Our freedoms are in jeopardy, and it all begins with political correctness. We can get sent to jail for committing the crime of “hate speech.” As an outspoken advocate against gay marriage, my vocal opposition has been described by some to be hate speech.
We are corrected when we say define someone’s race as being Oriental rather than Asian. What’s the difference? Who all of a sudden decided that Oriental is an offensive term and should only be used to define the origins of rugs and not people? Won’t someone understand me if I refer to someone of African origin as a black, or colored, or negro person? Why does it matter, and why do people get worked up over such small things?
In a speech by Charlton Heston on first and second amendment rights, he related a story which illustrates the ridiculousness of this whole political correctness movement:
David Howard, head of the Washington D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word “niggardly” while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, “niggardly” means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign.
As columnist Tony Snow wrote: “David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn’t know the meaning of niggardly,’ (b) didn’t know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance. ”
What does all this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can’t be far behind.
We have forgotten that freedom and tolerance are twin sisters. We both have freedom if and when we can overlook and tolerate the fact that each other is human and will say and do things that are not always in agreement with our own personal principles. But as long as our rights are not infringed, it should be a simple thing to be tolerant of one another’s idiosyncrasies.
If you recognize the difference between and talk about race, it does not make you a racist.
If you see and point out distinctions between the genders, it does not make you sexist.
If you think critically about a religious denomination, it does not make you anti-religion.
If you view homosexuality as a perverse and sinful action and choose not to allow homosexuals to redefine the contract of marriage, it does not make you a homophobe.
We should allow others the freedom to speak their mind unfettered by our editorials about what we believe to be right or wrong so that hopefully they will extend to us that same consideration.
Conservaties, liberals, progressives, RINOs, etc. Those are just labels which allow us to dismiss the opinions and arguments of others whose viewpoints are different than our own. A constructive dialogue is healthy and even necessary to help us all find areas where we can agree. It is only by this kind of positive dialogue and acceptance of other’s right to speak freely that we can work past our differences and find consensus.