Whither Political Correctness//Where does it stop/start

[Rooster7]

This is a minor point as far as I'm concerned, but I feel compelled to clarify. I respect all people regardless of faith. Not necessarily because of what they believe, and in many cases, in spite of it. In short, I do not respect all religions and beliefs. I do respect all people and their right to believe what they want to believe. Don't read too much in to this...It means what it says, nothing more. I can like and respect a person and not agree with or respect his beliefs.

[Dedicated Dad]

Baden-Powell wanted British youth to be prepared in every way, including for warbut there is nothing wrong with learning this skill so one may defend his nation. Shhhhhhhh(whispering) Dude (a little louder) DUUUDE... I hope nobody heard that because, like, you are being soooo un-PC!

 

 

 

 

[Dedicated Dad]

By the way, I think PC should stand for "Please Cease" You mean it doesnt stand for personal computer? Oops!Mr. Speaker, permission to revise and extend?

 

 

[evmori]

Dedicated Dad,

 

Ho Ho Ha Ha! Good one! I forgot about that! PC also stands for pastel color!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[Rooster7]

I thought PC meant - Please cease to be politically correct while utilizing your personal computer. At least, it works for me.

[berkshirescouter]

Rooster7

 

The old saying was 'live and let live'. However current PC can't allow this. Scouting still does.

 

Paul

[Dedicated Dad]

Politically Correct is belief system that recognizes people are diversely equal, and we rejoice in this equality by treating people differently based on their equal individuality.

[sctmom]

I respect people of all faiths. Some of my questions/comments are to stir the pot and make us all think (myself included). And I admire those who stand strongly by their faith even if I don't agree with them. But it seems we all agree that Politically Correct has come to mean "absurd".

 

I do think many moms do forget that what is fun for a young boy is not the same as what is fun for a young girl, much less what is "fun" for a mom. My sister, brother and I usually had no one else to play with out in the country, so we all did both girl things and boy things. I try to always look at things from the boy's perspective when planning for my Webelos. And then convince the parents of what is being learned.

 

Oh, my personal BB gun story is watching my sister stand on the propane gas tank, throwing ballons in the air while my brother shot at the ballons with the BB gun! They didn't get caught until they got turned around and the BB went through the living room window. For YEARS we had this little hole in the window. One of those times we saw my mother FLY out the door. The other was when she saw my brother playing darts....the dart board hanging on the swing set, oh yes the swing set about 5 kids were playing on. My brother going "what? I'm NOT going to miss"!

[sctmom]

Back to OGE's original response about "Have a great whatever". I think that if someone wishes me a Happy (blank). Even if I do not celebrate (blank), I understand they are wishing me well, they aren't trying to convert me or insult me, particularly if they don't know my beliefs.

 

[evmori]

"Politically Correct is belief system that recognizes people are diversely equal, and we rejoice in this equality by treating people differently based on their equal individuality"

 

Politically Correct is not a belief system. Recognizing that people are different yet equal and treating all people as equals is respect. Politically correct has nothing to do with respect. Politically correct in most cases is the opposite of respect.

"If it feels good, do it!"

"It didn't hurt anyone, so it's OK!"

"It's OK for me!"

 

Respect and being politically correct are not the same.

 

Ed Mori

"Not PC" Scoutmaster

"Not PC" Troop 1

[Dedicated Dad]

Ed, I am so sorry. I should have made it clear that my thoughts were sarcasm plagiarized from a lampoon on PC that I thought was a bit too un-PC to publish. http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~nhughes/htmldocs/pc.html This version of the definition I thought had merit in demonstrating the absurdity of the movement behind PC, I think it speaks to the Orwellian quote every one is equal, but some are more equal than others and how if youre different you should treated differently. Anyway, it was all tongue in cheek and not intended to be totally serious, Im sorry it forced you to waist your time writing a response. Respect and being politically correct are not the same. I agree 100%!

 

 

 

[evmori]

Dedicated Dad,

No need to apologize. I'm glad to hear you don't agree with PC (I made a rhyme). PC is one of many things that makes the hair in the back of my neck stand up. I'm going to check out the link you placed now.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[eisely]

This thread, like so many others, has wandered off its subject a great deal. Nevertheless I thought the little essay below from the Wall Street Journal about religious tolerance adds to some of the discussion. This essay is pretty hard on contemporary Islam, in light of 9/11.

__________

 

The Lure of the Rings

 

An alternative to crusades and jihads.

 

BY HENRY GRUNWALD

Friday, January 4, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST

 

Osama bin Laden and other Islamic extremists accuse today's West of continuing the Crusades. In a strange echo of this, Bill Clinton, to illustrate some of the West's own misdeeds, recalled that Christian fighters massacred Muslims during the first Crusade (1095-99). And a recent novel about the 12th-century Muslim leader Saladin and his Christian antagonist, Richard the Lionheart, was greeted by some critics as pertinent to the present.

 

A work that deserves to become part of this conversation is "Nathan the Wise," a verse play by the German dramatist and critic Gotthold Ephraim Lessing first performed in 1779. There are three leading characters: Saladin, a rich Jerusalem Jew named Nathan and a Christian knight.

 

Saladin, although noble and generous, needs money for his armies and attempts to get it from Nathan by challenging him in an intellectual bet. Nathan is to say which of the three religions of the Book is the true one. Nathan is in a bind: name his own faith and antagonize the Sultan; name Islam and betray his own religion; name Christianity and betray Judaism while also offending the Sultan. Nathan, not called "the Wise" for nothing, escapes the trap by telling the Sultan a story.

 

It's of a wealthy merchant with an opal ring that bestows the power to be loved by both God and man. The merchant has three sons and foolishly promises each of them, in secret, that he will inherit it. The father, feeling death approaching, commissions a jeweler to make two replicas of the ring. They are so fine that he himself cannot tell them from the original, and he gives the three rings to his sons. After the father's death, each son claims to have the true ring and with it the privilege of heading the family. They appeal to a judge to settle the dispute. He declares:

 

 

My counsel is: Accept the matter wholly as it stands.

If each one from his father has his ring,

Then let each one believe his ring to be

The true one. Possibly the father wished

To tolerate no longer in his house

The tyranny of just one ring!--And know:

That you, all three, he loved; and loved alike;

Since two of you he'd not humiliate . . . Let each strive

To match the rest in bringing to the fore

The magic of the opal in his ring!

Assist that power with all humility . . .

And with profound submission to God's will!

 

 

In the end, even the knight, who started out prejudiced against Muslims and Jews, accepts the benign message of the three rings: the universal brotherhood of all men under God.

 

Seen across Holocaust, war and fanaticism of every sort, that enlightened spirit seems almost heartbreakingly dated. But the parable of the three rings is the antithesis of the crusading spirit, and describes what most of the West now believes.

This belief can take the form of an intellectually sloppy spirituality that holds all religions and cultures to be equally valid. It can also take a more rigorous form that respects other people's faith while insisting on the distinctness of one's own. Many Christians and Jews insist on the unique truth of their religions, but they do not seek to enforce that truth with fire, sword and Kalashnikovs. That is why commentators who equate Christian and Muslim fundamentalism are wrong and why Muslim leaders who liken today's West to the Crusaders are equally wrong. The Islamic extremists are today's crusaders, seeking to rid Holy Lands of "infidels."

 

Western statesmen almost desperately declare at every opportunity these days that true Islam is a tolerant faith. But even "moderate" Muslim countries today are half-hearted at best in condemning Islamic extremists who not only stamp out Christianity and other religions at home but dream of violently establishing Islam as the one true faith throughout the world.

 

By contrast, Western countries have allowed millions of Muslims to thrive under liberal laws and religious freedom, to build their mosques and live in relative prosperity. Even if they're poor and encounter prejudice, their existence is immensely better and freer than it would be in their own repressive countries.

 

One can only wish that most Muslims might heed the conclusion of the judge's ruling in "Nathan the Wise":

 

 

And when the magic powers of the stones

Reveal themselves in children's children's children:

I bid you in a thousand, thousand years,

To stand again before this seat. For then

A wiser man than I shall sit as judge

Upon this bench and speak.

But can we really wait "a thousand, thousand years" for that decision?

 

Mr. Grunwald was Time's editor in chief and a U.S. ambassador to Austria.

 

_______________

 

Not for nothing is the 18th century sometimes referred to as the age of enlightenment.

 

[Rooster7]

Actually, I don't think we have strayed from the topic. The battle concerning political correctness is centered on interpreting what is true. Religion (faith in God) is a struggle that concerns ultimate truth.

 

As to the article, if the parable's purpose is to promote tolerance for those who don't share your faith, then I fully support it. It is an "enlightened" attitude. On the other hand, if the parable's purpose is to promote universalism, than it is foolishness. Intellectually, these faiths cannot coexist. Few can. Nevertheless, the fact that two or more groups may have conflicting faiths does not mean that they must hate one another. In fact, most religions command tolerance if not love for the unbeliever.

 

What I'm trying to say is - I do not support the notion that one must deny the truths or tenets of his faith in order to make others feel more comfortable. If your God demands that you recognize Him alone (even publicly), then that's exactly what one should do. This does not nullify anyone else's faith. Others are free to do the same (at least, in this country...last time I checked).

 

[eisely]

PC is also a one way street. There is maximum tolerance for anything that is not main stream or traditional, while those who adhere to traditional religions and beliefs are subtly, and not so subtly, ridiculed. Here in the Bay Area, everything is run on the basis of political correctness, except when it comes to conservatives.

 

There was an incident a few years ago in Silicon Valley. I forget the name of the company. This company was having a big public event, rolling out a product or something, and the event happened to fall on Ash Wednesday. There were some employees present who were wearing ashes on their forehead that day. They were publicly ridiculed by the CEO of the company at that event. So PC is normally a one way street. True diversity would have required the CEO to ignore the ashes, or possibly comment favorably on the ashes.