Paraphrasing The Declaration of Independence, all humans are created with the same and equal ‘rights’. All people are not ‘created equal’; some are smarter, some are prettier and some are more evil than others. This is true regardless of ones’ religion, ethnicity, color, sexual orientation, and origin or belief system. However, no one should have rights superior to others, and no one should be able to inflict their beliefs on others. How a person views other people is a personal decision and the person should not be demeaned, ridiculed or placed at a disadvantage because of those views. Actions, however, are another thing. In order to have equal ‘rights’, it is also necessary that no one be disadvantaged because of the views and actions of others.
Therefore, advancing one set of views in away that would ‘force’ others to share those views is totally unfair and should not be tolerated by people ‘with equal rights’. People with different political views may seek to persuade others by their words that they are right and those with different views are wrong, but no one is entitled to have the use of law and governmental regulations to accomplish ‘forced persuasion’. Unfortunately, our ‘politically correct’ society permits and countenances legal action to do what words alone are unable to do to convince disagreeing people to change their views.
One tool used by people to advance their views, and political agenda, is to corrupt the English language; to misuse words to convey an impression that those disagreeing with them are not only wrong, but in some cases actually evil; one such word is ‘racist’ and another is ‘homophobe’. It is also popular to ignore the accepted meaning of a word, such as ‘amnesty’, and attempt to make people believe the meaning is something contrary to the accepted definition. Another example is the word ‘gay’; once used simply to describe a happy state of mind, now used as a euphemism for ‘homosexual’. To call attention to these things immediately gives rise to the terrible characterization – ‘racism’.
Sometimes because the actual description of words in the identity of an organization or the political effort may turn some people off, acronyms are used to soften the impact the actual words may have. One example is NAMBLA, “North American Man/Boy Love Association”, another example is LGBTQ, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer”, and a third is GLBT, “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender” (believe it or not, GLBT actually has a ‘historical society’).
Political activists often demand special privileges for members of their groups. Of course, this means that their members are to have rights superior than others have. If we remember that our Declaration of Independence says all people have ‘equal rights’; a principle that has guided our country from its beginning, it is clear that such political activists seek more than that to which they should be entitled. There are many illustrations. Congress has a ‘Black Caucus’, but there could never be a ‘White Caucus’; there is a government funded, in part, ‘National Association of Colored People’, but a corresponding association of white people would be considered ‘racist’; there is a ‘Gay and Lesbian Alliance’, but any alliance of heterosexual people is often forbidden on school campuses and other institutions; atheists are a protected minority, but religion has no place in schools or public institutions; there is an organization openly calling for the Mexican takeover of our southwest, especially California, but what would the public news media say about a formal resistance to that movement? If more examples are needed, we can cite the many ‘immigrant rights’ groups; would groups advocating the rights of American citizens be well received? I think not.
There was a time in this country when the word ‘patriot’ was a proud identification to have. Former senator Barry Goldwater was ridiculed for suggesting that extremism in defense of liberty (patriotism) was no vice when he ran for the presidency. Today, there is an entire political party and a news media that wants to turn the definition of patriotism on its ear. They contend that it is possible to support our country’s enemies, or ignore the clear threats to our freedoms that some groups pose, and still be patriotic. If they succeed by persuading a majority of American with words or law and regulations to accept these views, our beloved country will be destroyed like countless others before ours, by destruction from within.