From My Perspective - - -
What have we become in this country? Have we become victims of our own vocabulary and grammar? Are we slaves to nuances and idioms, inflections and tone of voice? In the past couple of days, two illustrations have arisen regarding words spoken. The first is in a You Tube remark made by Sarah Palin where she employed a historic term “blood libel” in her statement. The second is in the Memorial Service address made by the President last evening and a news headline reads: “Obama Speech Undercuts Federal Charge For Judge's Murder.”
The term – Blood Libel – refers to “…a false claim or accusation that religious minorities (almost always Jews) murder children – especially Christian children – to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, Blood Libel claims have often been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children…” (See: Wikipedia). The emphasis intended was on “false accusation”! However, the media seized on that phrase as being offensive and contributing to anti-Semitism. In the case of President Obama, in reference to U.S. District Judge John Roll, he used the phrase: “He was on his way back from attending mass, as he did every day, when he decided to stop by and say, Hi, to his representative." At issue is whether or not Judge Roll stopped by on a social visit or a business one.
It’s strange how murder can be nuanced in terms of a social visit or a business visit. The article continues its report: “In the complaint supporting Loughner's arrest, federal prosecutors argue that Roll wasn't simply seeking to pay a social call on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona) when he showed up at the community outreach event where the shooting spree took place Saturday. Prosecutors and the FBI insist that Roll was engaged in official duties because he wanted to talk to Giffords and her staffers about problems with a surging caseload in federal courts in Arizona, particularly along the Mexican border. Loughner's alleged killing of Roll may only be a crime under Federal Law if Judge Roll was on business rather than just stopping by to say 'Hi' to a friend. The death penalty is likely available to the feds anyway, because of the death of Giffords' aide Gabriel Zimmerman. However, multiple murders are an additional aggravating factor that could lead to the death penalty under federal law, as is the killing of a federal judge when carrying out his official duties.” It allows one insight when an argument can be made in terms of what “is” – is!
What about the use of words and their intended meaning? Must they always be construed in terms of their most negative and adverse meaning? Has our nation become illiterate or so totally lazy and/or ignorant that consulting a dictionary is too great of a chore? What about a long held tool to inquire about what was in the author’s mind or speaker’s intent when certain words were used? Is context totally ignored so a particular bias can be championed or a political position taken? One is instructed and cautioned in Scripture regarding the use of words: Ecclesiastes 10:12-14, “Words from a wise man's mouth are gracious, but a fool is consumed by his own lips. At the beginning his words are folly; at the end they are wicked madness - and the fool multiplies words…” There is an interesting application for the one who has made a pledge, such as being a co-signer on a note owed, in Proverbs 6:2-4, “if you have been trapped by what you said, ensnared by the words of your mouth, then do this - to free yourself, since you have fallen into your neighbor's hands: Go and…press your plea with your neighbor!” One area where there should be constant concern arise from the words of Jesus – Matthew 12:36-37, “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless (idle) word they have spoken.For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." This needs to have Alert Status for all who engage in verbal exchanges and reporting of events. While our words should be few, the reception and interpretation of them should be fair and accurate. Consider these things with me!
2 comments:
The postmodern agenda does not acknowledge your observation and question "What about a long held tool to inquire about what was in the author’s mind or speaker’s intent when certain words were used?" The postmodern deconstructionist says "the author did not have an "intended" meaning. It is up to the reader to determine the meaning of the text. In his book the Passion of the Western Mind, Richard Tarnas observes that one of the early postmodern deconstructionists, Jaeques Derrida, challenges "the attempt to establish a secure meaning in any text." One more quote from Stephen Conner in his book "Postmodernist Culture." Conner quotes Michael Ryan, another postmodern liberal from his work on postmodern politics. Listen carefully: "Rather than being expressive representations of a substance taken to be prior, cultural signs become instead active agents in themselves, creating new substances, new social forms, new ways of acting and thinking, new attitudes, reshuffling the cards of 'fate' and 'nature' and social 'reality'. It is on this margin that culture, seemingly entirely autonomous and detached, turns around and becomes a social and material force, a power of signification that discredits all claims to substantive grounds outside representation and this discrediting applies to political institutions, moral norms, social practices and economic structures."
Every person in this country under the age of 30 has formulated a world and life view that employs the postmodern agenda, to a greater or lesser degree. Thanks for bringing this to your reader's attetion.
These folks surely are the epitome of Romans 1:18ff... Just a flat out rejection of integrity and the verities of Scripture.
Makes one want to sing the old spiritual: "Where Can I Go But To The Lord?"
The Church better get going soon or the message of the Gospel may be forfeited and irretrievably lost.
Post a Comment