Saturday, April 09, 2011

Adding insult to injury

The following is not political; it is moral and spiritual.

Manipulation of language is a tool used to deceive. It is assumed by the dishonest, who underestimate the intelligence of vast portions of their audience, that manipulation of language will disguise their meaning and hide the truth. That is why, here in the United States, political leaders of the Democrat Party, including the President and Senate Majority Leader, have used the expression "women's health" when they mean "abortion." The injury is forcing American taxpayers to become accomplices to the murder of children in the womb by federal funding of Planned Parenthood. The insult is to the intelligence of everyone of us who heard them repeating the obvious euphemism, "women's health."

We have seen other such manipulation of language recently, notably bloggers and leaders of the TAC saying "Anglican Patrimony" when they mean "conversion to Roman Catholicism." 

The Prophets of the Lord and the Apostles of Christ never manipulated language. God's servants speak very directly to the heart and mind, convicting of sin and enlightening with the truth of God's word. Beware of those who would steer the mind instead of speaking to it. Manipulation of language is always Satanic, because it is always a cloak to deceive. Beware of those whose communication is intended to lull the mind into a stupor of sleep, instead of igniting it with energy. 


Anonymous said...

First, let me say I am not some rabid liberal. I'm non-partisan. I do not think either American political party gets it right. For me it is always a vote for the lesser of two evils.

However, why is it you left out the Republican Party? By doing so, I believe your post appears political, even if it was not intended that way. Do the Republicans also not manipulate language?

Do many of them not make our Deist founding fathers into Christians to suit their needs?

Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons..." Did the Republican Party not manipulate language to get us into these conflicts for less than necessary reasons? Is the death of innocent children and civilians not also immoral? Recent reports coming out of U.S. Soldiers killing civilians (including children) for sport is equally horrific.

I do not want my tax money going to abortions. Let me be clear about that. I am absolutely morally opposed to abortion.

That being said, if you have filled up your car with gas at Chevron or Texaco, bought a Black and Decker tool, shopped at Sears, Target, K-Mart, or The Gap, stayed at a Hilton, Embassy Suites, or Mariot, bought something from Staples, own Nike shoes, have Comcast or any Time Waner publications or services, eaten at Burger King, Taco Bell, or The Olive Garden, or boot up your computer with a Microsoft programme then some of your money has FREELY gone to Planned Parenthood.

This brings me to a serious moral question: Are all the Christians eating a plate of mediocre food at the Olive Garden after church on Sunday somehow less culpable for freely spending their money at a place which support Planned Parenthood than those rendering unto Caesar that which is his?

How do I function on a daily basis with so many corporations giving some of my money to Planned Parenthood?

Absolution doesn't come with voting Republican.


Fr. Robert Hart said...

No one can put me in jail for not eating at the olive Garden.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Hart:

Though your general point is well-taken, your use of the known epithet "Democrat Party," rather than the correct, official name of the group, the "Democratic Party" (speaking of manipulation of language) belies your profession that the post is apolitical. So does your apparent refusal to even address Aidan's quite pertinent questions about similar manipulations of language by the, if you will, "Republic Party."

The intersection of politics and religion is messy, and probably best avoided altogether, unless, of course, you're quite content that the Continuing churches continue to be, like the old ECUSA, considered simply "the Republican Party at prayer."

- Brooks

welshmann said...

Fr. Hart:

I've heard it said that you cannot con and honest man. I suspect that manipulation of language is a case in point in both the political and religious realms. At its foundation, manipulation of language is not meant to deceive the innocent, although it may of course have that effect. It is meant to give people who ought to know better a means to agree to something without appearing to agree to it. That's worse than lying, because it means enticing the listener to participate in their own intellectual and spiritual degradation.


Fr. Robert Hart said...

Gee, Brooks, perhaps you could provide an example of Republican duplicity instead of merely asserting it. I can think of examples of Republicans being just as bad in the past, but not anything relevant and current. On Friday I was irritated by hearing current, relevant dishonesty meant to hide the fact of abortion under a deceitful slogan. I addressed something specific, because I just had my fill of it, and wanted to say something publicly to the effect that the President and the Senate Majority leader were busy lying to us all day. The fact that they are both Democrats is not something I made up; but, it was relevant, because they are sacrificing honesty, in this case, to a party line.

And, if Aidan has a credible and verified list of businesses that support Planned Barrenhood, I would be glad to see it.