Ethics of Language in Public Usage

Ethics Of Language 101.

Some of you have taken issue with my “uncivil” use of language, particularly in light of the current public brouhaha over Ann Coulter’s public “hate speech.” Even the use of that term makes me wonder about who’s definitions of words or phrases we’re using to define them as “hate speech,” and why any thinking Catholic or any critically-thinking American should feel constrained in their language towards those who are absolutely unrestrained in their own language towards us. It seems to me that whenever the term is used, it is always, almost definitively, used to restrain speech in one direction only, that being, any speech opposed to the “Progressive” or “Leftist” or “Immoral” position. While I fully accept and embrace the American cultural standard for obscenity in speech, I reject the whole Leftist notion of “hate” speech. I speak the same way in Church as I do at home and in any company at all; there is no difference.

In the Homo-Nazism page and elsewhere, I have used the words faggot and faggotry somewhat differently than Ann Coulter, who uses it as a synonym for wus, or sissy, and she says she is tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. I am not. I say, homosexuality is wrong. It is abnormal, perverse and immoral, and I say so. I believe it; therefore I say it. My preferred terms for practitioners rotate between homosexual and sodomite. So long as the Left has not yet succeeded in burning the English dictionary, I intend to keep using those quite legitimate English words. I reserve the term faggot for the open, obvious, in-your-face screaming queen types, and I refer to their open public celebration of their condition as public faggotry. I see nothing particularly gay about homosexuality, and so I avoid that term, except in its older usage. I believe in being clear.

But, we are told, they can’t help themselves, poor dears. We are to believe that they are born that way, and we are to believe it solely on their say-so, even as we watch them go back and forth between periods of homosexual and heterosexual activity, and get “cured” of their “condition” in huge numbers. We now have thousands of years of history of people who practiced chastity, and even whole orders who practiced complete celibacy, to compare with the history of the licentious. In all of recorded history, not one single person ever died or even got sick as a result of chastity or celibacy. The reverse cannot be said. Anyone who says that homosexuals – or anyone, really – any non-psychopathic, non-sociopath, non-criminal, sane person who is and should be free among us and not locked up somewhere – absolutely must, by his nature, accomplish sexual gratification in some manner, is lacking in that quality that was once universally recognized as simple common sense.

Anyone who says homosexuality is normal needs a course in remedial math. Anyone who says it's natural needs a course in remedial biology. Anyone who says it's healthy activity needs remedial schooling in basic, fundamental personal hygiene. Any typical American, i.e., any practicing Christian or Jew who says it's spiritually good or virtuous needs a course in remedial religion. Anyone who does not recognize homosexuality as sinful most likely doesn't recognize even the very notion of sin, and is operating from or guided by some alien ethos, that is opposed to the foundational and persisting guiding ethos of America.

Saying all of this, of course, puts me at odds with the SLIMC, American Academia, Hollywood and the Democratic Party, all of whom love, sponsor, champion and encourage open public faggotry in America. They will resent it being put in those terms, but nevertheless, that is precisely what they do. They even seek to advance its cause in the public school system, and in the legal modification of acceptable public language. Clearly, they love it. They prove it every day.

And, of course, they are the ones who get to determine acceptable standards for ethics of language in the public square, where Christian religious expression is religiously censored.

Some of you didn’t like my un-censored quotes of Democrat Party activists Marcotte and McEwan in the American National Existence article. If these ladies were proud enough of their words to put them out there in public for everyone to see in a purely Democrat venue, where this language is quite normal, who am I to become the official censor of their words in this venue, where it is quite obscene? You know, a foul mouth used to be the unmistakable sign of the semi-literate; the poor person lacking in language skills to fully or properly express his thoughts. Those days are gone; very few if any Americans fall into that category today. A filthy mouth today is almost always a reflection on the parents, family and household that produced the filthy mouth. That language was taught at home; and it was likely enhanced in academia. In all likelihood their parents and professors are all quite proud of them. While I studiously avoid all such language myself, I see no reason to not accurately quote it when it comes out of the mouths of the Leftists, where it is absolutely common language. It is mainstream for them. Except when they stand at the microphone, when they pretend to be decent.

This, of course, puts me at odds with the SLIMC, American Academia, Hollywood and the Democratic Party, all of whom love, sponsor, champion and encourage the public acceptance of such “progressive” language in America. Filthy language might be the mildest area in which Hollywood continuously "pushes the envelope" in entertainment in their quest to coarsen and vulgarize our culture. They will resent it being put in those terms, but nevertheless, that is precisely what they do. Note well how, in the Marcotte / McEwan case as in others, while they (the News) studiously asterisk-ed out the quoted filthiness of the language, they studiously ignored and censored from all public view the intolerant, vicious attack on the religion of the majority, which they all despise. No asterisks here. Complete omission.

They even seek to censor our religion in the public school system, and in the legal modification of acceptable public language regarding what kind of people we are. They even seek absolute control over our own ability to describe ourselves in our own words. They don’t want us to think of ourselves or openly describe ourselves as a Christian nation, or a Christian culture, or a Christian people. Convinced, in their own conceit, that an atheistic people would be somehow superior to a Christian people, they use our courts to legally prod us toward a collective atheism. Clearly, they despise Christianity, and the very notion that we are a Christian people. They prove it every day.

And again, of course, they are the ones who get to determine acceptable standards for ethics of language in the public square, where Christian religious expression is religiously censored.

It’s the same thing with the abortion issue; those who love, champion and sponsor it despise being referred to as pro-abortion rather than pro-choice. They seek to obfuscate and blur distinctions here. The sole choice they refer to here is the choice of someone to abort someone else, and there is absolutely no other choice involved. They are pro-abortion, and I am anti-abortion, and that’s just a straightforward fact. Anyone who doesn’t like is just going to have to get over it.

This, of course, puts me at odds with the SLIMC, American Academia, Hollywood and the Democratic Party, all of whom love, sponsor, champion and encourage abortion on demand. They will resent it being put in those terms, but nevertheless, that is precisely what they do. They even seek to censor or control our acceptable public language regarding the killing of human babies in the womb. And, there are the open, obfuscating related lies. Such as, "I want to make it safe and rare." Yeah, going from a thousand or less per year to millions per year overnight sure made it rare, and media-censored statistics show it not to be safe, but a downright dangerous procedure. Every pro-abortion "fact" quoted in public is a lie. Believe me, Whoopi Goldberg wasn't raped or otherwise abused all those times. All those abortions were just another birth control method to allow a lifestyle involving random copulation. Clearly, the Left loves abortion. They prove it every day.

And again, of course, they are the ones who get to determine acceptable standards for ethics of language in the public square, where Christian religious expression is religiously censored.

And, it’s the same thing with my refusal to bow to Femi-Nazi social pressure to properly “feminize” or “gender-neutralize” my language. I just ain’t gonna do it. So English lacks a gender-neutral pronoun. So freaking what? I’m not going to twist it into all sorts of contorted and tortured sentences just to ensure that I not insult someone who has been very carefully educated in how they should be insulted by someone who intends no insult. It’s stupid. Look up the words man and men in your English dictionary and you should find among the early possibilities mankind and the human race and all human beings. Anyone who cannot tell, by the contextual usage, whether a verse containing the word man refers to a male or to all mankind needs to go somewhere where English is still properly taught, and start all over.

One of you asked, why do I use Moslem instead of Muslim; well, what can I say. I’m just old, I guess. In my formative years, when I was educated, it was Moslem, and it was Mohammed, and it was the Koran, and that’s what I use. I still think of Peking rather than Beijing. For personal reasons, Ho Chi Minh City will forever be, for me, Saigon. Once upon a time, in common usage in print and verbal language, the word nigger was a neutral, normal and not pejorative word. That was then. All my life, it has been an open insult, and therefore a “bad” word. As a small boy, I once got my tongue washed with soap for using it, to the absolute glee of a little black friend. Negro was acceptable, then considered demeaning somehow and out-of-grace. Black came in during the “black and proud” years, and that’s where I got stuck with it. I remember a previous time when calling someone black could get you a punch in the nose. When it moved on to African-American, something in me resisted, and I just stayed with black. I don’t like any other nationality coming first in the name of any American. Some of us are black and some of us are white but all of us are Americans, regardless of heritage or ancestry or genealogy, and American comes first, not last, to me.

Bottom line, when I resolved to fight the good fight, I further resolved to speak clearly and directly on all issues and to not ever obfuscate. If you don't want your filthy language to be published back at you, then clean up your act. There is simply no good moral reason to describe something other than as it really is. Honesty demands clarity. Ethos demands sticking to your guns on important issues. Threat demands attack. Attack demands counter-attack.

Ugliness needs to be clearly seen by the glaring light of day.

To the extent that we the people live fully the Christian life, to that extent do we not need civil law to hem us in. Only when some of us violate Christian morality do we need “outside” strong civil rules and authority to protect the rest of us. The whole, sole reason for the necessity of civil law and legislation is the fallen, sinful, human nature of man, and the presence of Satan, who now rules The World and The Worldly. Permit me to quote Paul:

When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!

If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

“All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything. – (1 Cor 6;1-12)

Things must have been pretty bad in Corinth to call out those words, and perhaps things are just as bad here and now. But note the “…And such were some of you. But you were washed…” wording, take it to heart, and know that no one is beyond redemption. The struggle is always between the Spirit and the Flesh, which is to say, between our immortal souls and the eternal reward that waits, and The World, with all its temporary kingdoms and riches and pleasures. All of those worldly temptations and pleasures are addictive and enslaving. But Jesus Christ can set anyone free from anything.

To the extent that you feed your spiritual side, you gain strength over temptation. To the extent that you feed your physical side, you lose sight of the Kingdom, and you become spiritually weak, and you become a slave to something worldly. Seek rather to become a slave to Christ, and to never be afraid to say it out loud.

Pray for America, and for the strengthening of her Judeo-Christian ethos.

References:

To publicly respond or comment go to Publish Your Thoughts

To privately respond or comment go to Contact Me

Subscribe to our free Catholic American Thinker E-Zine and receive new articles, as they are published, in your e-mail in-box.

Like to write? Looking for something productive as well as fulfilling to do with your spare time? If you would also like to make some extra income, check out Website Home Biz.

Get Vic as your personal Virtual Assistant at Website Development.