A Warning on the Dangers of Political Correctness

Gotta love political correctness (PC).  It's the means by which people censor themselves out of fear of being ostracized.  The correctness, the acceptability of what you say is somehow determined by some faceless others with the assumption they are correct.  Sounds like an excellent way to do away with original thinking.  Nothing to see here, move along.

In part, political correctness is a substitute for what used to be called good manners--manners generated not from a heartfelt, internal morality, but from an external, legalistic sense of right and wrong--an imposed system.  And it's flexible; it can change any time the arbiters of the system decide to change it.

Politically correctness in language is just the beginning. We're already seeing the extension of political correctness past just a self-imposed gag rule.  People are losing their jobs, even being jailed because what they say or believe doesn't fit the template.  Freedom of speech--though inconvenient at times--is at the forefront of all of our freedoms.  Lose it and you lose more.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees, among other things, the right to free speech, that is, the government can't officially impose a ban on limiting free speech.  It's no surprise that, listed along with free speech is the freedom of the press and freedom of establishment of religion and the exercise thereof.  But the constitution is no help against being harassed by those outside of government.  And that will be the modus operandi until the First Amendment is taken away, a piece-by-piece chipping at our freedom.

It's not hard to understand that if we lose the freedom to speak our minds, the freedom of the press and freedom of religion and its free exercise would undoubtedly follow.

Nor is it difficult to extrapolate that those who are the greatest proponents of political correctness could also be those who could at some point argue for an official loss of our freedom of speech.  If that were to happen, we will have entered that hopeless place where we are governed by those over whom we have no control,  the very thing that caused our forefathers to break away from the despotic rulers over them.

It's all about losing our freedoms.  And in my opinion, it's a matter of time.

Interpreting The Bible

I read an article online the other day that had to do with some subject in the Bible, and one of the dissenting comments posted was, "Well, scripture is open to interpretation." Really? What verse says "All scripture is inspired by God and is open to interpretation"?

I've been reading and studying the Bible for over 40 years and I have yet to read anywhere in the Bible that it is "open to interpretation." Now, we may disagree with scripture, we may misunderstand it, we may bend it, we might even reject it. But before God, scripture is not open to anyone's "interpretation." It says what it says. Any misunderstanding of it, purposeful or not, falls upon us, so we had better be seeking the Holy Spirit to help us to not misunderstand it.

Another dodge is one I heard about the same time: "Well, Jesus didn't say such-and-such, so it's someone else's opinion or it's open to question."

No good. Jesus didn't say a lot of things. For instance, Jesus said nothing about using crystal meth, or texting while driving, but that doesn't mean such things are good ideas. The Bible does tell us that it is "inspired by God", and Jesus himself validated the Old Testament by quoting from it a number of times in the New Testament. Furthermore, he said that scripture "cannot be broken." Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus disavow anything in the Old Testament, so we can conclude that he accepted it wholly.

The New Testament is essentially the story of Jesus (as is the Old Testament, for that matter), written largely by his close associates (the disciples) about him and their their personal interaction with him, or by those directly acquainted with those associates. The point of this is, the New Testament was written by people who knew him intimately. Direct and accurate interaction leading to direct and accurate reporting. Because of this, we can assume their writings portray Jesus accurately.

If that weren't enough, remember that some of Jesus' people were imprisoned (Paul, for one), and some were executed (Peter, for another) because of their faith in Jesus, yet none denied their relationship or belief in him. It makes no sense to believe that anyone facing death because of a belief in a false messiah who didn't deliver what he said he would, would not deny him simply to survive. None did. They knew him, believed what he said, witnessed his death and resurrection, and continued in that faith, even unto death.

So, if it's in the Bible, you can "take it to the bank" as reliable and true. If you want to parse or add on to scripture, that's fine. If you want to limit your belief only to direct quotes from Jesus, you are free to do so. But you do so at your own risk.

Frankly, I think most of the time people use things like "open to interpretation" or "Jesus didn't say this" to appear sincere when they're actually looking for a way to exempt themselves from scriptural authority. If so, they have succeeded.