Well, this seems like a good topic for debate, so I thought I'd bring it up (again: this is actually a modified repost of a topic I posted on another forum, but it's still true). Lately in America, we're seeing a much stronger shift towards what is being called "political correctness." The basic idea behind political correctness is to prevent ourselves from even the notion of potentially possibly offending someone. However, in past years, at least in my opinion, it's gotten a bit ridiculous. First, I'm sure many people remember the advertisement for Virgin Mobile of years past where it was "Happy Christmahanhukwanzukah" (or however they spelt it). While it was a direct joke made upon the state of politically correct holidays in our culture, I don't feel it shocked the world enough or brought forth the message it could very easily have. I'm sure many of us celebrate Christmas, regardless of whether or not we're actually Christians who believe that the Savior of mankind was born around that day roughly two thousand years ago. So, why this sudden shift against Christmas? Recently, one of my professors alluded to the fact that a woman was recently fired from her place of employment for wishing her boss a, "Merry Christmas." When taken to court, she wound up losing. So, it is now politically incorrect to wish someone a Merry Christmas, because *gasp* what if they're not Christian?! Heaven forbid we offend them with something like wishing for their happiness (though if they're offended by "Merry Christmas," they need some serious help). There's also the recent lawsuit in California that tried to evict the words, "under God," from our Pledge of Allegiance. Why? If you're not paying it any mind, what the hell does it matter? To prevent myself from sounding flaming or rantish, I will simply point out the political theory that states that express consent doesn't necessarily imply a tacit agreement with the consent. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't force one to worship God. A third thing is this: in the past two years, new terminology has come up to describe our year-system. "BC" and "AD" have been replaced in most literature by the more politcally-correct, "BCE" and "CE." What do these mean? Well, BC is traditionally "Before Christ," and AD is traditionally "Anno Domini" - in the year of our Lord. So, by saying BC and AD, we're automatically forcing the world to be Christian? Nay, and again I say nay! The only thing that thinking on BC and AD will cause someone to do is to look at the history of modern society and its deep roots in Christianity. To deny that Christianity played a major role in Western History is basically to be blatantly ignorant. And even look at it this way: if you look at some of the things that the "church" did, saying BC and AD seem to discourage joining the Christian faith because of all the crap that's gone on. My point is this: political correctness is beginning to overstep its bounds. A relatively young phenomenon, it is seeking to oust religion out of people's lives altogether, when studies have proven that religious people are in fact happier and healthier than people who aren't (of course, it doesn't seem to care much about Hindus, Wiccans, or Muslims, just Christians and Jews, but that's besides the point). Dare we stop it, before it goes even farther? Because three people are offended by something, should we stop doing that something when it's common to the rest of the world? I digress. What are you guys' opinions on this sometimes-touchy matter?
I deal with this **** everyday. I live in a very "diverse" (that right there is political correctness.) Being a white guy in this area, I am continuously scrutinized against for these same reasons. But around here it is mostly about race. For example every piece of literature around here has something to do with slavery or discrimination. It anger me that we cannot read something that has literature aspects and is fun to read. Something like The Andromeda Strain. If you dare speak out against reading these books, you are immediately hated by EVERYONE. I will only give one more example of all this but trust me there a plenty more. I was talking to my friends in English class about how some man robbed the store in which I worked at. I said, "Some man walked into the store and said" "Being a Jewish man talking to and Italian man I do not like your food." After that he robbed the store. The teacher being Jewish overheard this and sent me to the office and recommended me for expulsion for hating Jews. OK one more example, in the same class some people were speaking Spanish(HON ENGLISH) I said could you speak English please, we live in America. The teacher put me in the back of room and I was not allowed to talk to anybody for the next week. OK I am glad I go this all out.
I agree with you ever so slightly on the reading point but not on this one. If they are Spanish and they both know it, they have the right to speak Spanish. End of. If they have to read something or if the teacher puts a rule where you have to speak English in English class. When you said that they should speak English, that's just plain rude. But, I'll side on you that the punishment was a little harsh as nothing really bad happened... To political correctedness. It has gone a little too far. It seems that if it continues, it'll start getting rid of culture as it will be deemed offensive to someone.
We were having a group discussion about a book and they started speaking Spanish to me(I don't know Spanish)
This is a good topic. Anyway, here are my views... Im jewish, for starters.... but no, as for the, "Merry Christmas" thing, Im told that all the time. Do I expect people to see me and know, hey, hes jewish. Wish him a Happy Hannukkah. No. I accept they are wishing me happiness. With BC and AD, I get a little annoyed. You're right, like, BCE and CE are stupid. (which btw for anyone not knowing, BCE is, "Before Common Era" and CE is, "Common Era.) It's stupid though. Im jewish, that doesnt mean I should argue against the facts that christianity played a big part in the upcoming of the Western hemisphere and America. As well as ancient Europre and Asia. Fact is fact. As for the Pledge of Allegiance, I only seeing that offending an Atheist.... so they can just start saying, "One nation, under science..." (lol). How about this one, calling a midget, "vertically challenged". I have nothing against a person with dwarfism, but calling them, "Vertically challenged" is retarded. And speaking of which, thats the only one I'll agree with, calling a mental person, "Mentally Challenged", instead of Retarded. Or Mentally Retarded. That's different because Retarded is a much more insulting word to use. One other thing I will point out is how people that aren't black get all mad when they can't call a black person the N word, but a black person can call themselves it. Well thats simple. Im a jew, and I can laugh at myself, but do I want someone not jewish coming up to me saying, "Hey Jew, look, a quater!" (Which btw me and my friends joke about) but thats still mean to me. Its like if you go up to your friend and punch him, but he doesnt care cause he knows your kidding around, but then go up to a stranger and punch them, theyll have cops beat the **** out of you...
You do realize Islam played a larger role in western advances than Christianity, right? This all relates back to the BCE, CE arguement. I mean, Christianity was in the dark ages while Islam was preserving Roman and Greek knowledge. You might want to remember that next time you think about England's feudal era. Maybe we should switch over to BM (before Muhammad) and AM (Anno Muhammad). The again, it is only ok for atheists to approve of BC and AD, but you can't approve of Muslim calendar dates. As for the pledge arguement...Nothing disgusts me more than hypocrisy. "It's not big deal, an atheist doesn't have to say it!" When Christians and atheists didn't have to say it at all before 1954 - reversing the dedication. That's right, your darling pledge was edited by the religious right in the 50's. In fact, "E Pluribus Unum"[from many, one] was replaced by "In God We Trust" as the national motto in 1957. Not only does "Under god" throw off the entire rhythm of the pledge but it is downright stupid to include a specific deity or any deity in a country that was founded upon our freedom of choice. Our founding fathers are what I would like to considered borderline atheists, they were deists. Though today we are one of the most Christian countries in the world, during our humble beginnings we were considered the most secular nation in the world. However, the puritans remedied this. George Washington is quoted as saying, "Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated." John Adams said, [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." Thomas Jefferson said, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." and [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." James Madison said, "[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." Benjamin Franklin said, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." These quotes are either directly atheistic in nature or anti-established religion. Moreover, all of these men were against Church involvement in government. They would be ashamed of what occured in the 50's, ashamed of what we've done to homosexuals, and ashamed of us for not standing up for what they worked so hard to achieve. [/FONT]
Actually, most of those quotes are calls that I wish more Christians would respond to: to think about their religion instead of submitting to the "blindfolded fear" that Jefferson alluded to. But to stay on topic, I'll hold back my own rant against the actions that the church committed "in the name of God" during the Crusades, Inquisition, and many other periods. The fact of the Christian church's shortcomings is the one thing I am loathe to take upon myself by claiming the name of Christ, because history has proven time and again that Christians who think they've got it right turn out to be the biggest freaking hypocrites out there. But enough on that, and getting to the points you made. Among the founding fathers (and I have yet to get all the facts on this, and so may be wrong), I was almost positive that the line between deists and those who would fit well in most modern evangelical circles was split almost 50-50. Still, it is a good thing that you pointed out the fact that, under their governmental theory, government and religion should be separate entities (as they were striving to stop a repeat monarchy, and many as you have pointed out opposed the past hypocracy of the church in the same way I do, so opposed any form of Theocracy until the second coming of Christ). The pledge, and most (if not all) of the other religious proliferation in our government, can all be pointed to the Red Scare and McCarthian as their source. Mind you, the McCarthy era was basically a repeat of the Salem Witch Trials (minus death and with communism as the charge instead of witchcraft), so the fact that we're still hanging onto relics from that age is a very sad thing. There's also the fact that, constitutionally, no one should ever be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance in any way, as it violates our first amendment right to free speech. I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read up much on the Middle Eastern development during the "common era" beyond that of the early church (and even then, any extensive knowledge I have drops off around 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Empire). So naturally, my knowledge of Muslim culture, art, and science is limited, though I have no hatred for that religion or any of its followers (quite to the contrary in fact). Now, you made a point that the Pledge of Allegiance wasn't a part of the vocabulary of Americana until the 1950's - which I already pointed to and agreed with. However, you never actually answered the statement that I made, wherein express consent (i.e. saying the Pledge of Allegiance) doesn't imply tacit agreement (i.e. holding to Christianity). In essence, even if you say it doesn't mean you have to believe it. Granted, that's a form of dishonesty, so the argument to just not say it holds more merit, but even then that argument also went unanswered, as you diverted into a discussion on the notions of religiosity in our government. Mind you, the Pledge is not "darling" to me in any way, except for the fond childhood memories I have of saying it with my classmates (and good friends) in elementary school. Now that I'm older, I have no love for it. While I'll admit that most of the things it says are good (liberty and justice for all, and all that jazz, which is actually very Biblical jazz, but nonetheless), it really holds no more importance in my mind than the Gettysburg Address, or than Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech or Thomas Paine's "Common Sense." Good historical document that well defines the era in which it was written, but not much beyond that. But I fear you're missing the crux of my argument. I'm not saying that the Pledge should be preserved (though I feel it should), or that Christianity was the only religion through the past two millenia (when clearly it wasn't). I'm saying that people need to stop making mountains out of mole hills and get over it if someone says something that may have offended you, when it's clear that wasn't their intention.
And yet, gay marriage is illegal. I know it's hard for you to understand, how someone could find saying 'god' offensive but it is. If you want to say "under god" personally, I have no problem with it. If you want to believe in a god personally, I have no problem with it. If you want to impede upon my freedoms so that I have to say "under god" or even believe in your god, then I have a problem with it. Out of several things you said I've decide to pick one out of the rest. It seems to be your strongest arguement. That being, communism was a cause for Godinization of our nation. However, before I do, I would like to point out that the pledge of allegance was said before 1950, it was revised in 1950 is what I was getting at. Continuing. "The pledge, and most (if not all) of the other religious proliferation in our government, can all be pointed to the Red Scare and McCarthian as their source. Mind you, the McCarthy era was basically a repeat of the Salem Witch Trials (minus death and with communism as the charge instead of witchcraft), so the fact that we're still hanging onto relics from that age is a very sad thing. There's also the fact that, constitutionally, no one should ever be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance in any way, as it violates our first amendment right to free speech." That is a point I agree with. No one should be forced to say "under god" and indeed I'm not, however, having "under god" in a national song [should] violate separation of church and state and furthermore it is against what the founding fathers would have wished. My first reason it should be removed is because it gives the idea that we are a Christian nation and we simply are not, no matter what the majority says. "...wherein express consent (i.e. saying the Pledge of Allegiance) doesn't imply tacit agreement (i.e. holding to Christianity). In essence, even if you say it doesn't mean you have to believe it..." You're right. I don't believe it and I don't say it. I am not forced to do either, but wouldn't it be strange if we had to say, "...One Nation, Under Satan, Indivisible.." Now that doesn't seem too reasonable does it? Why would anyone want their country run by Satan, it would be a mockery. Thus I feel the same way, that having "God" in our Pledge should be taken out for reason number 2. It alienates 40% of the population. I have one girl in my first period, who every morning almost cries when I skip right past "under god" in the pledge. It has gotten satirical now, however, the first day she attempted to make me feel like the scum of the earth, which failed due to the awesome power of mental thinking. I'd like to bring up my own point, if the pledge was used as a propaganda tool during the McCarty era, why has it not been removed like the "duck and cover" films? Why do people insist on not righting the wrongs of the past and instead keeping them and calling those who wish to restore what once was a beautiful song, to its original state, reactionists? It is not possible to have freedom of religion without having freedom from religion.
I seriously hope for that girl's sake that she learns to better cope with the reality that people are going to believe things that are different from her own, and formally apologize for any damage she has caused by attempts to make you feel bad for standing up for your own beliefs. If anything, actions such as yours should be commended. Here's the thing about the "under Satan" bit, though (and I admit that I'm straying from the topic quite a bit). Even to non-Christians, it is understood that Satan is entirely maleficent. Having a nation under Satan would imply that the values of that nation are in line with the values of Satan: biblically to steal, kill, and destroy humanity and all creation to the best of his intent. However, God is understood to be the polar opposite of Satan: entirely benevolent and loving towards all. A nation under God should, then, be obligated to at least hold to the mores that He dictates: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control, accountability, responsibility, humility, justice, and the list goes on. I don't know of a single person who wouldn't want such virtues prioritized and sought after in our nation. Perhaps the most ironic part of all is that it can be easily said that, even though we proclaim our nation to be under God, the United States has strayed from the goals of the religion it professed to claim, and has been deceived into embodying the traits of its enemy. And honestly, I can't say why the pledge hasn't been returned to its original form along with undoing the rest of the damage of McCarthyism. I believe I may have been proven wrong on that example (which, as your signature denotes, is a good thing), and that it probably should be returned to its original state. My main point still stands, though, in that political correctness is overstepping its bounds. EDIT: In response to your quip about gay marriage. I'm sure that you would agree with me on this, in that the institution of marriage should be entirely left in the hands of the church, and that the state should have no involvement with it. The church, from a functionalist point of view, acts as the moral compass for society, while the government protects the fundamental natural rights of that society (life, liberty, and property, according to John Locke's second treatise on government - the source for most of our Founding Fathers' political theories). But the main issue in play (as it always is) is money. Marriage means tax benefits by the federal government, as it would be unfair to tax a couple just starting out in marriage the same amount (percentage wise) as an individual. The couple just starting out needs more of their money, so they rightly get a tax break. The issue, then, becomes defining who qualifies for this tax break, which is where people take up arms. While marriage remains the domain of the church, as the state deals with taxes, there needs to be definition as to who is eligible and who isn't. There are two solutions I see to this mess: we can either eliminate the tax break for married couples, or we can redefine what qualifies as a "marriage" on the books. Hell, why not just take marriage language out of the equation and say "two or more persons abiding in the same dwelling who share in one another's income." That'd solve a whole lot of problems, and would probably help the economy out quite a bit. So, to sum up, it's not the government's place to say what does and doesn't constitute marriage, but for the sake of taxes, they have to have some kind of opinion. However, that is where the controversy has its root.
Satan in the bible kills 7 people under god's direct allowance. God, however, allows, condones, and sometimes directly tells people to commit genocide, murder, natural disasters, people wandering in the desert, giving a man up to a whale, and killing every first born son in Egypt (which could have ranged from a baby to a full grown adult). If you even look at the book of Job you get a bad after taste in your mouth from the supreme negligence of god. That is another debate, however. The nation is best recognize, not as a nation of god but a nation of peace, UNITY, justice, strength, and indivisibility. "My main point still stands, though, in that political correctness is overstepping its bounds." I would say yes to that. I think that Chairman should be called Chairperson, I think that anchorman should be anchorperson, I also think, to the contrary, that manhole should remain manhole and not be changed to peoplehole. I agree with these politically correct organizations until they get to into themselves and start asking for things that are unreasonable. I'm all for equality, but I'm not for bullshitting ourselves. I think the handicapped should be just that and not handicapable. I think that old people are old and seniors are in high school. I think we need a little hard language in our society, and that not everything needs to be jazzed up. Edit: You almost nailed my perception of marriage but there are finer details. I think all legal documents need to go through some sort of civil union board and the marriage itself would be conducted by a church. No tax breaks for marriage, however, there will be tax breaks for the civil union. It's essentially the same, just its easier to have equality without imposing views upon each and every church.
Political correctness is only there to cater to the ****ing oversensitive little pricks. They can **** off and die for all I care. They're not going to ruin the way I live. Pledge of Allegiance? I don't like it; I don't say it. If the teachers want to punish me for it, fine. I'll sue them for all they are worth (and no, I'm not one of those people who likes to sue for everything, however small. I think that those people are despicable and should all be banished to the moon or some ****). And yes, I would have a case that I would most likely win, depending on the views of the judge. I've studied up on it.