Posts Tagged ‘political vocabulary’

… can still be framing the argument, unfortunately. And the results can be very bad, indeed.

Pat Archbold has an excellent article at The National Catholic Register:

The attack on religious liberty is a two front war.  One front you know about, the other one you may not have noticed.

Language is the blunt instrument of choice with which the secularist left in this country bludgeons our freedoms. The secularist left has successfully used seemingly slight alterations in language to change the way ordinary people perceive an argument.  Most people who pay attention to these things are very much aware of this tactic, as we have seen it so often.

This is nowhere more apparent today than in the President’s repeated use of the phrase “freedom of worship” rather than “freedom of religion.”  They prefer and proffer this language change because “freedom of worship” is about something you do for one hour a week.  “Freedom of religion” is about how you live in the other 167 hours of the week.  The secularist left now in control of our government is content to allow one hour of free “worship” so long as they get to tell you how to live the other 167 hours.  Of course, our Constitution does not guarantee us merely freedom of worship but freedom of religion.  The first amendment is about all 168 hours a week, which is the whole point.  The secularist left hopes that by repeated references to freedom of worship, you will eventually come to accept the diminution of your God-given rights.

This change in language is often coupled with another bit of lesser-known subterfuge used to rob people of their God-given freedom, the corporatizing of rights.  By this, I mean the attempt to take rights that naturally and rightly belong to the individual and apply them only to a group.  When these rights belong only to a group, then the government can determine who belongs to this group.  This group will steadily become smaller and smaller until the right does not seem to exist at all.

A great example of this tactic is the battle over the second amendment.  For over 150 years all Americans understood the second amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms.  The left’s great distaste for this right is well known, but the 2nd amendment seems fairly clear on this point.  Undaunted, for years the left asserted, contrary to all historic understanding, that this “right” belonged not to the individual, but to a group.  In this case “A well regulated Militia.”  They attempted to make a result of the right, the right itself.

If only “A well regulated Militia” has a right to keep and bear arms, this right no longer applies to the individual and ultimately the government gets to decide who can be in and what constitutes “A well regulated Militia.”  Membership in the group is then more and more narrowly defined that in the end, the corporate right ceases to exist in reality, as does your former individual right.  Thankfully, thanks to determined groups of citizens, the former understanding of this right as an individual one has been reasserted and established by the Supreme Court.  Thank heavens, for such liberty lost is only found again in blood-soaked places.

As I watch the debate on Obamacare and the HHS mandate, the secularist left is using this same corporatizing tactic to attack your fundamental right to religious liberty.

Read the rest. Please, do.


Read Full Post »

Robinson O’Brien-Bours writes of Gaius Julius Caesar and his legacy, on the occasion of Caesar’s birthday. (Can you guess how long ago he was born? The answer is in the opening line of the linked post.)

Possibly I shouldn’t, but I like the bit about ‘we have further ridiculed this name by giving it to a few self-glorified bureaucrats, “peevish schoolboys unworthy of such an honor”.’

Read Full Post »

Two posts over at Mere Comments are on unrelated subjects, but somehow struck me as two parts of a larger picture.

First (simply because I read it first): Scots Warned Against Looking at Big Picture with Intelligence in Mind. This looks at reaction to the opening of Glasgow’s Centre for Intelligent Design, and its supposed dangers to Scottish children. Must not let the bairns be exposed to the idea that the world might not be entirely purposeless, you know… It might confuse them?

Please note, if you will, that the president and vice-president of the new center come from the realms of genetics and medicine. If you have not had a chance to look into what’s been discovered in microbiology lately, please dig up a good DVD or online source or something. When you see that a single cell is about as complex as a megacity, it tends to make you wonder if that widely-booted-about theory about mud glopping together in just the right way under just the right circumstances and presto-being-a-functioning-live-thing just might, possibly, be a bit behindtimes – good enough for the less-knowing of the nineteenth century, perhaps, but no longer necessarily the best explanation given the evidence, now that we can see into cells, and better understand blood clotting (what a procedure that is!), now that more fossils have been collected, etc., etc.

And then, from Anthony Esolen: I Confess, I Paid Attention to the Election. Esolen talks about the collapse of our political thinking, and how although gains were made, all too often political battles still seem to be between radical worship of materialism and softer worship of materialism, and… oh, go read it. I’m making it sound dull, and it isn’t.

Read Full Post »

Is your concept of bravery inadequate or amoral?

Read Full Post »