PC madness G-d is banned

Muslimwoman

Muslimwoman

Coexistence insha'Allah
Messages
3,633
Reaction score
52
Points
48
Location
UK
Hi All

Anyone want to join me for a rant about political correctness gone mad? During a search today I found a short article that stated in LA the word G-d was no longer used in school textbooks because he/she was seen as 'too religious'. Have a look at the article it is so funny:

CNN.com - Language police bar 'old,' 'blind' - May. 28, 2003

Has anyone read Ernest Hemingways book "and the"? (sorry I am not allowed to say the rest)

This got me looking around for more such nonsense and in the UK tourist attractions have been banning the term BC, as in 200 years BC (as this could be offensive to nonChristians) and toll booths can no longer be 'manned' or 'unmanned' they must be 'staffed' or 'unstaffed'. It was proposed in one UK council area that the word women be replaced with the word womyn, in order to distance it from the word men. Have we really become so sensitive that we are offended by the use of everyday words? Let us get to the nitty gritty of this problem - oops not allowed to say nitty gritty as it goes back to the slave trade (can I say slave?).

So I am left with the view ........the....of.....and.....to.....twice!
 
I once referred to it, as the world getting soft....

Oh you can't smoke in a pub! Oh you can't use a phone while driving, You can't hit -your- child!! what are you thinking mr violent?you can't call him a black man... You have to give this woman a job, because she is a woman... Smoking is bad for you.... Your child isn't allowed to work in the mines..... Soon it will be something along the lines of I can't call you (muslimwoman) a woman as it is me pointing out your sex and and in a way discriminating/name calling..... :eek: Just watch, it'll happen.
 
17th Angel said:
I can't call you (muslimwoman) a woman as it is me pointing out your sex
Click to expand...

I have sent the police to your house, you are being arrested for not only referring to my gender but also my religion - very offensive stuff. Of course I am allowed to call myself muslimwoman and shove it in your face but heaven forbid you should mention it. The world really has finally gone mad.

Even the bloody term politically correct is now being banned because it was first used by the head of the ku klux klan.

Check this out it is so funny

YouTube - politically correct christmas story
 
flowperson said:
Hi Guys...Here's a little piece that might make it all a bit clearer for you.

cheers ! Flow....:)

Normal Is a Moving Target - washingtonpost.com
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link flow. I can see that people try to manouver around the constantly shifting baselines, I just find it laughable in which directions our leaders try to take us. Does this lunacy derive from sheer panic or guilt of our past? Of course we should not have the freedom to shout "hey N...er" across the street to a black person - anyone with an ounce of morals knows this is offensive but am I really offending anyone if I refer to a Manila envelope? I am referring to what has now become known as the colour of the envelope, not because I want harp back to the days of slavery.

I mean to say G-d is too religious is like saying water is too wet. It is just laughable imho.
 
I think in the UK you call it the post....but over here in the good old US of A we used to say my mailman brought the mail but now we have to say my personperson brings my envelopes and puts them in my package receptacle.

But I am still contemplating G-d being to religious....I'm thinking it is true...can we pray to have him tone it down a bit, hey Allah, how about getting a little more secular, Yo YHWH maybe wear a soccer jersey and come to the game??
 
Lol.... I find the BCE (Before Christian Era) replacing BC (Before Christ) funny or irritating depending on my mood. From a certain point of view BCE is actually more Christian-centric because it makes all the time since Christ's birth the 'Christian Era' rather than simply the time since an important historic event. :rolleyes:
 
wil said:
I think in the UK you call it the post....but over here in the good old US of A we used to say my mailman brought the mail but now we have to say my personperson brings my envelopes and puts them in my package receptacle.
Click to expand...

Personperson - I can't stop laughing.


Impqueen - great point, it does make make it more Christan focussed.
 
Impqueen said:
Lol.... I find the BCE (Before Christian Era) replacing BC (Before Christ) funny or irritating depending on my mood. From a certain point of view BCE is actually more Christian-centric because it makes all the time since Christ's birth the 'Christian Era' rather than simply the time since an important historic event. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I thought B.C.E. was "Before Common Era".
 
Dondi said:
I thought B.C.E. was "Before Common Era".
Click to expand...
Yes, in attempt to secularize our international dating system CE common era and BCE were adopted...however it P.O.'d many a christian group so they modified the name...to Christian Era...sneaky petes that they are.

Of course many of us ugly Americans grew up calling BC and AD, Before Christ and After Death respectively...

Conveniently forgetting that that would toss his entire life into some sort of limbo land...

And of course all the time ignoring or not taking time to learn the latin and its meaning...

truth is often stranger than fiction.
 
flowperson said:
Hi Guys...Here's a little piece that might make it all a bit clearer for you.

cheers ! Flow....:)

Normal Is a Moving Target - washingtonpost.com
Click to expand...

From the article:
Humans have the ability to adapt, he says. "A species has emerged on Earth that has the ability to comprehend and anticipate the things that might render it extinct. We for the first time can see the things that can do us in."

That is why people must identify which baselines are important and essential. And hold to them. "Knowledge of the past," he says, "helps us know where to go."
Click to expand...

hmmm... can't say this is comforting.
 
Yes PC-bashing is a bit of a popular pastime (here in the UK at least), particularly in the reactionary rags. Perhaps in some cases it has gone “too far” but maybe in time the pendulum will swing back a little to be more balanced? PC has become a pejorative term but I would say it is simply a term for progression in society’s thinking. Without it we would all still be using the terms that most agree are offensive today. Just because a word or activity is common does not, of itself mean that it should continue. Otherwise, terms such as “N…er” WOULD still be in common parlance and children working in mines WOULD still be a common practice. Similarly, smoking in public confined places is a health hazard and using a phone whilst driving has caused deaths…(only yesterday I read of a pensioner killed by a motorist who was too busy sending a text message).

s.
 
And I thought things were getting a little better!! I must start reading the papers again. At least this city has got rid of its so called "positive discrimination" policy. Was a time here you could not get a job with the council unless you were a gay with a disability and from an ethnic minority. You may think I'm joking.... I'm not.

And I kind of disagree with you Snoopy. A word is only a word and it is its intent in use that matters. Something I really dont like about the control freakery largely brought about by lawyers on the make is the way we wrap everything in cotton wool. Its crass and its usually a lie.
 
I understand what you are saying snoopy and I agree with you but I think common sense has to come into it somewhere. How can G-d possibly be too religious, too religious for what? Of course some people believe and some do not but should we hide in the cupboard with a torch and our scriptures so as not to offend anyone that does not believe? I believe our children should have a sound religious knowledge, not just their parents chosen faith, this is the path to interfaith understanding and tolerance but to remove G-d from education will reduce knowledge and therefore dialogue and tolerance. Imho it is a backward step.

Another example that I found unbelievable is that a woman in america is suing a Christian dating website because they do not cater for women seeking women. At what point in time did we decide that a business must cater for everyone, even if this is against their moral or religious beliefs. I have yet to see anyone suing a gay dating website because they don't cater for hetrosexuals and I feel quite sure the members of the homosexual site would not want this, they go to these sites because it caters for their chosen lifestyle. It just seems that minority groups often demand to be catered for in everything mainstream but also want to remain an isolated group when it suits them. As TE says in the UK during the 80's we went through a period where being white, hetrosexual and in a loving marriage was almost something to be ashamed of. Yes the pendulum swings but for the life of me I don't understand why some people insist on pushing the pendulum so far.
 
Perhaps people do these things because (a. they can, (b. they do not know themselves, and (c. they are encouraged by others.

It is so simple to have things blown out of proportion by commercial media and once it is pointed out how ridiculous it is the pendulum starts to edge the other way.

Being distracted while you are in control of a very powerful weapon is not ridiculous. Breathing smoke you don't wish to breathe is not ridiculous, not insulting people is not ridiculous.

Wanting an organization to go against what it believes is ridiculous.
 
pattimax said:
Wanting an organization to go against what it believes is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Recently there was a big furore about gay adoption over here. The government said that all adoption agencies have to consider gay couples as potential adoptive parents. But some adoption agencies are run by the Catholic church. Personally I think gay couples should be allowed to adopt. But I also think that Catholics should be allowed to do what they believe is right. After all there are lots of adoption agencies that aren't Catholic, so no gay couple should have any trouble... I felt it was an example of the secular government treating belief as a minor inconvenience, something that could be legislated out of existence. :( And of course everyone who thought the Catholics should be given an opt out clause was portrayed as homophobic.
 
I think treating belief as a minor inconvenience is affected by a pendelum swing. It is truly amazing how much power public opinion has. It doesn't always work in your favor, but sometimes it does.
 
Last edited:
Impqueen said:
Recently there was a big furore about gay adoption over here. The government said that all adoption agencies have to consider gay couples as potential adoptive parents. But some adoption agencies are run by the Catholic church. Personally I think gay couples should be allowed to adopt. But I also think that Catholics should be allowed to do what they believe is right. After all there are lots of adoption agencies that aren't Catholic, so no gay couple should have any trouble... I felt it was an example of the secular government treating belief as a minor inconvenience, something that could be legislated out of existence. :( And of course everyone who thought the Catholics should be given an opt out clause was portrayed as homophobic.
Click to expand...

What happens to a child born into a faith that does not accept homosexuality but is placed with an adoption agency that does not have the same views? Surely this supports the principle of human rights for gay couples but goes against the principle of human rights for the child, to be brought up in the faith they were born to? What was decided in the end, can the Catholic adoption agencies refuse homosexual couples? Wow it's a bit of a minefield this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top