Social Acceptance in a Radical Nation
The "purpose" of 'Political Correctness' is to define the terms of acceptable speech inside the arena of political and societal debate; it attempts to create a 'social center' whereby all political and social discourse can be measured; moreover, it divides politicians and their supporters down the left and right side of this "political prime meridian."
However, the result of such restraint on speech has been to create an environment of Religious, philosophical, and cultural mediocrity; sending everyone racing for an ever-changing, imaginary line, of social acceptance.
The implementation of socially enforced "acceptable" speech has bankrupted the market-place of ideas, while creating an elitist class of hypocrites, believing themselves morally worthy of exercising judgment over their fellow man against standards, to which, they themselves do not uphold; maliciously, we destroy the character of our neighbors for failing to meet the social standards implemented by liars, and modern day Pharisee.
For this reason you will find many contemporary "heroes" and celebrated figures bow in confession at the alter of public opinion. We see this time and time again, when the personal right to privacy is invaded by the right of free-press, shaming those that now and then show themselves to be human, by making a bad decision into offering a public apology for transgressions of a private matter.
I believe this method of behavioral measurement denies people of their individuality, creating a kind-of generic society, where we can never learn the deepest beliefs or motives of neighbors and friends; in fact, I would even dare to say, we now live in a society of persona rather than honest individuals.
Truth is, we are all radicals; from the Conservative Christian or Agnostic Libertarian to the Atheistic Socialist; we all fall to the left or right side of "political correctness." In fact, this nation was founded upon radical ideas; our forefathers believed in socially unacceptable notions such as, personal freedom and personal responsibility, they believed a man should be free to practice his religion without judgment, they even believed in the personal rights of man to privacy and economic freedom.
- In our present society a Christian can be defined as someone who professes belief in Christ; whereas, a radical Christian is defined as someone that actually practices his teachings.-
Individuals should never allow their beliefs to be subject to "social acceptability." We are a nation of laws; it is our duty as citizens to uphold and obey those laws. However, it is not our responsibility to condition or dilute our religious, moral, or social beliefs to that of the modern-day pharisee.
This nation has always been a place where cultures collide, where people of all nationalities were free to pursue their individual goals; we must not lose this peculiar and magnificent product of the American experiment, nor can we turn to collectivism in a nation of individuals.
Please leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.
Photo by: bootbearwdc@flickr.com
Comments