I feel like I'm opening a surprise box today..... I've prayed about what I plan to post and I hope that it will make sense to all who pause here. I have things that I want to say, and I know that some may take issue with my words and my thoughts; my defense is a simple one: the Holy Spirit guided me to this topic. I'm relying on Him to help me, for I'm neither as learned or as eloquent as many who approach this subject, but I'm going to try to lay some things out here to discuss!
Ready?
Good!
All week we have alluded to the climate of communication today. Talking with those we know and love, and talking with strangers, too, can be likened to the proverbial minefield. We pick and choose our words, and most of us are not the type to denigrate anyone or be impolite.
But try as we may, there are still going to be those who take offense at what we say. They may pick at our choice of vocabulary. "Politically incorrect!" they will shout. "Offensive!" someone else will say. "I'm traumatized," says another.
I will apologize now to our friends in other countries who read here, since my examples and quotations will all be based on American history and culture; perhaps their own culture has examples, as well.....
I love this quote that is attributed to Voltaire:
“I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”
This is the America that I grew up in. The America that has existed for a couple of centuries, where our First Amendment states that people have the right to say what they want. Of course, the Supreme Court said in 1942 that "the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words -- those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," were excepted from the First Amendment protections, even though subsequent decisions have made room for obscene and profane speech. In 1992, the high Court refined its opinion to rule that the government may not discriminate among the ideas that the words convey.
In other words, the government has no business trying to bar what we now hear referred to as "hate speech." Speech that will cause "anger, resentment or alarm in others based on race, color, religion, creed, or gender." I am just as scandalized and dismayed at Holocaust deniers, race-baiters, and those who will demonize others for their religion or their state of mind, as anyone else is. I decry the use of harsh words and hurtful terms. But to criminalize words? To criminalize thought?
Since when did the Constitution say that people could bring charges against those whose opinions or words offended them? Notice I didn't say "harm." We see the cutting edge of this movement on campuses today. Students are not offered fair rules, equal justice, and consistent standards. College students today are not encouraged to have vigorous discussions with those who disagree with them. Today they are encouraged to press charges against those who offend them.
The late President Bush said this:
Ready?
Good!
All week we have alluded to the climate of communication today. Talking with those we know and love, and talking with strangers, too, can be likened to the proverbial minefield. We pick and choose our words, and most of us are not the type to denigrate anyone or be impolite.
But try as we may, there are still going to be those who take offense at what we say. They may pick at our choice of vocabulary. "Politically incorrect!" they will shout. "Offensive!" someone else will say. "I'm traumatized," says another.
I will apologize now to our friends in other countries who read here, since my examples and quotations will all be based on American history and culture; perhaps their own culture has examples, as well.....
I love this quote that is attributed to Voltaire:
“I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”
This is the America that I grew up in. The America that has existed for a couple of centuries, where our First Amendment states that people have the right to say what they want. Of course, the Supreme Court said in 1942 that "the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words -- those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," were excepted from the First Amendment protections, even though subsequent decisions have made room for obscene and profane speech. In 1992, the high Court refined its opinion to rule that the government may not discriminate among the ideas that the words convey.
In other words, the government has no business trying to bar what we now hear referred to as "hate speech." Speech that will cause "anger, resentment or alarm in others based on race, color, religion, creed, or gender." I am just as scandalized and dismayed at Holocaust deniers, race-baiters, and those who will demonize others for their religion or their state of mind, as anyone else is. I decry the use of harsh words and hurtful terms. But to criminalize words? To criminalize thought?
Since when did the Constitution say that people could bring charges against those whose opinions or words offended them? Notice I didn't say "harm." We see the cutting edge of this movement on campuses today. Students are not offered fair rules, equal justice, and consistent standards. College students today are not encouraged to have vigorous discussions with those who disagree with them. Today they are encouraged to press charges against those who offend them.
The late President Bush said this:
"The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land," he said. "And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones."
They have tried to stop incivility. They have embarked on a slippery slope toward thought control.... it's only out of the clash of opinions and freewheeling discussions (a staple of life when I was in college) that truth can ultimately emerge. Even when opinions are false, disagreeable, and unpopular, it's the airing in the light of day that can eventually change peoples' minds. Not the hushing up that is being used today.
I read a quote from a professor at the University of Michigan, Vincent Hutchings, who admitted that the phrases "politically correct" and "offensive" are being used as a "kind of linguistic jujitsu" to disable an opponent's argument.
In other words, if you can't discuss it, shut it down.
Let's look back at the First Amendment again..... the founders of our country placed a premium on the ability to persuasively articulate opposing viewpoints. The whole reason that they rejected government censorship of speech was because they trusted that individuals would regulate themselves. They didn't prohibit offensive speech because they sincerely believed that truth lost its power unless it was confronted with falsehoods. They believed that tolerance needed to stand tall in contrast with prejudice. They knew that an idea, whether it was true or false, could be debated and either stand or fall -- debates that should be able to be, in the words of Justice William Brennan, "uninhibited, robust, and wide open." What was common sense to them then, has been discarded now.
One of the signers of the Constitution was William Livingston. He looked at the American colleges of 250 years ago and noted that the doctrines the students learned "pass from the memory and understanding to the heart, and at length become a second nature...... appearing on the bench, at the bar, in the pulpit, and in the senate." What he observed then is even more true today -- the intellectual intolerance that is growing so strongly on the campuses of America holds a dire threat to the freedom of thought, speech, and press that are dearly cherished by many Americans.
I see three problems in the communication squabbles of today..... first, we can't learn much (about ideas or about each other) if we are unwilling to listen to ideas that challenge our own opinions. Even our own strongly held opinions can't be fully understood until we have to think hard enough about them in order to defend them vigorously. We must be willing to examine objectively the opinions that we hold dear, and also to listen objectively to those of others. Many today will simply scream objections to drown out the opinions of others who don't agree with them. What a waste! What a loss of opportunity for us to understand and value each other!
Secondly, we are under constant social pressure -- we must monitor everything we say, lest some unguarded politically incorrect phrase costs us our friends, our status, even our employment. Not only is this a constant stressful state, but it severely hampers individuals' abilities and opportunities to think for themselves. Instead of open, even passionate discussion, we become boring and "cookie cutter" in our mentality and our opinions. This is quite the opposite of the independent, thoughtful, plainspoken (and outspoken) character that used to exemplify Americans of just a few years ago.
Thirdly, we are rapidly approaching (or perhaps well into it, already) a climate in which reasonable discussion of controversial topics is simply impossible. It's important to be able to think aloud and to discuss openly the merits of topics on which not everyone holds the same opinion. As less tolerant individuals achieve leadership roles, I'm afraid that Congress will make laws and the courts will say they pass muster -- laws in which our First Amendment rights will grow smaller and smaller. The next step will be when agencies of the administration pass rules abhorrent to the First Amendment. The process will begin with laws and regulations forbidding "hate" speech and will end far down at the bottom of the slippery slope.
No, I wouldn't label myself a conspiracist, but I do see our rights declining before my eyes. We should view with alarm any attempt to muzzle individuals' speech. Madison insisted many years ago, "the right of freely examining public characters and public measures, and of free communication among the people thereon . . . . has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right."
In the words of some people a little closer to our time; here's a compilation of authors, politicians, and more:
"Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage." Winston Churchill
"I want people to talk to one another no matter what their difference of opinion may be." Studs Terkel
"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people. I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down." Salmon Rushdie
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more....than a whine.....it has no meaning; it has no purpose." Stephen Fry
Take away our freedom of speech?
You've started the dominos falling -- our other rights are threatened severely.
I hope that this week we have examined (calmly) the climate of communication today, and ways that we can try to bring reasoned thought and speech to the table. We may not always be appreciated for what we say, but we should never stop trying!
For our own parts, we must never think that we must agree with people and their opinions in order to defend them from injustice. I hope that this is a concept that will begin to permeate the communication climate of today....
Be sure to comment below if you'd like to let us know your feedback on this two-week study!
I read a quote from a professor at the University of Michigan, Vincent Hutchings, who admitted that the phrases "politically correct" and "offensive" are being used as a "kind of linguistic jujitsu" to disable an opponent's argument.
In other words, if you can't discuss it, shut it down.
Let's look back at the First Amendment again..... the founders of our country placed a premium on the ability to persuasively articulate opposing viewpoints. The whole reason that they rejected government censorship of speech was because they trusted that individuals would regulate themselves. They didn't prohibit offensive speech because they sincerely believed that truth lost its power unless it was confronted with falsehoods. They believed that tolerance needed to stand tall in contrast with prejudice. They knew that an idea, whether it was true or false, could be debated and either stand or fall -- debates that should be able to be, in the words of Justice William Brennan, "uninhibited, robust, and wide open." What was common sense to them then, has been discarded now.
One of the signers of the Constitution was William Livingston. He looked at the American colleges of 250 years ago and noted that the doctrines the students learned "pass from the memory and understanding to the heart, and at length become a second nature...... appearing on the bench, at the bar, in the pulpit, and in the senate." What he observed then is even more true today -- the intellectual intolerance that is growing so strongly on the campuses of America holds a dire threat to the freedom of thought, speech, and press that are dearly cherished by many Americans.
I see three problems in the communication squabbles of today..... first, we can't learn much (about ideas or about each other) if we are unwilling to listen to ideas that challenge our own opinions. Even our own strongly held opinions can't be fully understood until we have to think hard enough about them in order to defend them vigorously. We must be willing to examine objectively the opinions that we hold dear, and also to listen objectively to those of others. Many today will simply scream objections to drown out the opinions of others who don't agree with them. What a waste! What a loss of opportunity for us to understand and value each other!
Secondly, we are under constant social pressure -- we must monitor everything we say, lest some unguarded politically incorrect phrase costs us our friends, our status, even our employment. Not only is this a constant stressful state, but it severely hampers individuals' abilities and opportunities to think for themselves. Instead of open, even passionate discussion, we become boring and "cookie cutter" in our mentality and our opinions. This is quite the opposite of the independent, thoughtful, plainspoken (and outspoken) character that used to exemplify Americans of just a few years ago.
Thirdly, we are rapidly approaching (or perhaps well into it, already) a climate in which reasonable discussion of controversial topics is simply impossible. It's important to be able to think aloud and to discuss openly the merits of topics on which not everyone holds the same opinion. As less tolerant individuals achieve leadership roles, I'm afraid that Congress will make laws and the courts will say they pass muster -- laws in which our First Amendment rights will grow smaller and smaller. The next step will be when agencies of the administration pass rules abhorrent to the First Amendment. The process will begin with laws and regulations forbidding "hate" speech and will end far down at the bottom of the slippery slope.
No, I wouldn't label myself a conspiracist, but I do see our rights declining before my eyes. We should view with alarm any attempt to muzzle individuals' speech. Madison insisted many years ago, "the right of freely examining public characters and public measures, and of free communication among the people thereon . . . . has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right."
In the words of some people a little closer to our time; here's a compilation of authors, politicians, and more:
"Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage." Winston Churchill
"I want people to talk to one another no matter what their difference of opinion may be." Studs Terkel
"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people. I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down." Salmon Rushdie
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more....than a whine.....it has no meaning; it has no purpose." Stephen Fry
Take away our freedom of speech?
You've started the dominos falling -- our other rights are threatened severely.
I hope that this week we have examined (calmly) the climate of communication today, and ways that we can try to bring reasoned thought and speech to the table. We may not always be appreciated for what we say, but we should never stop trying!
For our own parts, we must never think that we must agree with people and their opinions in order to defend them from injustice. I hope that this is a concept that will begin to permeate the communication climate of today....
Be sure to comment below if you'd like to let us know your feedback on this two-week study!
Oh Boy!!! You said what I think with such clarity! The prevailing climate of "political correctness" is a noose around the neck of civilisation! One can only pray that common sense will prevail, but maybe it has to be this way for the end times!
ReplyDeleteYou are so right. And it isn’t just in your country. It’s here in Canada too. We currently have a Liberal government trying to pursue “inclusive” policies. Those policies are inclusive of everyone and everything except Christianity in its true form. Last summer there was a government grant program available to small businesses whereby they could apply for funding to help with funding to pay for a summer student. But before a business could qualify for this funding they had to sign a document stating that they agreed with the governments “inclusive” ideologies. Needless to say, Christian businesses did without the grants.
ReplyDeleteIT's a different world that is so alien to me I am feeling alone.
ReplyDelete