“Ze walks with me and ze talks with me, and ze tells me I am zyr own …”
Welcome to favorite hymns as they might be revised by Princeton, the University of Michigan and the diabolical American left.
Who knew the power of pronouns? At first glance, they seem innocuous.
But when oppression begins to supplant authentic justice, one of the first symptoms is the breakdown of ordinary language. George Orwell warned us; now America stinks from the rotten rhetorical fruit of decaying, toxic values.
It’s heartbreaking to say, but the smell of death surrounds us.
From “negative rhetoric about Islam,” and accusations of “hate speech” against homosexuality, revealing reality is the current great offense. New meanings for old terms have become the weapons to deliver fake justice and the rallying cries to rationalize sexual license, lawlessness, theft, revenge – you name it.
Feminists advocate the “reproductive rights” of other women to kill their children. “Sexual orientation” is the civilized policy term for men who prefer anal sex with other men, or women whose idea of a grand sexual experience involves plastic penises with other women instead of real male organs with real males.
And if you object, you are the problem. Increasingly your fair-minded, virtue-seeking, justice-exalting Christian life is probably expendable. Does the future include Planned Parenthood-type clinics for conservative believers? Will we be escorted to enter such “clinics” and never exit?
Is there a polite term for “Auschwitz”?
Oh, surely you are exaggerating, some will protest. After all, many recent examples seem on the surface to be just more left-wing silliness.
At Princeton, the new administration speech code laughably denies male and female human biology. On a hopeful note, the student newspaper is crying foul:
“Censoring the English language through dissemination of lists of acceptable vocabulary is contrary to the values of the University and a sinister first step towards Orwellian restriction of language and speech.”
What’s the motivation for such nonsense? “I’ll honor your delusions if you honor mine”?
Consider the ridiculous “pronoun pins” at Champlain College in Vermont, distributed at freshman orientation. They were also passed around at the Democratic National Convention, to no one’s surprise.
“Ze, zem and zyr” are gender-neutral pronouns to make people comfortable and respected, supporters claim.
But it’s actually the opposite. Anyone who demands such wild distortion of language is already broadcasting mental illness and a deep insecurity no pin can help.
It’s outrageous that parents and students pay for such deficient and deceitful “higher” education. Perhaps Hillary is right. It should be “free” because increasingly, it’s worthless.
Take the oft-revered University of Michigan – well, revered except in Buckeye country where I live. A faculty and staff “Pronoun Committee” came up with a similar policy there following a student petition. Students may choose their preferred pronouns to be used in class. What happens if someone forgets? Or … refuses to go along with this nonsense?
One fellow did refuse by indicating his pronoun of choice was “His majesty.” It’s refreshing to learn there are still a few clear-thinking youth on campus.
I have a story like this in my background. Many of us are disturbed about the hijacking of language in our culture, but it is particularly heretical, literally, in the Christian church.
I enrolled in an ELCA Lutheran seminary masters’ degree program some years back just after I became a Christian. Required reading in two of my courses was the book “Inclusive Language in the Church” by Nancy A. Hardesty.
Hardesty in her book promotes inclusive language in the church by saying, “An effort to use more inclusive language makes us aware not only of our sexism, but also of our racism, elitism, nationalism, classism, ageism, homophobia, and all our other prejudices.”
An inclusive language policy had been enacted at the seminary, which I read upon entering and agreed to follow, but before several classroom incidents, I didn’t grasp its chilling application.
The inclusive language policy stated, among other things, that references to God should not be confined only to the masculine, as this “limits our understanding of God.” Instead, “there are many opportunities in worship, classroom, and conversation where feminine and gender-free language can broaden our understanding of God.” (Emphasis added)
Here’s what this really meant. When I was called upon in one class to answer a question, I began by saying, “Well, about God, I think He wanted to show Abraham …” at which point my instructor jumped in.
“He WHO?” she quizzed me.
Me (not yet understanding): “Uh, God. He was trying to …”
“He WHO?” repeated the professor.
At which point understanding dawned in my brain. I stopped and said quietly, “God.”
“Thank you,” she said. “Don’t forget about the inclusive language policy here.” And when I “forgot” again several classes later, and another student did as well, we were warned that “grades could be impacted” unless we dropped masculine references to God.
That’s pretty much the point of gender anarchy, isn’t it? God the Father is the ultimate bad guy to these rebels. Heterosexual males are an enormous offense. Males are only permitted to thrive if neutered or homosexualized.
In this seminary experience, I had the creepy sensation of being, not in an institution devoted to the inspired study of Christian teaching, but in a concentration camp.
Religious freedom in America was recently scorned by the chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as just a “code word” for bigotry and discrimination. In its recent report, the commission lauded only liberal, apostate churches like the United Church of Christ.
No, Chairman Castro, the guarantee of religious freedom in our Constitution is a code word against code words. You and other liberals do not need to tell us what an acceptable form of faith is. What we want in our lives, in our churches, in our culture’s language is the truth.
Can we please get it back, now?
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.