DEFENDING THE LANGUAGE: Definition of ‘Bigot’ & ‘Tolerate’ Reveal Hypocrisy

This post is an excellent example of a deliberate attempt to change society by changing the language.  In this case, they are trying to change the way we look at certain behaviors and beliefs by changing the definitions of the words we use to discuss these behaviors and beliefs.  We are all aware of this ongoing attempt to change society by controlling what we can say and how we can say it.  We call it ‘political correctness,’ but it is nothing more than a manifestation of the Progressive belief that language controls thought, and thus, controlling language can control society.  And this is one of the primary reasons I place so much emphasis on language, especially definitions: because, if we do not know what words mean, we will not be able to recognize when we are being manipulated by those who are trying to control what those words mean.  So, let’s look at two of the words that are being changes before our very eyes: ‘bigot’ and ‘tolerate.’

First, I want to make you aware of a story that will illustrate the points I hope to make in this post.  I could have found many similar stories, but this one is just as good as any of the others [warning: story contain strong and possibly offensive language]:

‘This Literally Changes Everything’: One Direction Star Criticized After Tweeting Support For ‘Duck Dynasty’s’ Willie Robertson

Here is the assertion in a nutshell:

“If you object to the homosexual lifestyle/agenda, you are intolerant and a bigot.”

The first thing I did when I started to write this post was go to Webster’s to look up the definition of bigot and I found this:

Full Definition of BIGOT

:  a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Now, because I know that our language is being manipulated to alter our thinking and behavior, I recognized that this definition has been changed from what it used to mean.  So I went to my hard copy Webster’s Dictionary from 1996 and this is what I found:

“One fanatically devoted to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and intolerant of those who differ.”

Now, upon first read, these two definitions appear to be the same – but they are not.  There is a subtle change in the current definition.  Go back and re-read it and notice that the current definition defines a bigot as someone who ‘hates:’ a ‘hater.’  This is important because it is intended to justify hating the hater – which is exactly what is being done by those who adhere to the PC mentality.  The problem is that this understanding of ‘bigot’ ignores a key aspect of the definition: ‘intolerance.’  By ignoring the connection to tolerance in defining ‘bigot,’ the definition of ‘bigot’ is further altered. So let’s look at what ‘tolerance’ actually means.  We go straight to the root word:

Full Definition of TOLERATE

1:  to endure or resist the action of (as a drug or food) without serious side effects or discomfort :  exhibit physiological tolerance for

2a :  to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction

b :  to put up with <learn to tolerate one another>

Here is where the real deception is found.  In our society today, ‘tolerate’ is being treated as though it means ‘accept,’ but it does not!  I can tolerate another person’s beliefs without having to accept them, but this is not the implication in the PC message.  According to the PC NAZI’s in our society, if you do not embrace those who are different, then you are intolerant and that makes you a bigot – a ‘hater.’  And from there, you are assumed to be the problem and it becomes ‘acceptable’ to treat you as the problem.

What should we learn from all of this?  Simple: the people pushing the PC mantra are actually the ones who are intolerant and bigots.  BY definition, if the PC crowed attacks people who are trying to hold to their religious beliefs, then the PC crowed is the group that is being intolerant.  In this case, they are being intolerant of religious people.  Now, I understand that the first objection will be Christians are intolerant because they will not accept a change in the definition of marriage.  The answer to this objection is in the meaning of the words.  Remember, tolerate does not mean accept.  Christians must allow homosexuals to live the way they want.  Their faith commands them to leave those who will not accept the Gospel in peace, for Christ to deal with.  But that does not mean they have to accept the homosexual agenda, which includes the changing of what marriage means.  You see, the homosexual agenda is doing this through the government – the same government that represents the Christian believers.  So to ‘accept’ these changes means they must let unbelievers change their faith.  This is not intolerant on the part of the Christians, it is an attack on Christians by intolerant homosexuals – and I can prove the point.

Assume the same line of argument that the homosexual/PC crowed is using against Christians; now let me prove that homosexuals are just as intolerant and bigoted.

If gays do not accept pedophilia, then they are intolerant bigots, haters!

Do you see how easy that was?  Now, if the gays try to object, all you have to do is replace ‘gay’ in their own arguments and you have made the same argument against gay haters as they have made against ‘homophobes.’  Now, I can already hear the first objection: children cannot make the decision to have sex.  NO!  That is a moral judgment; an opinion.  The proof is in our laws already. Our elementary schools pass out condoms, so they are acknowledging that young children can and do decide to have sex on their own.  In fact, the argument is: “They’re going to do is anyway, so…”  So, if homosexuals are going to claim that pedophilia is morally objectionable, then how can they object to Christians who say homosexuality is morally objectionable?  They can’t – not without proving themselves to be hypocrites.

And there is the point: the PC crowed – by definition – is a bunch of hypocrites!

This is just one example of the mess we make when we unpin from objective morality, and this is why the founders said that individual rights and liberty cannot be preserved unless the people are religious: because objective morality can only come from the Creator.

[NOTE: if you are one of those who will object to my argument, let me ask you a question.  Would you rather be a homosexual in a Christian country, or in an Islamic country?  If you are honest with yourself, the answer to that question should help you see who is being ‘intolerant’ in this debate.]