Should Christians be Politically Correct?

AlexDTX · Aug 11, 2017

hengesthorsa said:
I don't think anyone should be politically correct in their speech and writing, if "politically correct" means "using euphemisms to make something that is wrong or unpleasant sound good or neutral." Example: "Department of Defense" is a euphemism for "Department of War." "Correctional facility" is a euphemism for "prison." "Execution" is a centuries-old euphemism (although it may have grown out of a legal usage that wasn't euphemistic, exactly, in its origin) for a certain kind of murder. "Abortion" is a politically correct euphemism as well. We know what we're talking about when we say these things.

I do think it's a good idea to avoid using crude insults when possible. For example, older folks remember when there were in polite speech certain terms for US citizens of fairly recent African descent that are now heard as fairly crude insults. It's nice to use terms that don't make you sound like a jerk, if you don't want to sound like one. Again, we know who we mean (more or less) when we use these words.

Then there's a whole class where it's not certain what the term actually means. Sometimes, alt-right means a reasonable group of people with a presence online who would prefer not to see their world gutted as it has been, slowly, over the last several decades. Sometimes, alt-right means someone who is just ITCHING for a legal way to join a death squad and start busting heads. So, is using that term politically correct? Or not? Not so clear.

Well said, Hengesthorsa. One of the things I have not yet mentioned is the attitude used in the words, the spirit behind the delivery of the words. Years ago when I was about 20 I met a black man on the street in Seattle. I thought I was being hip when I asked him, "What's a spade like you doing here?" He looked at me with initial offense, then thought about who I was and what I asked him. He asked me, "Do you know that the word "spade" is an insult?" I was shocked since I did not know that. I apologized and said I thought that was something they said about themselves. He warned me not to say it again to a black man, for they will be offended.

He didn't beat the tar out me because he realized that my attitude and the spirit behind what I said was not intentionally offensive. Online conversations lack the visual of seeing posture and facial expressions, but a "tone of voice" can be sense by the wording. Here, at CF, regrettably, that is disregarded since they seem to have a black list of forbidden words and subjects.

AlexDTX · Aug 11, 2017

sethrak said:
Politicaly Correct, that I think is: When facing a great number, who are strong and/or angry and willing to hurt or kill you```You say nothing or only what pleases them~so they don't take your job``or your life~or expel you from a forum```

Eat the bread and salt,,but speak your piece~

Amen.

Phil 1:21 · Aug 11, 2017

Extending love and grace does not mean we have to navigate someone else's mine field so we don't dare utter one of that day's forbidden words. No, we shouldn't go out of our way to offend people. But we don't have to run our entire vocabulary through the ever changing SJW filter of acceptability either.

sethrak · Aug 11, 2017

Yes, for example: Communism and Islam have taken words and thoughts from Christian as well as pre Christian writing and text then with a twist and turn made it their own. so as to Pied Piper those who can be enticed by words and phrases to see good in and evil political religion.

archer75 · Aug 11, 2017

~Anastasia~ said:
However, if the word being discussed is one that is used in order to normalize sin, then by all means we should use the properly descriptive word, even if it offends people. To give sin a new label to make it more acceptable, will make sin itself acceptable and "normal" in the eyes of people who grow up in the language structure, and we should guard against this.

Well, that was much clearer than my post.

I'll only add that this is rather difficult to do. Not socially difficult (though maybe that, too). Difficult, period.

To take an example that is less likely than some to cause a big problem on the thread. Just about everyone agrees that certain horrible actions can reasonably be called "child abuse." Just about everyone agrees (as far as I know) that the word "school" isn't especially euphemistic. Yet someone who believes that your average school at its best involves obvious and constant mistreatment of children might find the word "school," which is bandied about as if most things that went on there were fine and dandy, to be a "normalizer" of sin.

There's a sweet spot between being true to yourself - whether this means strictly "religious" beliefs you hold, or something else - and accommodating evil. Everyone has to navigate this all the time.

It seems that the phenomenon of "political correctness" is a rather small sub-type of this, in which certain folks try hard to prescribe words and phrases for others to use - i.e. - a kind of language "police." And that I can't get behind at all.

AlexDTX · Aug 11, 2017

~Anastasia~ said:
Language indeed changes over time. However, I wonder if people realize how much language shapes our very thinking, which I think is at the heart of this question.

Yay! You get what I am asking.

~Anastasia~ said:
If the word being discussed is offensive because it is used to hurt and demean people, then the word should not be used.

I am in total agreement. We are not here to hurt or insult intentionally.

~Anastasia~ said:
However, if the word being discussed is one that is used in order to normalize sin, then by all means we should use the properly descriptive word, even if it offends people. To give sin a new label to make it more acceptable, will make sin itself acceptable and "normal" in the eyes of people who grow up in the language structure, and we should guard against this.

Exactly my point. Right on sister!

~Anastasia~ said:
So really, it depends on which "politically correct" terms you mean, but by and large, "political correctness" has led to both good and bad changes, and should not be used as a single framework to approve any and all changes. The real question is, WHY are we changing the word, and what does the new word mean, and what did the old word mean? If we can answer these questions with honesty and wisdom, we will know how to speak with Godly speech.

This is the two edged sword of the topic. In order to get people to go along they must address matters that are genuinely noble. I have no problem with handicap access. I do have a problem with people who take advantage of those access rights when they really don't need them. We are losing the sense of shame for sin and I think political correctness has dulled that sense.

AlexDTX · Aug 11, 2017

hengesthorsa said:
It seems that the phenomenon of "political correctness" is a rather small sub-type of this, in which certain folks try hard to prescribe words and phrases for others to use - i.e. - a kind of language "police." And that I can't get behind at all.

Well said. It is only the tip of a bigger ice berg. And as Christians we are to stay firm in the kingdom of God, and support only those things in the kingdom of men that agree with the kingdom of God.

disciple1 · Aug 11, 2017

AlexDTX said:
As I understand what political correctness means, we are not to offend anyone by using positive sounding euphemisms. Is there a time to call a spade a spade as a Christian, or should we be so sensitive to other people's feeling we should walk on eggshells in an effort to offend no one? Was Jesus serious when he said:

Mat_18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

What did he mean by offences? Was it an offence when Jesus called the Pharisees snakes and vipers? How can a Christian speak the truth if he has to tip toe around everyone? Is it love to be silent and let people go to Hell? You tell me.

Merry Christmas, I'm not going to say happy holidays.

archer75 · Aug 11, 2017

AlexDTX said:
Well said, Hengesthorsa. One of the things I have not yet mentioned is the attitude used in the words, the spirit behind the delivery of the words. Years ago when I was about 20 I met a black man on the street in Seattle. I thought I was being hip when I asked him, "What's a spade like you doing here?" He looked at me with initial offense, then thought about who I was and what I asked him. He asked me, "Do you know that the word "spade" is an insult?" I was shocked since I did not know that. I apologized and said I thought that was something they said about themselves. He warned me not to say it again to a black man, for they will be offended.

He didn't beat the tar out me because he realized that my attitude and the spirit behind what I said was not intentionally offensive. Online conversations lack the visual of seeing posture and facial expressions, but a "tone of voice" can be sense by the wording. Here, at CF, regrettably, that is disregarded since they seem to have a black list of forbidden words and subjects.

I have heard a similar story from someone who thought "pickaninnies" just meant "children."

I can't comment about whether CF's policies in this regard are regrettable because I just don't know much about running an internet forum.

Certainly, a sub-group of "liberals" in my lifetime have been the more obviously aggressive about "policing" this sort of thing. But I think, if you look close enough, it's clear that this goes on all the time at all levels and is done by many people in subtle and un-subtle ways.

To me the question is: is this about finding ways to communicate clearly, or is it about policing speech? I'm for communication and against policing speech.

Edit: One somewhat hidden version of this is when a person or group insists on controlling all the terms of the discussion and their definition. That's a violation of the communal nature of speech. It's game-breaking, and if they're really insistent, you can't even talk to them. Sometimes, if you resist, they get angry, and sometimes they just act hurt, as if it's a personal attack on them - when in fact they're attacking the nature of the very system of signs that allows you to talk to them at all. In these instances, they think you "won't talk" but in reality you're just refusing to close the channel of communication.

AlexDTX · Aug 11, 2017

hengesthorsa said:
Certainly, a sub-group of "liberals" in my lifetime have been the more aggressive about "policing" this sort of thing. But I think, if you look close enough, it's clear that this goes on all the time at all levels and is done by many people in subtle and un-subtle ways.

To me the question is: is this about finding ways to communicate clearly, or is it about policing speech? I'm for communication and against policing speech.

On the job is such an example. Business wants to make as much money as possible, so there is frequent reminders of being careful what one says so as not to lose customers. I understand their desire, and my own pay check depends on the success of the business, but, frankly, speaking the truth about Christ wherever I am is always my first priority. I was fired once for telling a child that God could heal her. She got excited and her father got mad at me for giving his child "false hope". My employer was a Christian but fired me nonetheless. In fact, I was also fired at a YMCA for sharing Christ with parents. I was stunned. YMCA means Young Men's Christian Association. That was when I learned the they are no longer a Christian organization even though it is in their name.

Apex · Aug 11, 2017

Chosen_and_blessed said:
Matthew 7:12 New Living Translation (NLT)
The Golden Rule
12 “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.

This and Matthew 22:37-39. Sadly, many want to make Christianity into a religion of regulations, like Judaism. That old wineskin is bursting at the seams (Mark 2:22)! Not everything is black and white. Sometimes the loving thing to do is to work on the Sabbath (Mark 3:4).

Should Christians be Politically Correct? Depends on the context.

pescador · Aug 11, 2017

"Politically correct" is a term with baggage. It is used, most often negatively, to criticize those who use the term by which people prefer to be called.

The only way a Christian should behave is to speak the truth in love.

SkyWriting · Aug 11, 2017

AlexDTX said:
As I understand what political correctness means, we are not to offend anyone by using positive sounding euphemisms. Is there a time to call a spade a spade as a Christian, or should we be so sensitive to other people's feeling we should walk on eggshells in an effort to offend no one? Was Jesus serious when he said:

Mat_18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

What did he mean by offences? Was it an offence when Jesus called the Pharisees snakes and vipers? How can a Christian speak the truth if he has to tip toe around everyone? Is it love to be silent and let people go to Hell? You tell me.

Christians should be the foundation of all politically correct speech.
A number of passages will back me on that. Starting with the one just below.

Wolfe · Aug 11, 2017

AlexDTX said:
Is it love to be silent and let people go to Hell? You tell me.

This forum seems to think so.

salt-n-light · Aug 11, 2017

Rubiks said:
No one should try to offend another person, but sometimes people don't want to hear the truth. Jesus was very blunt sometimes. It could even be argued that Jesus discouraged people from following him; he told people the plain truth of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.

People love to romanticized how he treated people, but he went off sometimes lol. All out of the desire to give them eternal live, I love Him, He's great

salt-n-light · Aug 11, 2017

timewerx said:
Yea, Jesus offended a lot of people, probably the majority of the Jews since the majority voted to crucify Him.

And obviously not all under the other religions will be saved. Those who won't be saved will be judged....That's far from being politically correct, even God isn't politically correct!

God isn't for politics, no respector of persons (acts 10:34). God doesn't need to be correct, He is the truth. Lol. We box God too much.

salt-n-light · Aug 11, 2017

Wolfe said:
This forum seems to think so.

lol i literally got special featured in another post for showing scriptures that addressed that. They didn't take it very well.

Wolfe · Aug 11, 2017

Mskriskris said:
lol i literally got special featured in another post for showing scriptures that addressed that. They didn't take it very well.

My threads about Homosexuality and Infidelity got closed, as well as mine on Islam.

pescador · Aug 11, 2017

Mskriskris said:
People love to romanticized how he treated people, but he went off sometimes lol. All out of the desire to give them eternal live, I love Him, He's great

Jesus had thousands of people follow him. It was not because he "went off" sometimes. That was almost exclusively directed at The Pharisees, religious purist that laid down the law on others less "pious" then them.

Jesus loved people -- all people -- and treated them that way.

Paidiske · Aug 11, 2017

MOD HAT ON
This thread is closed for review.
Edit: This thread is being permanently closed due to
Disruptive Behavior. Please do not publicly discuss reported posts or staff actions taken on yourself or other members. Thank you.
MOD HAT OFF

Should Christians be Politically Correct?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Wise old man

The Librarian

Pack Leader

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pack Leader

Wise old man

Clara bonam audax

Similar threads