One thing I try to express to my children is the importance of saying precisely what you mean.
Truth and clarity are the goal of righteous men. We must use specific language at every opportunity to express and clarify our ideas. We should communicate without false intention, but in truth.
Language is a way we express what we think and feel. Through language we are able to expedite activity that becomes either productive or nonproductive, based on the clarity of the message. It also allows us to express ideas that are consistent with our understanding of things, and more importantly, our understanding of truth.
If you think about it, it is through the words we use and the intentions we exhibit that we are able to come to much of the consensus that makes our free society possible.
I have become increasingly aware, however, of how the progressive culture has removed the importance of meaning from language and purposefully alters reality by employing bombast and distortion as tools of persuasion. It is rhetorical knavery perpetrated by radical groups in our society who have the support of liberal factions in academia, news media, and law. All are perceived as authorities presiding with influential power over the mass of information age consumers, holding sway over popular opinion.
Their flippant use of rhetorical propaganda and demagoguery tells me they have no interest in discovering truth, only that they are concerned with protecting their own selfish ideologies, lifestyles and habituations.
Clearly, the example from this column portraying Kenneth R. Willard as "against the teaching of evolution" is, least of all, a disqualification of his true intent. Aren't reporters taught to report openly and without bias? Likely the distortions in the piece have nothing to do with the quality of education Ms. Dean received, but are deliberate perversions by Ms. Dean and the editorial staff of the New York Times to put forward a position which paint a picture of Mr. Willard as a crank.
He will surely spend a lifetime justifying his position as not against the teaching of evolution, but for free speech rights in schools, and for the introduction of competing philosophies. Ideas that are being barred from intelligent debate by the radical secularists who have come to power in education and media.
This article by Cornelia Dean is just another gross example of the venality so prevalent in popular print and television media. An example of the plain and unabashed deception and word play that they'll employ in order to dominate cultural perceptions.
It is much more common from the right that statements are clearly communicated; where words are chosen carefully which express ideas and viewpoints that are consistent with reason and logic, and which tend not to embellish on particular understandings.
In another example easily defined, a phrase like "anti immigration" applied broadly to refer to anyone who opposes an open border policy is ludicrous. But this kind of rhetoric is used everyday in the press to demonize those who believe in a sane, responsible legal immigration and documentation policy.
In another example where the perpetrator was not so witting, I present a previous post which includes a note to a colleague who used the term "the Constitution is a living and breathing document" to express an idea about how revelation from God could clarify gospel doctrine. While we do have a living God that testifies his truth to each and every one of us through the holy ghost, the constitution is a legal document whose reinterpretation requires supermajorities for ratification. It should not be subject to tyrannical trifles.
I found out later that he meant that at some point the Constitution could be amended and ratified by the community of citizens. This explanation does not absolve this individual from the linguistic misstep which will have lasting effects. When we use words or phrases that have been adopted by counter cultural factions to delineate destructive positions and ideologies, we are perpetuating these harmful ideas regardless of our intent. It is so important that we remain conscious of the rhetoric used by the counter-culture and resist the temptation to duplicate it in conversation simply for its familiarity.
So the next time someone wants to talk with you about the 'ban on gay marriage', please remind them that what is proposed is not a ban on gay marriage, but a clarification of what civilized societies have deemed marriage to be for thousands of years, a union between one man and one woman for the blessings of procreation and the perpetuation of the species. 'Ban on gay marriage' assumes there is such an institution as gay marriage which has the support of law through a legislative process. No such thing exists except by judicial fiat which is not characteristic of our democratic heritage.
So you see how simple words, used either purposefully or unintentionally, can have a dramatic impact on the morality and sanity of our culture.
