Liberal Conservatism, there is such a thing. I am one of its adherents.
Political correctness, is killing common sense slowly, in my opinion. It is also simultaneously infringing on one groups rights in certain instances while attempting to appease another. Have we all become so sensitive? Our language is undergoing a pleasant-always-engineering that makes me cringe. Its a freaking Christmas tree and if you don't like it don't say it or look at one, damn it! I was alarmed when I found myself agreeing with Bill O'reilly on this topic, it was sacrilege to all things intellectual.
I disagree that Christians have to change their traditions to appease non-Christians. That will be the equivalent of asking Jewish people to rename Bar Mitvahs in order to be sensitive towards Nazis or anyone else. The attrition of the Christian faith by certain progressives is making it an endangered faith, one that many, including myself are shamelessly committed to. As a strong critic of religious fanaticism, I am by no means championing the enforcement of any religious act on the public. However, the foundations of this civilization is largely conjoined with Christian and other religious traditions. I don't think it is fair to alter these traditions with a simplified argument of inclusiveness when the very vehicle of it is one of exclusivity. The intent of political correctness is to remove hatred or offensiveness in the public sphere with the goal of being fair to humans of every creed. It is a noble agenda, however, its purpose is now lost in the convolution of what is sugar-coated rather than what is fair.
It is not fair to broad-brush paint all Muslims as terrorists just as it is flat out wrong to consider all Christians as unintelligent fanatics who don't believe in science. Granted, stereotypes have roots in truth, however, we must distinguish behavior associated with a people from the people themselves. We cannot fairly understand our fellow human beings without eliminating the existing assumptions we've made about said people. It is also a disservice to the existence of soluble dialogue that will engineer the harmonious co-existence of diversity in humans that we all hope for. In my opinion, the fairest way to understand a people is through a thorough investigation of the real causes of the issues they face-- why they are who they are and why they hold the beliefs they do with unabashed integrity through conversation.
Discourse is a necessary part of our societal structure. We can have the debate but precluding any real tangible criticism of the the subject under discussion pre-discussion makes some of the real true thoughts of those "ignorant" about the details of the subject remain un-addressed. Take the subject of homosexuality for instance. Talking to persons who hold PhD's and other revered tertiary degrees makes me wonder when we all got so sensitive and judgmental or uppity? I can't ask a question, a legitimate one at that, without being labeled "homophobic or unintelligent". For the record, I have no fear of homosexuals or their sexual preferences. I simply do not think the notion that sexual preference is genetic is more accurate than not, generally. This thought process is based on scientific evidence and I'm yet to be shown any real plausible and credible data that contradicts my current opinion.
The norms of sexuality have been defined as such through years of consistency in human, animal and natural behavior. A deviation from the norm is not inherently sinful or bad, unless your definition is based on religious morality but the facts of science regarding the function of anatomic parts can not be disputed. This is what I'm implying without being facetious; there are very natural inalienable functions of certain body parts that assist with its scientific definition. The leg is primarily designed for mobility. As the ear is for hearing, eyes for seeing and tearing, mouth for speech and food and so on. Just because you can pour water into your ears doesn't suddenly re-define it's function as an organ for the consumption of food and drinks. My basic argument is that, homosexuality is a deviation from the natural order of the human sexual disposition. You can put your penis wherever you choose to but it is scientifically irrefutable that it's designated destination in the natural function of sex is the vagina. Just as you can insert anything into the vagina. Any other destination or tool does not prevent it from performing the same function or receiving similar sensations to when it penetrates a vagina. Any heterosexual person, if blindfolded and caressed by any pair of hands, male or female, their body would respond to the external sexual stimuli-- male or female. Does this re-define the function of a penis and a vagina suddenly? No it does not and therefore, I still stand by the fact that, homosexuality is not genetic but usually a choice.
This however, does not give other humans the right to vilify or abuse homosexuals for their lifestyle choice. In the public arena, the law has to protect all, especially those in the minority in order to sustain a fair society. Those laws that make a sexual choice illegal are a waste of human resources in my opinion because to a large extent, sexual preference has no real effect or bearing on the social, economic and political well-being of any society.
That said, there are certain rules that should not be compromised for the sake of political correctness. An example being this recent Politically Correct push to allow the youth, especially students to identify with a gender that they've defined for themselves and impose on others. If a child is born male and identifies as female, it does not translate to him being allowed to use the females bathroom because he identifies as one. Or walk around campus in high heels and be a source of distraction to other students whose main purpose for being on the campus is to acquire an education, not debate a fellow students style choices or conduct. When you go to school, obey the basic rules of conduct or get tutored at home. What we are teaching is that, any form of rebellion is a noble cause. As an adult, fighting for the rights of gays to be included in the power and economic structure without prejudice is simply common sense since it is obvious that no one's sexuality affects their ability to perform a job. Unless we are referencing a Religious institution. If the religion exclusively states that their moral codes aren't negotiable, the institution should not be forced to change its beliefs to suit an opposing group of people. Why would you even want to force yourself to be a part of any institution that condemns your lifestyle anyway? That is my personal opinion but as a matter of broader policy, the separation of Church and State shouldn't and can't be a one-way street. Just as we strongly advocate that all Religious activity be kept out of governance, it should hold true for religious institutions by not imposing secular ideology on any religion.
The debates about social issues in the modern world is currently at it's peak, in the sense that progressives are pushing for major change that will serve as the impetus for future laws to be predicated on. Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, conservatives are pushing to maintain the status quo. From Russia to Uganda, governments are finding the need to actually ban homosexuality as an important societal issue. I'd think there are more pressing issues facing the populace than who they are fucking but let me not be judgmental, just a few years back, I could not tolerate any conversation about gays wanting their rights sculpted into the law of the land. What I believe now is, their choices need the protection of the law because it inadvertently is their right to not be persecuted in a land where they live and pay taxes etc.
Since I got called nigger ever so casually by my deranged old white lady neighbor this weekend, after she egged my car by the way, I want to address the racial slur. I am a little alarmed by the sudden surge in certain journalists' argument to make it fair for all(white people) to use the word nigga/nigger because rappers are using it in their music. Are we now that fucking stupid and oblivious to common sense? If I insult my father to you because he upset me, as my friend, that gives you no authority or permission to ever in your shameful unaccomplished life repeat the gesture when you encounter him. There is a difference between nigga and nigger by the way so for those who even have to be given an explanation for the difference, just don't use it. I thought this was basic human etiquette? Maybe I'm just ancient. I personally could care less about the word "nigga" or "nigger" and it's implication because I've never identified with the horrid meanings of it. More tellingly is that, a person of any race calling me nigger is as trivial to me as being called stupid or ugly. That is their opinion and they are entitled to it. I just think the less sensitive we are to words of that nature, the faster it loses it's power and effect.
We can not be the same PC public that preaches about "use your words" and then be sensitive when people take heed by using their words instead of fists or violence, regardless of how derogatory it may be. We should as a society teach people to not be so sensitive to what is said as opposed to what is done. Deeds are more damaging if they are the harmful kind. Like the stupid stand-your-ground laws that seem to find young black boys at the mercy of insecure white guys who feel threatened by the presence of a black male, no matter how young or harmless they may seem. Tea and Skittles. I'm needing to find a way to package and sell common sense which will be my fortune; get me out of this one bedroom apartment into a more appealing space where I can have countless bitches twerking to my dancehall tunes from the deep undeveloped branch-hanging monkeyland somewhere in Africa that I came from! How is that for a fucking politically incorrect goal? Peace.