It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Political Correctness, Religion, and Other Banes to Society (Op/Ed)

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 03:40 AM
I've long felt that the recent trend towards political correctness in speech, religious incentives encouraged by the government (as well as various religious groups), as well as other things have significantly contributed to the divided, warlike nation that the USA has become. In this article, I intend to shoot straight from the hip, and wish to discuss some of these issues.

Over the past 15 years, I've noticed a significant decline in the value of the fundamentals behind the founding of the United States of America (and, as I'm only 30 years old, those of you with adult experience prior to that may have noticed it going on longer).

For me, I started noticing the decline during 1990 or 1991. Granted, at that time, I was a dissident teenager, looking to rebel in any way I could, however, some of my complaints about society from that era of my life still hold true now. Those that remember the early 1990's likely recall the major shift towards the political correctness movement, insofar as trying to use less offensive terms for everything. Indian became "Native American", Black became "African American", white became "Caucasion", and even drawing from somewhat older history, the term "shell shock" which was originally used to describe the mental instability exhibited by people that had experienced extreme combat or violent situations (not just limited to war, but also to particularly violent domestic disputes), later became Battle Fatigue (now limited to soldiers alone) during WWII, and after the Korean War, the term became "Operational Exhaustion", and now, in the current day, the term is (post-Vietnam) "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder". In the words of the great George Carlin, to sum up this point, "I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I'll betcha. I'll betcha."

That is just one example of how euphamisms and politically correct speech have been used to soften the general population's view of the world.

Personally, in my opinion, we should still be using the harsh, original terms to describe things and people. In just about every case, I feel it could be beneficial. If people more regularly used the terms...

(warning, possibly offensive matter ahead, used solely for illustrative purposes)

... 'n-word', kike, jap, slopehead, greaser, wasp, dego, guinnea, sheepshagger, mick, etc... those terms would hold a whole lot less offensiveness to people. I myself am of Scot/Irish and Italian descent. If you use racist terms against those ethnicities around me, I really could care less. Don't obfuscate those terms under the veil of equality. We'll never be equal until every one of us is no longer bothered by terms meant to degrade our race/ethnicity.

If you're willing to be offended by those terms, I hold you solely responsible for any racial or ethnic tension you may feel. I do NOT condone, on the other hand, actual violence carried out on behalf of those that may be racist or biased against certain ethnicities.

In the topic of religion, I find that there's an equal amount of mind-manipulation occuring. As a for-instance, this video that I found linked off of the Penn Gilette radio show website, Christian Video (this video is 28 minutes, 37 seconds), co hosted by Kirk Cameron, best known for his role as the older son on the former TV sitcom, "Who's the Boss?" In this video, they make arguments and give suggestions as to how to turn an Atheist to Christianity. One of the forms of proof they offer as proof to the existance of intelligent design - the banana (which, as you're watching this, remember that the banana was on this planet many years before man dropped from the trees and became intelligent). Later in the video, they seem to completely neglect the existence of dogmatic law, and fail to admit that the bible clearly states that God decreed "What is held true on Earth is how it is in heaven" (A good link is here, specifically chapter III. Dogmatic law states that all those forgiven by a priest of God will be forgiven of all past trangressions (thus the notion of attrition or confession, common in Christian churches). This says, esentially, that any who go to confession or commit attrition are forgiven of any sins they may have partaken in in the past.

More recently in religious standand, is the current power in the US government - those claiming adherence to divine law, and using the bible as justification for current world events.

Let's take a look at prior world events, before talking about current events (which I'm sure everyone reading this is aware of). Vlad Tepes, also known as Vlad the Impaler, also later known as Dracula (often known by that name, even when he was alive), who is considered by many to be a Christian saint (though never given the sainthood title). He was oft considered a Christian Crusader. A link to his story can be found here. Vlad the Impaler was one of the most prolific serial killers in history, yet is heralded as a Crusader (and some say a Saint), but in reality simply chose violent tactics against both his enemies and foes alike. His Romanian territory was located on the border between Turkey and Romania, and as such he was the only line of defense between the Muslim-based Turkish "invaders", and the Western, Christian world.

Given that, don't you think that the current "War on Terror" was instututed way back then in the 1400s (and possibly earlier, based on the accounts of the Crusades), when there was active opposition to Turkish/Muslim forces? The Muslims are not ones to easilly forgive transgressions, and perhaps the recent wave of terrorist attacks are based in what we consider ancient history? In recent years (more specifically, Bush and Co. years), we have not shown accpetance of the Muslim traditions, and perhaps the recent American terrorist attacks are retaliation for 600 years worth of persecution?

Christ, look at the history of Scotland, for instance. They have been constantly downtrodden by invaders, including England. William Wallace's campaign (followed by Robert the Bruce) and later seen in Rob Roy's crusade, have illustrated the violence inherent in downtrodden people, bent on liberation.

The way I see it, the Muslims that we (as the US) kill on a daily basis, only want the freedom to practice their religion without persecution, as they see fit. They're not basic Christian America. They are Muslims. They want the same freedoms as have been given to us. They simply want to practice in peace. Western Civilization has not afforded them that luxury. They pissed about it, just like any American would be equally as pissed about it.

Leave them alone. We don't need their oil (Brazil became pretty damn self-sufficient themselves, and we have millions of acres just asking to grow corn for fuel). It's not justified to wage war with the Middle East for either oil or religion. Religion should not be an issue, thanks to the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights (which became the Constitution).

All told, the American socity is falling into despair, not only because of our Constitutiuonal rights being violated, but also because of our right to free speech and freedom or religion being compromised by social issues. We need to stand up, as a nation, and defend that which is rightfully ours, while defending the rights of others, outside of our country, from persecution of these things.

NOTE: all above links are also posted below, as supporting links to relevant news sources.

Related News Links:
Christian Video]

[edit on 5-6-2006 by UM_Gazz]

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:09 PM
I'm almost surprised that this hasn't been commented on as yet, considering its validity in the modern political climate. I'm just wondering if people are too afraid to comment on it, or too opinionated to comment on it.

(EDIT: spelling)

[edit on 5-6-2006 by obsidian468]

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:54 AM
I don't think anyone's actually afraid to comment on what you've said. Not here, anyway. You're basically saying, "live and let live." It's an attitude shared by many. It's a common refrain on this and many other boards that I visit. There's a fine line between hate and frustration. Some of your language makes it clear that you're still pretty hot under the collar. If anything is preventing comment, it may be that.

The question I'd like to ask you is this. What are YOU doing about all the stuff you've noticed?


log in