No Political Correctness

There is no such thing but it appears to be entrenched in some places. Why? There is no book, no guidelines.

This is another good example of how old ideas, repackaged and distorted, can infiltrate a culture. Politeness is important, civility is important. Loving your neighbor as yourself is important. Political Correctness is not needed.

God bless,

Gee, I actually agree with you. Political correctness, be it conservative or liberal is not necessary if we are just polite to one another.

I know, this PC craziness has affected every aspect of life in America, its becoming unbearable. And one someone comes along says it like it is, they get called a bigot, sexist, or a racist. If youd like to see how much this PC stuff is hurting America i suggest you read “Muzzled” by Michael Smerconish.

And yet political correctness has been around forever. This is not a new phenomenon post Vatican II.

There are (and have been for ages) nations who have and enforce their ‘party line’ position in such a way that those who don’t tow it are penalized. That, to me, is political correctness.

In the days when the catholic church was involved in television programming there was still the political correctness of patriotism and a woman’s place in the home supporting her husband. Anyone who spoke out against the government or about women’s rights to work or open their own checking accounts without a husband was considered ‘off’ and treated as scandalous.

Heck, what about the political correctness of owning slaves and believing people of other races/cultures were not capable of intelligent reason and thus are not entitle to legal human rights or the right to vote? That is a clear example of ‘political correctness’ influencing a society. Because the political position was a discriminatory one this idea of respect and politeness to ‘all people’ did not apply to those of other cultures or races so for a very long time people did not realize they weren’t being polite or considerate. As a nation we’ve yet to truly reform that line of thinking or action, sadly, as racism and bigotry continue to exist.

The apparent difference now is that ‘correctness’ is being applied to behaviors and policies which up until now had been considered by most societies as immoral (homosexuality, cloning, abortion).

Then again, abortion and homosexual practices have been around since biblical times, and historically there have been (still are) several ‘governments’ who sanction these things as being ‘allowed’, but it seems that even in those situations the majority of people in those societies did not defend the government’s position or suddenly go out and start living that way since it was ‘ok’ by their governments.

So I wouldn’t say there’s no political correctness or that it’s even a new concept.

I’m really not sure what to make of this last comment, in light of your entire post. Is there a typo in there, or am I just not understanding?

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

The term ‘political correctness’ is recent. I have a theory that such terms are regularly created by a group I call PWNBTD (People With Nothing Better To Do).

It is a construct designed to create a false sense of difference between the present and the past. Just like a box of cereal gets the occasional “New!” “Improved!” label slapped on it, the PWNBTD has decided that each decade will have its own iconography which they will then create. It is archived and later used to “identify” the entire decade. Example: 1970s, the decade of bell bottoms and platform shoes, etc.

It’s fake. Whatever happened in the past, there was still no term “political correctness.”

God bless,

Hey edwest! we must be kindred spirits. I am about as non-political correct as one can get. I think of myself as polite. But I an not going to change the way I talk or do things to suite others. They can agjust to me, I do not need to adjust to them.

Example: I belong to a clan. I am an appointed officer in my clan. It is a Scottish family society. I am proud of my family history. If some idiot wants to equate that with the K type clan they are just showing their lack of education. I still get a little flack. Ironiclly one of my fierceist defenders is a rasta buddy. :smiley:

Wow, how funny you mention this. I was in a discussion just the other day on this topic. I would like to point out at one time not too long ago the church in the United States was considering using inclusive language(also known as being politicaly correct) in the cathechism. Mother Angelica the founder of EWTN travelled to Rome and spoke with then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,now Pope Benedict XVI, on this issue. She was highly upset because of the fact of using inclusive language we would be referring to God as man or woman not just simply God as in man. She was very disturbed by this as God his her groom. Fortunately today we do not use inclusive language in the catechism.

“inclusive” How sad that people want to change something historical. How incorrect. This is another attempt to convince Christians that the Church needs to “change with the times” but no such changes are called for. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. This isn’t about fairness but about historical accuracy and truth. Apparently, some people can’t get over the fact man did not create the Christian God.

“progressive” is another word I don’t like. Taken from the word progress, my first question is, progressive according to who? All “progressive” means is that some group is getting closer to its goal, and it doesn’t always mean it’s a good goal.

God bless,

You’re right. That does sound contradictory. :blush:

I remember why I chose those words…they were the title of this thread. EdWest was putting forth the premise that political correctness does not exist.

I was saying I wouldn’t say “no political correctness” since there is such a thing and it has been around since the fall, it seems.

Vladmir Lenin first coined the phrase “politically correct”. “Ideas,” he said, “are more dangerous than guns. We do not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?”

Political correctness is seen by its proponents as a way of neutralising prejudice and according respect to others. It is also seen as verbal engineering that avoids reality by employing euphemisms to make acceptable what was previously unacceptable.

In 1948, the George Orwell’s classic book “1984,” used the term “Newspeak,” which was used to describe the language of the land of Oceana, and which was engineered to make impossible the communication of ideas which were not acceptable to Big Brother.

I’m with you on that one :thumbsup:

It’s fake. Whatever happened in the past, there was still no term “political correctness.”

According to Wikipedia (I know, taken with a grain of salt), and as Eileen T. pointed out, there was a term for it in the past: “party line”

The term “political correctness” is derived from Marxist-Leninist"party line", commonly referred to as the “correct line”. The term was used in communist countries, and by communist and Trotskyist vocabulary, and was used to describe the appropriate parties:

"Instead of proving his political correctness and mobilizing the masses, he often chose the path of repression and physical annihilation, not only against actual enemies, but also against individuals who had not committed any crimes against the party and the Soviet Government. Here we see no wisdom but only a demonstration of the brutal force which had once so alarmed V.I Lenin. . . ."

Somebody went to the bother of updating the term by coining “politically correct” to be used in place of “party line” and “correct line” (probably to distance it from Communism, so we can’t really say the term is fake. The term exists, is being used, people know what the term infers and the behaviors aligned with the terminology still exist.

Then again, maybe the person coining the phrase in an attempt to distance the ideas they were trying to protect from Communism knew what they were doing all along. It does seem to me that the manner in which the five non-negotiables have been postured to be protected under this new and improved term ‘politically correct’ feels rather communistic: “For the good of the whole, each individual will accept abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual marriage and cloning as not only the preferred course of action but the ideal one for the future of this nation”

A rose by any other name, no?

I’ve despised PC for many years. It is absolutely against one of the principles the US was founded on–the freedom of speech. But unfortunately we have so perverted and trivialized the notion of what free speech is that many think it is simply about having (or fighting to have) the freedom to use foul language on the airwaves. The ability to curse in public, that is what freedom of speech has been reduced to today. And what of the original intent? Bah, who cares about that, that was then and this is now. And now what we have are troops of PC busy-bodies going around looking for things that might offend them (or that might offend those that they champion) so they can harangue the offender while puffing themselves up with self-righteous anger and relishing the power to dictate what people can and cannot say. And if someone steps over the line (as they define it) then you might well be forced to attend a Cultural Awareness program in order to re-program how you think and how you speak and to make you acceptable to PC society again. That is if you’re lucky, for you might instead be fired if you let slip some un-PC though at work and it doesn’t matter how innocently you uttered the remark. And that is what perhaps irks me most is how those who are skilled in PC speak simply hide their hatreds and biases behind the false front of PC language while some unlucky, un-programmed person that hasn’t yet mastered the various nuances of PC-isms may say something completely without any ill intent behind it and yet be branded as sexist or racist. And what it amounts to is that real, honest discussions get swept aside so that we can all just get along without really making progress other than learning better how to speak more cautiously, and yet this is not really done out of a sense of genuine respect and love for others but rather out of fear.

So no one is made any better. We are only made more fearful and more oppressed.

Luckily though there are certain areas outside of the jurisdiction of the PC police where people can have safe outlets for tasteless jokes and prejudices and outright hate, for anyone is free to bash Christians or males (especially white males living in the deep south) all they want with impunity…which goes to show that PC-ism isn’t really about taking a principled stand and bringing people together but rather it is a weapon to be used against groups unfavored by the PC powers (ie, Christians and males) while giving immunity to other groups (ie, those who hate Christians or those who hate men).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit