" thing to do is to ignore them and just try to "get along." The Sadducees once came with a question about a woman who'd been married seven times; which guy would be her husband in the resurrection? Jesus went out of his way to explain that they were in error for even asking such a question. He said that they didn't "know the Scriptures," and proceeded to explain WHY they were in error.

I agree with your basic point, but with the warning that you have to be careful with sweeping generalizations about Jesus, too.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2001

Anita:

Is it Jeez or Geez? I looked into this piece of trivia a number of years ago; for no particular reason. At that time the predominant view was that it should be spelled with a J. The argument was that it originatated from Jesus Christ; as in, Jesus Christ you are a stupid bastard, which became Jeez you are a stupid bastard. The limited number of opponents to this history felt it came from a number of things, like commands screamed at a mule and began with G. Of course opinions may have changed. *<))) The origin of slang is interesting.

Cheers,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2001

Stephen:

I'm not a Christian [as you know]. However, it doesn't take a microscope to see that that Christian evangelists are less tolerant of differences in the populace than their Lord and Savior. Somewhere along the line, the good stuff that Jesus encouraged got replaced with "think like me, or you're doomed." This isn't something that *I* need to ponder. It's something that you, David, and John need to ponder [as self-proclaimed Christians.]

I can only know you by what you say in writing [either on fora or via E-mail]. IMO, you see yourself as impartial. You see yourself as someone who looks at both sides and makes decisions accordingly. I don't see this in you. I see you projecting this image to maintain peace, and I honor that. It's certainly better than David or John who just rush in to judge. It's my opinion that if you had a forum that consisted of only Christians or even only Conservative Right- Wingers, you'd feel more comfortable in letting your true feelings be known. I've seen you offer posts in response to other folks of like mind that indicated this.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2001

Anita:

I have spent a lot of time looking at this subject. You know the one, dealing with religious dogma. I had a number of theology courses in undergraduate school and I gave up a full scholarship to Yale Divinity School. I wanted to study science.

I don’t know what Poole’s beliefs are, but you have pictured him as a religious conservative. I know what that means and I respect that belief; but differ.

Here is where I stand [new testament only, the old would take forever]. This is a summary which I could document, but I no longer have the time to bring up the references [and you wouldn’t read them anyway; they are boring academic stuff].

Facts: The New Testament was written by people from an oral tradition. The earliest book was written, at least, a century after Christ. The oral tradition expressed in the NT existed long before 1AD. Many other stories of deities existed at the time: eg, virgin birth, baptisim by someone named John, 12 disciples, crucifixion, arise from the dead after 3 days; etc.

Did it happen this one time? That is a decision for each person to make. It is matter of personal faith. Not a matter of history.

This doesn’t mean that Poole and I can’t discuss social policy and the problems of junk science. The purpose of the site is not to create another Northern Eire.

I define being tolerant as not placing people in some predescribed niche based on their presumed beliefs. I just listen to what they have to say; until I have reason to think otherwise.

Best wishes,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2001

IMO, you see yourself as impartial.

This seems to be a big issue with you, starting with our discussion about "objectivity" over at the old Poole's Roost. Part of the problem is that we need to agree on definitions. Here are mine.

No, I am NOT perfectly impartial and never claimed to be. No one is. We all -- including me -- believe as we do for what seem (to us) to be good and sufficient reasons. All we can do is be TOLERANT of opposing viewpoints and I am. I will even admit that I'm wrong if someone can demonstrate that to me.

That's about as impartial and "objective" as one can get without being a Spock-like alien. One reason why I enjoyed our discussions in the past, in fact, was because YOU generally exhibit the same impartiality (and general curiousity).

At the risk of becoming tedious, I'll even parse what precisely spurred my statement about "not knowing me" here; it was your comment that I should read "everything" that Jesus had said and not just selected parts. I assure you, I have done that. In fact, I've spent the better part of my life doing it and have made a (rather painful, actually) transistion from a Young-Earth, six-24-hour-day creation fundamentalist to someone who fell in love with a girl who waitressed at a biker bar. :)

Further, when I say that "you don't know me," I'm not just stating the obvious; I realize that you can only respond to what you see here, or to what we've said via email. But what you haven't seen -- just to name one example -- is the months that I spent in Compuserve's Religion forum arguing with Fundies about doctrinal purity (whatever that means), the KJV, evolution, homosexuality, etc., ad nauseum.

Here's the absolutely hilarious part: to THEM, I was a *LIBERAL!*[g] Oh, how I worried them! Many of them considered me a special case, because I *did* claim to believe the Bible. How could I come to such different conclusions, then?

So ... on a regular basis, I'd get a private email from one of them. They were *REALLY* concerned about me; I seemed to truly believe in Jesus and the Bible, but was nonetheless hopelessly in error. They felt "led" to help me correct my error and snatch me from De Nile. :)

In plain English: I didn't Fit The Profile. That worries people. They like being able to cram us in boxes with neat labels.

Now, to someone like you, I'm maybe one or two steps above James Dobson. I realize that, too, and it just adds to the hilarity. I spend most of my life shaking my head, because I can't win. :)

But the point here (and the whole reason why I started this thread) is that it's VERY difficult to take positions that don't Fit The Profile, because really, when you boil it down, "political correctness" means, "fitting someone's neat little profile."

Take homosexuality, for example. Do I think it's right? No. Do I think they're "born that way" and can't help themselves? Not for a moment. But do I think they have a right to do as they wish? As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, absolutely. Nor do I think that they should suffer from discrimination solely because they're gay or lesbian; I get just as upset as you or anyone else if a gay loses his job solely because he's gay. That's just WRONG.

And here's the problem: most people won't bother to read that whole paragraph. On one side, as soon as they see, "I don't think they're born that way," the argument begins. They *ASSUME* that I fit the Homophobe Profile because I use some of the same words as homophobes.

(ah!)

Likewise, my fundie friends see the "live and let live" part of that paragraph and start arguing, too, because it doesn't Fit The Profile for a good Bible-believing Christian. "Why, he's a liberal who denies the Word of God!" From their point of view, I shouldn't use some of the same words as gay rights activists.

Not Fitting The Profile and Not saying the Right Things -- EITHER way, conservative OR liberal -- is the root of political correctness.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001

"...because really, when you boil it down, "political correctness" means, "fitting someone's neat little profile."..."

That couldn't be more wrong, Stephen. This is yet another term that has been bastardized by the right-wing. The true concept of PC is, quite simply, the act of respect for others. (And what a shame that it needs to be "taught".)

But, as is the case with many good intentions, it's been taken beyond where it was ever meant to go (much like the Americans with Disabilities Act). It has now, along with the word "liberal", become a "rallying cry" for the right: all that is "evil" in those with whom they disagree.

Talk about "neat little profiles"; no one does THAT better than the right.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001

One reason why I enjoyed our discussions in the past, in fact, was because YOU generally exhibit the same impartiality (and general curiousity).

Is this to say that you don't enjoy our discussions NOW?

I've always tried to be polite in conversations, Stephen, but even my best friends tell me that they like me because I'll call them an asshole to their face rather than do it behind their back. Of course these same friends agree that we all have a right to act like assholes on occasions.

I know how far you've come in your "evolution" of the Christian experience. You mentioned previously how you'd not so many years ago believed in the young earth concept, etc. I also understand your consternation at being considered "liberal" by some on other fora. I'm considered "right wing" by some on other fora. It's all relative to where one sits on the continuum and where others sit.

I enjoy you for a number of reasons, and I wouldn't waste my time coming back here if I didn't enjoy you, although all you need do is HINT at my being unwelcome and I'll delete this forum and never show my face again. From MY standpoint, you represent the Christian Right. I spent many years studying various religions and observing how folks IMPLEMENTED them. I wanted the well-rounded experience, so didn't just study the Bible, but the other faiths of the world. I also spent many years discussing religion with folks of various faiths. In every case, I found that what people did made sense to them based on their faith.

Just as an example, Moslems think of the hair on a woman's head as a private part. While Moslem women feel free to "let down their hair" in the privacy of their own homes, they would feel like sluts if they didn't cover it in public.

Every faith has its weirdnesses, which are not AT ALL understood by those who don't share that faith. In addition, every faith has extremist factions. Religion is much like politics in that regard.

I cling to you like a barnacle on a boat because you can provide me with answers to questions I have regarding the Religious Right AND because you can do this in a way that John and David can't. In no way do I see you as impartial, but I DO appreciate your civility. Impartial's highly over-rated anyway.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001

Trish,

I agree that we NEED civility in those cases where we have different views -- and in fact, that's part of what I was asking for above: the right to express a variant (or even unpopular) opinion without being called a bunch of names.

But I don't agree with your definition. I (and other conservatives) didn't just draw the term "PC" out of thin air. Nor did we originally coin it. The term "Political Correctness" came from the former Soviet Union (though they used the term interchangeably with "poltical acceptability").

The Soviets believed that people needed to receive a carefully-controlled, carefully-filtered view of things in order to help them overcome historical biases and error. For example, to help them overcome their "religious superstitions," you carefully omitted any mention of the *GOOD* that churches do; you only spoke of their excesses and mistakes.

But it went further than that. For example, under the old Soviet system, you could criticize and expose *individual* failures at length, but you could NOT criticize the *system itself*, because that might cause The People to wonder if the system was founded on a flawed premise to start with.

PC/PA even permeated scientific enquiry; for example, their version of the theory of evolution emphasized cooperation amongst species, rather than competition and the survival of the fittest, because it tied in more neatly with the communist view of the "dialectic of history," from the revolution to the eventual "withering away of the state."

So, under the original definition as developed by the communists, it meant just what I have described here: considering some statements and ideas to be politically unacceptable and thus prohibited (either directly or indirectly).

Anita,

Is this to say that you don't enjoy our discussions NOW?

You sound like my ex-wife now. I never understood how she could take a statement, made by me in all bright-eyed innocence, the wrong way. :)

I would say, "it must be a woman thing," but that would be politically incorrect. ;)

(Yes, I enjoy discussing things with you. Even if you don't like Mexican food and look 10 years younger than you really are.)

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001

Perhaps that's where the term did originate, Stephen, but I don't think that's what is being discussed on this thread. If you disagree with the definition according to the former Soviet Union, that's one thing, but I doubt that's what you were talking about in starting this thread. Has the former Soviet Union suddenly become some kind of "threat" again?

If the liberals of here and now stole and subsequently bastardized the expression, fine. But the definition, as it was meant to be HERE, is as I stated it, not as it was in the former Soviet Union. And what has happened to the term vis a vis the "right" is ALSO as I stated it to be. It has NOTHING to do with the former Soviet Union.

But perhaps the actual origin of the term/concept is where the "right" gets their hatred. Would certainly explain alot. Sort of.

You stated in your original post: "From that point, it's only one tiny further step to, "I must prevent him/her from saying that."...". It is NOT "only one tiny further step", we're talking GIANT LEAPS there. Again, perhaps in the former Soviet Union this was the case, but we aren't talking about "the former Soviet Union", we're talking about HERE and NOW.

(I'm curious, though. Why does any of this worry or bother you at all? Who's "in power" now here in the US? I assure you, there is no need to worry that Republicans will try to legislate/enforce/enact any kind of respect for anyone.)

BTW, having respect for someone does not always entail civility, and vice versa. I spoke of "respect", not "civility".

Anita, you don't like Mexican food? I didn't know that. If you like seafood, you'd probably like real Mexican food; not the stuff that's passed off here as Mexican. One of these years, you have to come down to Mazatlan with me for my annual Two Weeks On The Beach in February. A couple of friends and I leave the menfolk at home and relax, eat and shop (though "shop" is a relative term; we own most of the stuff by now). It's a beautiful thing. We used to go dancing just about every night, but -- sigh -- the body yells louder these days in protest.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001

A few days ago, I posted a few times on Unk's forum and Rich made the comment that it must be "definition" day. It seems that today is not only "definition" day, but "close the damn tags day" here.

I'll answer you in a minute, Patricia, but my anal-retentiveness had to be satisfied first.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001

argggggg.....OFF?!?!

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001

(thank you, Anita....)

(BTW, is "anal-retentive" hyphenated? I bought that T-shirt for a guy I used to work with. He said all his friends were trying to steal it from him. I shuddered at the thought of a room full of them, and then realized *I* was anal-retentive. Ugh.)

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001

Patricia:

I can't say I understand this whole PC/UN-PC thing, although I WOULD be curious to know why Stephen found the Equal Rights Amendment vaguely worded [or something like that.]

Regarding Mexican food, I eat well in Mexico. I even went out on a limb and ordered something I didn't understand in Little Havana in Florida once and found it tasty. I don't like corn products, in general, so corn-based chips and dip don't appeal to me. My olfactory glands also become assaulted when I enter a Mexican restaurant. The odor of curried food does the same thing. I lived in a building with the Moslem family that I discussed in another thread, and I think I could have thrown a chicken in the hall and found it "curried" in the morning. It's my understanding that some landlords won't rent to Moslems because they can't remove the odor from the kitchen cabinets after they've moved out.

The kids and I frequented [well.......frequented meaning WHEN we went out to eat] a truly Mexican restaurant in Blue Island, Illinois. It was in a Hispanic area and they didn't serve the Tex-Mex that passes itself off as Mexican food here. It was a dump, but we got great flour tacos, had no odor about it, and had fun plugging quarters into the Jukebox and dancing around.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001

Anita,

Yes, I had a dismally-bad first marriage back in the 1980's. Long, long story (like most such tales).

What concerns me more here is what you guys consider "true" Mexican food. Now I'm intrigued. Are you saying that my delicious little taqueritos aren't genuine? I'm shocked. :)

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

Is dismally-bad hyphenated? [I can't find anal-retentive in the dictionary, so I assume it's slang and I haven't bought a new dictionary in a few years.] I only have to look in our closet and see SO's shirts and pants hanging EXACTLY 1.5" apart, with the shoes below [complete with shoe-trees] lined up with perfection. Then I look to MY side of the closet, where hangers are sticking up or fallen on the floor and I realize that anal-retentiveness is all relative, and if he expected the same from me that he expects of himself, we'd be starring in one of those "Sleeping with the Enemy" films.

I don't even know what a taquerito IS. I know I've had some food I liked in Mexico. I know I've had some food I liked in Hispanic areas in the U.S. I know a friend of ours created a burrito buffet when we all stayed together in a condo in Myrtle Beach, and the offerings he provided suited me just fine. [I should E-mail him for the "recipe", although it was less a "recipe" than a "pick what you like and make the burrito of your choice."]

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

Patricia,

Funny tee shirt. As a person who hyphenates to hyperventilation, I should get one. But really, hyphens are quite helpful. There seem to be more and more combinations of 2 or more words that are used together as one word. I suppose instead using a hyphen, we could just run them together. I think that is what the Germans do. Is "analretentive" anal-retentive?

I think that some PC-think has been useful. Of course it can be carried way too far as is the case with university speech codes and silly, complicated euphemisms that never catch-on anyway.

I remember when "colored" was considered to be an ok term. Then in the early 60s, the word "black" was championed ("black" used to be a bit pejorative as it was often used hyphenated with "bastard"). I wanted to be up-to-date (note the double hyphens!) and forced muself to say "black". It didn't roll off the tongue right away but I came to appreciate it becuse of its simplicity (one syllable) and its parity (black/white is a good balance even tho ther are no truly black and no truly white people (except albinos and they can be "black").

Now, in certain usages, the word "African-American" is the PC thing. Well, I will call someone African-American if they will call me European-America. If they call me white, I will call them black. Parity again.

BTW is a 5th generation Afrikaner who immigrates to America an African-American? Well no, you have to be black to be African-America. Gets complicated and silly at times. And positively Fascistic when used to deny free-speech.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

Lars:

You've reminded me of a South African white person with whom I communicated on a forum several years past. She insisted on calling herself African-American. She was, actually. Are folks from Morocco or Egypt that have emigrated to the U.S. called African-American? The term never made any sense; I've never used it, and don't know anyone IRL who has.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

"...hyphenates to hyperventilation..."

LOL Lars!! I guess I do, too.

I believe I bought that T-shirt through the Signals catalogue (could have been Wireless, but they're almost the same). They both have web sites, AFAIK.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

Good question Anita--do Africans from north of the Sahara (Arabs) who immigrate to the US qualify as "African-American"?

My hazy recollection is that the term "African-American" enetered the language in the late 80s as an announcement on-high from Jesse Jackson. It was clear to me that he considered African-Americans to be black. I actually find the designation useful in that I think it designates a cultural background whereas "black" is more racial. But I don't think it will ever gain wide spoken usage (as opposed to print) becauzse the plain fact is that people don't want to say 6 syllables when one will do. Still I have no objection to calling someone African-American if they will call me European-American. Hell, they can even call me Euro-American, if I can call them Afro-American.

Another PC word that I have learned to appreciate is "woman". Man/woman, again I like the parity. Referring to adult females as "girls" was really bad. On the other side of that coin are people like my PC professor friend who refers to any female beyond puberty as "woman". Call me old-fashioned but I think the words "man" and "woman" should be reserved for males and females that reach a certain emotional maturity as well as physical maturity. (age 18 works for me). Even then I prefer "young man" and "young woman. Under 18, they are boys and girls in my book.

One PC term that I truly dislike is "people of color". I think this is a weasel-word with political objectives, namely to politically isolate those of European ansestry from everyone else. After all, everyone else is a "person of color", relatively speaking, no matter if they are black Africans, Mexicans (who are actually American Indians), residents of the subcontinent or Asians. I find "people of color" to be a disingenuous, dishonest term.

So that is my pronouncment on PC language. (copyright 2001, Larsguy)

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

I suppose I should have an opinion on disability language also. Yes, the word "disabled" is an improvement over "crippled" even tho we call ourseves "crips", but you are not allowed to do that. Naa, naa, naaa, naaa, naaa, naaa.

Originally, I preferred the word "handicapped" (and handicapped was the PC word for a while--parking places are still identified as for the handicapped). But "disabled" crept into usage. There was an idea that "handicapped" derived from an earlier reference to beggars with hat in hand seeking alms. I think that that origin of "handicapped" was shown to be a canard (the word actually came from the world of sports betting). To me, "disabled" has the connotation of being totally broken, like an abandoned car on the freeway.

But I am comfortable with "disabled" now. Let's just not invent a new term. I do believe that there are people who make their living by inventing PC-speak.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

Lars:

You remind me of SO MUCH. I hope I don't bore everyone to death. My life has been forever changed by my children. When they were youngsters, they compared the color of people's skin to the crayons in the box. I enjoyed listening to them discuss skin tones of kids at school; I never corrected them, because it was clear to me that they saw more than the grownups did.

They considered themselves "peach". They had a BIG box of crayons, so the ranges of colors varied considerably, but I don't think they ever met anyone they considered black until they met their first African. They never considered anyone white until they heard about it [probably in high-school, or junior-high].

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

Peach? how very precious. I like that.

um, sorry to interupt.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

The sad state of free speech at UC Berkely

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

Anita,

A taquerita is a little corn tortilla roll filled with meat or beans, fried crispy. Kind of like a little tiny fried burritto. Terribly fattening and bad for you, but delicious. :)

They considered themselves "peach". They had a BIG box of crayons, so the ranges of colors varied considerably, but I don't think they ever met anyone they considered black until they met their first African. They never considered anyone white until they heard about it [probably in high-school, or junior-high].

That's funny, my brother and I did the same thing and reached the same conclusion! Peach it was! :)

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001