Political correctness is attitudinal pressure aimed to bring about mass dishonesty (and conformity) on various hot-button topics. Even when it fails to convert the heathen, political correctness disarms the opposition by forcing them to apologize for holding political positions that offend elite, but not mass, opinion. When pressure compels you to start a debate by saying, "Let me first say that I don't hate gay people...," it's probably not an argument that you are going to win.
Political correctness is what they wanted at the Miss USA Pageant this weekend. They got honesty, which is why the mental circuits of so many have overloaded. Here's the story: Talentless gossip Perez Hilton tastelessly injected politics into the contest by asking Miss California her thoughts on gay marriage. Her answer was diplomatic, but ultimately her answer was her answer and not Perez Hilton's answer, which infuriated Mr. Hilton.
"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other," Carrie Prejean awkwardly remarked. "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.... And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be--between a man and a woman." (Incidentally, that's how a majority of voters in Miss California's home state think that it should be too.)
For this, Miss California has been attacked by one of the contest's judges and the organizers of her state's pageant. Hilton, infuriated that anyone would disagree with him, subsequently called Miss California "a dumb bitch" with "half a brain." Should she have answered dishonestly?
The controversy here maybe should be that Perez Hilton injected politics into a beauty pageant; that Perez Hilton intolerantly berated a contestant for supplying an answer that differs from his desired answer; that Perez Hilton judged a beauty contest based on a contestant's position on a moral question that he is obsessed with; or that Perez Hilton was invited to be a judge at a beauty pageant where the contestants didn't have to duct tape their genitals. The controversy shouldn't be that a pageant contestant gave an uncontroversial answer to a question on gay marriage. Would this have been news had she answered that she disagreed with the majority of her state and supported gay marriage?
They are totalitarians. Its so simple. They are totalitarians. No need to go to any particular length. Its all around me in my world here in So. Cal. Yes, in other areas there is fredom of thought but on the extreme left where these people live- they are simply totalitarians. The real question is - is there more of them than us? I see real danger in this country- now don't get me wrong I am NOT advocating any conflict- and hopefully I am wrong, but the degree of control emanating from the powers that be- what with Napolitano and her report and the like is indicative of a VERY disturbing trend in this country that no longer seems content to have disagreements but seems intended to coerce and lets face it they have already shred the last vestiges of our Constitution (Bush started it).
They are totalitarians. Its so simple. They are totalitarians. No need to go to any particular length. Its all around me in my world here in So. Cal. Yes, in other areas there is fredom of thought but on the extreme left where these people live- they are simply totalitarians. The real question is - is there more of them than us? I see real danger in this country- now don't get me wrong I am NOT advocating any conflict- and hopefully I am wrong, but the degree of control emanating from the powers that be- what with Napolitano and her report and the like is indicative of a VERY disturbing trend in this country that no longer seems content to have disagreements but seems intended to coerce and lets face it they have already shred the last vestiges of our Constitution (Bush started it).
Good post Dan. I think it is ridiculous that people are intolerant of opposing views. Its not 'freedom of speech as long as you agree with me.' Its just an opinion.
The controversy here should be Perez Hilton and the paradox of referring to him as him.
First off, what’s a g@y man doing judging a beauty contest? I might understand it if there were a lesbian on the panel but Perez Hilton (whoever the heck he is)?
Someone needs to clue the g@y mafia that a Majority of people in California decisively agree that marriage is still defined as one man and one woman and that a Majority of the rest of the country agrees. Outside of a handful of activist judges ruling against the will of the people in certain locales, it is still not the norm and won’t ever be to many Americans.
And, “classy” to the end (typically incorporating the intimidation of shock factor), Hilton calls the fine honest young lady a b!t@h, retracts it, then revises his insult and says that she is actually a c(*$. Nice.
Face it, religious or not, this is one of the things that is starting to be a creed. You must hold to it or be excommunicated from the media and "intellectual" elite. And all candidates of any type must answer to the creed.
Everything you can say about religions, you can say about creeds, and "creed" might even encompass what Christopher Hitchens and others fumble at with the phrase "secular religions". They admit that they are bad (and even allow that they can be the most murderous "religions" in history). However, when we look into the legal realm, our law wants to be "secular in intent" (a sort of creed in itself) without any pause to consider legal consideration of these chimeras "secular religions". And Hitchens crowd practically cheers every time "religion" has been untangled from the State by arguing that even the remotest inferences from the motivation of religious citizens are "religious in intent" as long as the secularists (read "atheists") see no value in them.
There is no danger from the "secular" just "secular religions", you see. Equivocation made law. They strain out the longest inference chains to argue "entanglement with religion" but I don't think I've ever seen a single advocate or judge look at "entanglements with 'secular religions'". Since, the proponents of SE normally hold that Marxism is a "Secular Religion", the equivalent treatment would likely be that you cannot teach Marxism in schools, and no teacher should even come close to endorsing it.
The current legal standard on "endorsement" allows for this: Jones accepted that the superintendent might have made "mere mention" of a "religious" textbook [that fails to identify who might have created/designed species, no less] in Dover v. Kitzmiller, in a four-paragraph memo, where three paragraphs discussed that the state mandated the teaching of evolution--even that suggested to Jones that the subject of Evolution [which had apparently evolved rights as a school subject] was treated "unequally" as a marked concession to religious parents. So to even consider explaining to religious parents that like it or not your child will study Evolution and give it special mention is "religious in intent"!!
Does the state look out anywhere near this level for "entanglements" with "secular religions"?!! Do the approving secularizers breathing a sigh of relief that the "wholly secular" intent of the law beat religion back into its cave? Not that I have seen.
Secular Intent is a creed. Gay Marriage is a creed. Green is a creed. Obama's success is a creed. And they will begin to act more and more like the creeds of old, to "Save the Planet".
It's odd how gay men take what is generally considered to be the worst vice of men - Lust - and meld it with what is often considered to be the worst vice of women -- gossip (also likened to murder by the Church).
I would have vote FOR allowing gay marriage before this issue. I will vote FOR traditional marriage for now on. The Gay Nazis lost me, and many moderates with these tactics. The response to Prop 8 supporters and their sexist verbal abuse of Miss California chills me. Perez Hilton has no idea the damage his has done to his cause. Any rational person would look at Miss California and Perez Hilton and ask themselves: Which would I want to have as my child? Definitely not Perez Hilton.
