Ideas which conflict with the semantics and notions of their now-150-year=old movement in America to discard the ideas of the Declaration of Independence simply are discounted and "erased" from the public square.
In 1973, Dr. Karl Menninger, a Psychiatrist, wrote a book called,"What Ever Became of Sin?
In 2008, an article appeared in "Culture Watch" by Bill Muehlenberg, which reviewed Menninger's query, and added commentary about the degree to which redefinition of words and terms had played a part in societal understanding. Here is a small excerpt from this thought-provoking piece (recommend a full read, however):
"A recent story in the Mail on Sunday reports on changes made to the Oxford Junior Dictionary. And it seems it is not just the word ‘sin’ which has got the axe. According to the story, a number of Christian and biblical terms have been deleted, including “abbey, altar, bishop, chapel, christen, disciple, monk, nun, pew, saint”.(End of Excerpt)"The article quotes one concerned parent: “Lisa Saunders, from County Down, Northern Ireland, compared six editions since the 1970s and was horrified to discover that a whole range of words relating to Christianity, nature and British history had been axed over the years. ‘The Christian faith still has a strong following,’ she said. ‘To eradicate so many words associated with Christianity will have a big effect on the numerous primary schools who use it. We know that language moves on and we can’t be fuddy-duddy about it, but you don’t cull hundreds of important words in order to get in a different set of ICT words’.”
The article also provides the rationale from the publisher: “Oxford University Press said it analysed millions of words from children’s books and the school curriculum and looked at how frequently they occurred in considering how to update new editions. Advice from teachers is also taken before the final choice is made. Vineeta Gupta, head of children’s dictionaries, said: ‘We are limited by how big the dictionary can be – little hands must be able to handle it – but we produce 17 children’s dictionaries with different selections and numbers of words. When you look back at older versions of dictionaries, there were lots of examples of flowers for instance. That was because many children lived in semi-rural environments and saw the seasons. Nowadays, the environment has changed. We are also much more multicultural. People don’t go to Church as often as before. Our understanding of religion is within multiculturalism, which is why some words such as “Pentecost” or “Whitsun” would have been in 20 years ago but not now’.”
So what is one to make of all this? Several thoughts come to mind. Sure, as Western societies become increasingly secular such terms will therefore continue to fall out of use. But the fact that a word may not be used a lot may not be a good reason for pulling it from our dictionaries.
Historical terms were also pulled from the dictionary; words such as “coronation, duchess, duke, emperor, empire, monarch, decade”. But as the years roll on, perhaps many will not know or care about such things as the Holocaust. Does that mean we should feel free to delete that term as well?
Certain terms are simply a part of the Western heritage and are too vital to be left out. Christianity played an enormous role in the establishment and continuance of Western civilisation, so it should not so readily be dismissed from our collective memories.
Theological demolition jobs
But leaving aside for the moment what words we include or exclude from our dictionaries, the gradual disappearance of the notion of sin has far-wider implications and ramifications. For this notion is fundamental to the Judeo-Christian worldview. Take away our understanding of sin, and these two major religious traditions no longer make any sense.
Indeed, biblical Christianity is incoherent without the notion of sin. There can be no good news of the Gospel without first understanding the bad news of sin and the Fall. The mission of Jesus makes no sense if we remove such concepts from our thinking.
Jesus made it clear that the reason he came to earth was to save sinners. For example, as he said in all three Synoptic Gospels: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners”. Take away the doctrine of sin and we take away the doctrine of the Incarnation. Indeed, we take away the entire message of the New Testament.
But of course very liberalised versions of Christianity are quite happy to dispense with the notion of sin altogether. They think it has no place in the believer’s vocabulary or theology. Plenty of examples come to mind here."
In America, we have seen semantic maneuvers and outright censorship of the very ideas of liberty upon which our Constitution's protections were built.
At the time of the report titled "A Nation at Risk" was published, there were warnings about the degree to which the public schools in America had failed in teaching students about their nation's historical foundations, one observing that there had been an effecting "erasing" of the national memory.
So-called "progressive" imposition of coercive control by political elites, as a substitute for self-government and an ignoring of what the Founders acknowledged to be the "Supreme Judge of the World" in their Declaration of Independence may have led us to where we are today.
Semantics and hidden meanings have played a large part in this Administration's promotion of its idea of "hope and change." Citizens, in their ignorance, supplied their own sometimes uninformed meanings, and now we see some consequences of an uninformed electorate.
A Memorial and Remonstrance. . . . - James Madison (Excerpt)"Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the Manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”
"The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable; because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also; because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.
-----
"Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant--they have been cheated; asleep--they have been surprised; divided--the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson?...the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it....It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free." - James Madison
A+
Bookmarked
Your crucial post is Bookmarked!
BTW, Orwellian word censorship is Accelerating beyond expectations!
How the AP Stylebook censors ‘pro-life’ and other conservative words | TheHill
July 09, 2017 - 04:20 PM EDT
How the AP Stylebook censors ‘pro-life’ and other conservative words
AssociatedPress
By Rachel Alexander, opinion contributor
A journalism stylebook is supposed to provide universal guidelines for writers when it comes to stylistic things like punctuation, capitalization and so on. This includes choosing certain words over others.
The original intent of word preference was to use words that are more neutral than others. But in recent years, that concept has changed.
More often than not, style writers have been more interested in censoring conservative words while promoting language that liberals tend to favor. That’s been especially true of the AP Stylebook published by The Associated Press. It’s unfortunate, because that’s the guide most journalists rely upon.
Even when individual authors do not adhere to the bias of AP Style, it often doesn’t matter. If they submit an article to a mainstream media outlet, they will likely see their words edited to conform. A pro-life author who submits a piece taking a position against abortion will see the words “pro-life” changed to “anti-abortion,” because the AP Stylebook instructs, “Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and pro-abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice.” It goes on, “Avoid abortionist,” saying the term “connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions.”
Words related to terrorism are sanitized in the AP Stylebook. Militant, lone wolves or attackers are to be used instead of terrorist or Islamist. “People struggling to enter Europe” is favored over “migrant” or “refugee.” While it’s true that many struggle to enter Europe, it is accurate to point out that they are, in fact, immigrants or refugees.
“Illegal immigrant” and “undocumented” aren’t acceptable anymore either. “Illegals” and “alien” were already forbidden a few years ago. Although “illegal immigration” is still acceptable, it’s not clear what words are supposed to replace the forbidden words. The word “amnesty” contains no reference to illegal immigrants, instead instructing, “See pardon, parole, probation.”
The stylebook also instructs writers to use confusing language about guns in order to create a negative impression about them. Semi-automatic rifles that have add-on parts intended to increase shooting accuracy are to be called “assault weapons,” despite the fact the term has referred to fully automatic weapons used by the military for years. The latter are now referred to as “assault rifles,” and the two are often conflated. Adding even more to the confusion, the phrase “military style” is recommended to describe assault weapons.
Although AK-47s — which have been used in some fatal shootings — used to be fully automatic military weapons used by the Russians, that’s no longer the case — but the stylebook still instructs that they be labeled “AK-47 assault rifles.”
Separately, the phrase “climate change deniers” is everywhere today in news articles. This is because the stylebook instructs, “To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute that the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.” The entry includes an extensive discussion with seemingly authoritative evidence of manmade global warming. These words tell the reader that climate change theory is true, or at least “mainstream.”
And there’s one more problem. Journalists don’t always use the AP Stylebook when it would “water down” words that favor liberals. For example, the guide instructs journalists to “try to avoid describing political leanings.” However, journalists usually ignore the guide in referring to Republicans as “right wing.” At the same time, they almost never describe Democrats as “left-wing.”
AP also discourages use of the phrase “ultra-rightist,” defined as “an individual who subscribes to rigid interpretations of a conservative doctrine or to forms of fascism that stress authoritarian, often militaristic, views.” The problem is that journalists routinely use this term, as well as “right wing” or even “alt-right” to describe regular American conservatives interchangeably along with radical, violent extremists. This lumps them all in together as if there’s little difference.
Journalists also ignore the stylebook’s instruction on using the word “controversial” in order to fit their own political leanings.
“An overused word,” the stylebook states. “Most issues that are described as controversial are obviously so, and the word is not necessary.” Yet it is still everywhere in news articles and titles, frequently used to describe conservatives and their issues.
Some news publications have their own stylebooks, such as the The New York Times. They’re not much different than the AP Stylebook. After the presidential election last year, management at the Times vowed to eliminate the bias. But how can the mainstream media correct their bias, when the bias is already built into their stylebooks?
Rachel Alexander (@Rach_IC) is a senior editor at The Stream and founder of Intellectual Conservative. She previously served as an assistant attorney general for the state of Arizona, corporate attorney for Go Daddy Software, and special assistant and deputy county attorney for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.