Many believe that secular political correctness is a humanly constructed religion that wishes to restrict dialogue on the basis of it’s own terms and which banishes critical discussion regarding it’s own tenets in order to gain power over others. There are countless examples and the limiting of discussion seems to follow this process :
- Redefine the ethics of right and wrong on the basis of ‘offense taken’ by a select group.
- Claim this offense taken is caused by other’s ‘hate speech’.
- Claim that this ‘hate speech’ should be a basis for cancelling other people and thus banishing criticism of it’s own ethics in the name of those ‘ethics’.
In short, if a select group decides they are offended by you, you will be silenced through force, one way or the other.
Such an ethical framework by definition has to be authoritarian. There are only two predetermined groups, dependent on the acceptance of the new ethics. One favoured and allowed group and one, shall we say, deplorable group whose character is maligned and whose speech is shut down.
At the moment there appears to be many institutions who accept this new religion as the defacto rules of engagement. Are not these institutions the problem in society in that it leads to authoritarianism, rejection, divisiveness and perhaps worse?
Is not this new secular religion ultimately derived from the horrors of the French Revolution in it’s own rejection of God and it’s wish to make state power, as the new God?
In rejecting God, ideas of objective Truth are foresaken in favour of relative truth that is then manufactured and forced on the populace in the process outlined above 1-3 through state power.
Truth is redefined as power, the antithesis of an incarnated lowly carpenter preaching the Gospel.
“What is Truth?” asked secular Pilate. Power was his truth and it was difficult for Truth itself, in the guise of a beaten and bruised Rabbi to dissuade such a concept. In time though Truth did win out, but Pilate and his secular power always, it appears, is ready to make a comeback.
The success of this secular religion in more modern times has purposefully led to a diminishing of Christian thought and community. At the moment however it appears the people’s attachment to objective truth still holds sway and is the biggest threat to the new religion. It is not certain that this resistance will always win out.
We see in Stalin’s socialism or Hitler’s socialism or Cambodia or a number of other 20th century examples where the switch on objective truth is turned off and truth becomes relative. It becomes flexible and inconsistent and ultimately incoherent and simply a tool of the state to control and destroy the God given human mind to disastrous affect.
Truth as a concept was rejected in favour of naked partisan power.