Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 10:18 am
A nice little article about the religion behind political correctness. He doesn't say who "we" and "they" are, but it's pretty easy to tell.

Quote:
We wake up in the morning, and our evil deeds begin before we have time to curse the alarm. As we slept, our refrigerators were hard at work giving Chileans skin cancer. We turn on the air conditioner, and amphibians grow extra limbs. We breathe and contribute to global warming. We put on our clothes and cover the world with sweatshops. We slip on our athletic shoes and tie children to workbenches with the laces. We poison the soil by eating breakfast. We drive to work and drown Pacific Islanders. We go to the doctor and kill animals. We devastate countries we have never heard of. We are Ugly Americans, crude, boorish, and brutal, as ashamed of our tastes as we are of our genocide.

How did we become so evil? According to the doctrine of Original Sin, human nature is stained with the sin of our remotest ancestors. According to the doctrine of Original American Sin, we are stained with the sins of our remote ancestors, whether or not they were actually our ancestors. The politically correct instill in us guilt and shame and then offer to cure us of them in exchange for our becoming politically correct ourselves.

We exterminated the Edenic Native Americans; the sin of slavery and segregation belongs to us alone. We are guilty of unconscious racism, forever injuring Blacks without realizing it. We don't know how, but we are starving poor people in the Third World.

But in the midst of Babylon a miracle. Some people do not have the stain! Their opinions have washed them clean. They live on land stolen from the Indians and owe no debts. They have no more intention than we do of giving the land back, but we are the problem, and they are the solution. If their ancestors held slaves, it is not their fault. They wear the same clothes we do, but their clothes cause no sweatshops. They wear the same shoes but do not exploit children. They can eat what we eat, drive as much as they'd like, spend a month in the hospital for ills that we'd tough out at work, and, lo, the soil is fertile, the ocean does not rise, and animals frolic in the sun.

They can slander the police and not suffer from crime. They can enjoy peace and belittle the sacrifices necessary to obtain it. Their country can drop bombs on innocent civilians, but no guilt accrues to them. They can be against war and share in its spoils. They can condemn Corporate America while they build up their portfolios.

They do not want their daughters to be raped, but refuse to dirty their hands by putting them on the rapists. They do not want their homes invaded by marauding armies, but will not sully their consciences defending them. Their protectors have dirty hands, guilty consciences, and danger; they have clean hands, clear consciences, and safety. They hate war and are shocked when people die in it.

To wash away our stain, we must do the impossible; all they have to do is to believe the unbelievable. We have to rid ourselves of evil; they have to think that we are uniquely evil. We have to sin no more; they have to act surprised that we continue to sin. We have to defeat the evil within; they have to defeat us. We have to have faith in God; they have to have faith in faithlessness. We have to believe that God is watching us and watching over us; they have to believe that God will look away. We have to beg God for forgiveness; they have to call us hypocrites.

They call us racist, sexist, homophobes and say that we do not respect the opinions of people we disagree with. They call us the Taliban and say that we ignore the feelings of others. They say that we are full of hate and that we should follow their example and love everyone. Their shepherds call us a generation of vipers and plead for unity. They say that we fail to understand people different from us.

They say that what they do is nobody's business, and they are perpetually offended by what others do. They make our personal political and our political personal. We impose our beliefs on others; they want to make the world a better place. They say that life is up to a woman and her doctor, and they try to take over the health care system.

We think that truth is one thing and falsity quite another, and they think us unsophisticated. We think that truth is discovered; they think it is invented. They cite Machiavelli and marvel that we do not trust them, cite Nietsche and say that our God is dead, cite Heidegger and accuse us of fascist sympathies, cite Foucault and say that we are hung up on sex. They call us uncultured and call Dante, Shakespeare, and Goethe Dead White European Men. They say that we have no appreciation of the arts, and they watch pornography and call it art.

They say that we are a threat to free speech and try to shut us up. They give voice to the voiceless, and no one else can be heard. They call us hegemons and say that we resent our fall from power. They call America a racist country and call us un-American. They blame America first and say that we are out of the mainstream.

They say that we are arrogant because we believe that God made man in his own image; they are humble because they believe that man made God in his own image. We are willful because we attempt to conform to God's will, while they remake God at will.

Their doctrines are discredited and their foreign sponsors gone, but they dominate much of our lives. We carry around in our heads a miniaturized Index of Forbidden Thoughts and Sayings so that we can escape their giant Index of Political Correction and Great American Character-Assassination Machine. They say that Negroes should be called Blacks, and we call them Blacks. They say that Blacks should be called African-Americans, and all at once university presidents, network executives, and politicians of both parties call them African-Americans. They tell us (correctly) not to judge others by the color of their skin, and then they tell us to judge others by the color of their skin. We can't say that men and women are different, and then we can't say that they are the same, which we never believed anyway. They tell us to worry about global cooling, and then they tell us to worry about global warming. They cut off their hair and tell us that they are the reincarnation! of the '60s. The first half of the semester a professor teaches that all heterosexual sex is rape; the second half she teaches that there is no such thing as heterosexual sex. The postmodernists tell us that there is nothing outside the text and that the whole world is a text.

In short, they run a sort of moral protection racket. They make people feel guilty, and then they offer them absolution. They are our only protection against hellish shame and humiliation. Join them, and your sins are washed away. Refuse, and bear on top of your own sins, which were already too heavy to carry, the burden of the sins of the whole world.

Man is a religious animal. Only in modern secular society, which is in fact not all that secular, could one doubt that we have an overpowering religious impulse. We can either cooperate with this impulse or try in vain to suppress it. Thus, the ostensibly secular realm is propelled by transmuted religious energy and filled with parodies of Judaism and Christianity, one of which is political correctness. Their high priests have their Ten Trillion Commandments, their anathemas, and their grace. We have our five tithes and Lives of Obligation.

Religion has been blamed for most of the ills of the world and deserves much of the blame, but any good thing can be misused, and the best thing most of all. If religion is dangerous, however, it is most dangerous, not when it thrives, but when it dies. The rotten carcass of a religion is far more pestilential than the religion was when it was alive. Putrid hunks of doctrine infect the minds of those who have forgotten the doctrine when it was still vital. Political correctness is one result of the decay of Judaism and Christianity in the United States. Without their renewal, we will have to continue to endure the godless religion of political correctness.

Copyright ©2003 Festina Lente

Jonathan David Carson, Ph.D.

Link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,139 • Replies: 35
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 10:20 am
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 02:07 pm
Very interesting piece, MCGentrix. I doubt that you will get much more reaction that Setants has given above . Why? Could it be that, having no answer, they instead denigrate the question?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 02:22 pm
Maturate fugam - would that be okay as an asnwer?

Since McGentrix forgot to copy the link, here it is (with more by the author):

Christian Contemplation of the Arts and Sciences: Festina Lente
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 02:33 pm
the original american sin was allowing the pilgrims to get off the boat.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 02:36 pm
George

You could join McGentrix on this forum
FreeRepublic.com ~ The Premier Conservative News Forum :wink:
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 03:06 pm
The link is at the bottom of the peice.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 03:28 pm
Oops, sorry, didn't see.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 03:29 pm
Thanks for the snide remark, George -- my response is due to the straw man argument embodied in the text. The inference to be drawn by those of conservative conviction, but, like Winnie the Pooh, of very little brain, is that all those who do not adhere to a conservative world view believe the claptrap related above.

Puh-leeze . . . i reiterate . . . Rolling Eyes . . .
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 03:32 pm
Actually, it occurred to me while I was in college that the extermination of most of the indigenous people on this continent was our Original Sin. That makes us no better or worse than the people in most other countries, but it does contradict the idea of American exceptionalism.

Do you what the latter refers to, McG? It has to do with the idea the US is uniquely pure and wonderful and incapable of doing wrong.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 03:43 pm
It is more like Christian Copulation than Christian Contemplation
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 04:19 pm
I just checked out that web site. There are links to other insightful articles there, such as one attacking environmentalists and another attacking animal-rights advocates...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 04:48 pm
That tendencious piece of tripe is calculated to appeal to the lowest common denominator among conservative Americans. Any self-respecting American conservative with a shred of intelligence should be insulted by that piece. That is no better than a wild-eyed liberal describing all conservatives as gun-totting, incestuous, fag-hating racists. A little moderation would be a good thing in the national political dialogue.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 04:49 pm
um, thinking
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 04:51 pm
Setanta wrote:
That tendencious piece of tripe is calculated to appeal to the lowest common denominator among conservative Americans. Any self-respecting American conservative with a shred of intelligence should be insulted by that piece. That is no better than a wild-eyed liberal describing all conservatives as gun-totting, incestuous, fag-hating racists. A little moderation would be a good thing in the national political dialogue.


I've been trying to think of a comment for this discussion -- and I think it will be:

Good post, Setanta. Well reasoned; well stated.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 05:25 pm
Setanta wrote:
That tendencious piece of tripe is calculated to appeal to the lowest common denominator among conservative Americans. Any self-respecting American conservative with a shred of intelligence should be insulted by that piece. That is no better than a wild-eyed liberal describing all conservatives as gun-totting, incestuous, fag-hating racists. A little moderation would be a good thing in the national political dialogue.


Unlike Frank, I found the piece to have very little eloquence and no reason. Merely unsupported and unqualified expressions of opinion and absolute judgement. A bit of alliteration ("tendencious (sic.)... tripe") and some rhythmic invective ("gun-toting, incestuous, fag-hating racists."), but beyond that nothing of merit. The call for moderation in the last sentence was more than a little hypocritical.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 05:38 pm
Hypocritical George? I didn't introduce this topic, McG did, in a manner with which everyone here ought to be familiar. It's the stink bomb technique. Throw out something calculated to offend, then run off and enjoy the "fun." I do not post such errant nonsense about those with whose political opinions i do not agree. I was not describing conservatives in those hateful terms, but rather providing an example of how someone might use such language to vilify one's percieved political opponents--just as the author of the quoted piece with which this thread begins has done. I did not bother trying to compose something with what i feel fairly certain the author considers "subtlety"--after all, i have no reason to indulge in a rhetorical activity which i despise. Nice touch, that, noting my spelling error--it adds such force and grace to your condemnation. My opinion of you is considerably lowered by your defense of this nonsense--a circumstance which i doubt not is of no importance to you.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 05:53 pm
I haven't followed McGentrix much & don't know his pattern. I did find the piece he quoted here and the links quite interesting. Hardly a stink bomb in my view. More remarkable to me were the excessive reactions to it by those here of an opposite view. One would have thought that their most sacred doctrines had been confronted with the rankest heresy. Torquemada would have been quite comfortable with their reactions to incorrect thought and speech. Perhaps it is all in the point of view.

You do - as you well know - have a talent for rhythmic invective. I mean that sincerely. This was, however, only an ordinary example, nothing special. I do believe that after all that the call for moderation was just a bit hypocritical.

Citing the minor spelling error was petty of me and I regret doing it. My apologies.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 07:19 pm
My original reaction to this piece of tommyrot was as follows:

Setanta wrote:
Rolling Eyes


How exactly, does that conflate with: "More remarkable to me were the excessive reactions to it by those here of an opposite view. One would have thought that their most sacred doctrines had been confronted with the rankest heresy. Torquemada would have been quite comfortable with their reactions to incorrect thought and speech. Perhaps it is all in the point of view."

Perhaps? That gets automatic entry into the understatement of the year contest. Upon precisely what basis to you find a call for moderation in the national political dialogue hypocritical? I've "flamed" those here who have "flamed" me. I do not recall ever having vilified conservatives as a class, nor attributing to them such an outrageous set of specious contentions as are embodied in the opening quote of this thread. Perhaps you can provide me the evidence of this hypocricy. In the event that you do, i will be happy to stand chastened. It may well prove that you can find evidence that i have written immoderately in these fora, although i would once again suggested that i was "flaming" those who had "flamed" me. I doubt, however, that you can find any evidence of my having indulged in any long-winded diatribe which condemns all conservatives as a class, and certainly not one which entails such a sneering and thoroughly disingenous style.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 07:56 pm
Setanta,

Well, when I wrote the "excessive reactions" bit, I did not have you particularly in mind. However, even your wordless post was expressive enough !

As for the 'flaming'-- I believe that in a discussion or verbal engagement, one as well armed as you should not have to resort to it. It is beneath you.
We had a saying in the Navy that may be appropriate here --

"Don't get in a fight with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it"

You have made reference to your Irish ancestry. Were your people from Kerry? You show all the signs ! (Mine are from Waterford and Claire
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Original American Sin
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 10:15:24