PC Brands Opposition “Haters” and “Bigots”

Political correctness is a modern day method Satan uses to suppress truth, establish his standards in society and silence any discussion of alternate standards, i.e. God’s.  

Kirk Cameron’s treatment by the media is a classic example of the forces of political correctness in action.

Cameron, a self-described Christian, has publicly made his views on homosexuality known, including views on same-sex marriage.  His views conform to the teachings of traditional Christianity but do not conform to the politically correct standards of today's society.  In a 2012 interview on CNN, Piers Morgan asked him if he thought homosexuality was a sin.  Unfortunately, Cameron did not answer the question directly; nonetheless his answer was doctrinally accurate: “I think that it’s unnatural.  It’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”

 

This is clearly an unpopular position with those who deny that the scriptures contain divine truth.  There are a multitude of voices in our day who oppose traditional Christian morality and uphold the social standards of political correctness, which “call evil good, and good evil;… put darkness for light, and light for darkness; …put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” as described in the Old Testament.  They are “wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight”, seeking to be unmoored from God’s standards (Isaiah 5:20-21).

 

Although Morgan later claimed to “respect Cameron’s religious beliefs” he said he didn’t “respect his use of bigoted, inflammatory language re homosexuality.”  In other words, right of conscience is one thing, but voicing a belief, conviction or opinion contrary to the standards of the politically correct makes one a bigot. 

 

Ann Curry joined the politically correct effort to brand as controversial traditional values that have existed and prevailed for millennia over the “new normal”.  Curry pushed a notion while subsequently interviewing Cameron on the NBC Today Show that voicing beliefs such as his promotes hate crime.  Curry did not directly accusing Cameron of bigotry when questioning him about the “firestorm” he set off in the Morgan interview, but the premise behind her line of questioning was clear – Cameron’s views are neither popular nor politically correct and shouldn’t be voiced:

 “Many people are suggesting that this is hate speech. Are you encouraging people to feel hate towards gay people?”

“Do you feel any responsibility saying words like that, that might encourage people to feel that it's okay to treat – mistreat gay people?” 

“Why do you say things like this that you know are going to cause people to push back? Why do you even talk about it, then? Because this is not the first time you've been asked about it. It's not the first time you've made comments that have caused people a lot of alarm.”

Additional efforts of the politically correct crowd to stifle advocacy for traditional values are evident in the many media headlines and stories characterizing Cameron’s stated beliefs as “anti-gay”, fallaciously implying him to be “anti-person” instead of “anti-behavior”, which was clearly his stance on the issue.  The fallacy is that if Person A hates homosexual behavior, and Person B engages in homosexual behavior, then Person A hates Person B.  The deliberate mischaracterization of Christians as anti-gay by virtue of their views on homosexuality is necessary to make Christians scared to admit, defend or advocate their beliefs for fear of being branded a “hater” or a “bigot”.  It is also necessary to justify indignation and “fear” on the part of those who accept homosexuality.

 

The New Testament is clear that Jesus Christ loved all sinners but hated sin - meaning he loves all gays, but hate’s their homosexual behavior.  Thus Jesus, and Christians who endeavor to follow His perfect example, are not anti-gay - they are anti-homosexuality, in the same way they are anti-adultery, anti-fornication, anti-pornography, anti-lying, anti-cheating, anti-stealing, anti-murdering, and so forth.  Jesus never balked at calling sinful behavior for what it was nor urging sinners to repent for the eternal sake of their souls.  Furthermore, He commanded His followers to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations… teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” (Matthew 28:19-20).  He expects His followers to not be silent or neutral in matters of morality.

The methods of the politically correct in society will persist.  Christians must not bow to pressure but must stand firm in their beliefs.  As Dallin H. Oaks recently taught:

“Unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, [the church] policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable…man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral…

“We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.

“In this determination we may be misunderstood, and we may incur accusations of bigotry, suffer discrimination, or have to withstand invasions of our free exercise of religion. If so, I think we should remember our first priority—to serve God" (General Conference 2013).

 For those who believe sin exists, and pervasiveness of sin in society brings upon society the attendant consequence of the judgments of God, continual advocacy for adherence to God’s standard of morality over Satan’s is the most vital service they can give to their country.  The politically correct crowd wants to silence their opposition because truth resonates.

   

Boyd K. Packer said of resonating truth: “The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior” (General Conference 1986).

     

The prophet Alma likewise taught that “the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword” (Alma 31:5).

    

The forces of Satan can be overcome in this world the same way they were in heaven.  Describing the defeat of Satan in the War in Heaven, John described the secret weapon used in the decisive victory: “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony” (Revelation 12:7-11).

  

Let true and humble followers of Christ not be silenced by the politically correct despite any level of “push back”.  Surrender to immorality and acceptance of a debauched society is ultimately a surrender of liberty and prosperity.

The Collapse of Free Societies

John Quincy Adams, 6^th President of the United States, said this regarding the bible: “In what light soever we regard it, whether with reference to revelation, to history, to morality, or to literature, it is an inexhaustible mine of knowledge and virtue.”  I have the same sentiments about the Book of Mormon and think that even the reader who doesn’t believe as I do that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin, especially the reader who loves liberty, will find my references to it below intriguing and thought provoking, if not illuminating.

The Book of Mormon details the rise and fall of two ancient civilizations on the American continent, the Nephites and Jaredites.  It highlights in particular the righteous and productive forces that enabled their growth and prosperity as well as the evil and destructive forces that resulted in their downfall.  Critical analysis of the accounts will reveal obvious parallels that our nation is following, offer explanations for why things have happened or are happening as they are and more alarmingly foreshadow bleak and terrible days ahead if our people do not make the necessary course corrections.

 

The Nephite civilization was delivered from destruction and led to a land of promise, and after becoming a free people, like the children of Israel, they began to serve other gods besides the God of their fathers, “walking in their own way”, setting their bounds not according to God’s will, but according to their own carnal desires.  The Jaredites civilization followed a nearly identical path.  The prosperity and peace originally obtained as a blessing from God through obedience to Him had become a stumbling block and their hearts turned more and more to things of the world, to instant gratification of the flesh rather than eternal reward and happiness.  Thus in turning from God they began to forfeit his blessings and mercy and reap the demands of justice as prophets had warned over and over would happen: 

“But if they obey and serve him, they shall spend their days in prosperity, and their years in pleasures.  But if they obey not, they shall perish by the sword, and they shall die without knowledge.” (Job 36:11-12)

“If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the lord hath spoken it.” (Isaiah1:19-20)

“Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring.  And if it so be that they serve him…it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.” (2 Nephi 1:7)

See also Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, 1 Samuel 12:14-15, Matthew 7:24-27, Romans 2:2-11, Alma9:13, Ether 2:12.

 Eventually, the Nephites were annihilated in war, but not before their society descended into decadence and their free government collapsed. 

The initial crack in the dam leading to eventual destruction was individual wickedness and apostasy from true principles of their religion.  A minority condition at first, eventually it grew to the point that the vast majority of citizens accepted or embraced the ever increasing iniquitous behavior in society.  From the beginning, evil men worked to hasten the elimination of virtue in society and set the conditions required for them to achieve their satanic goal of gaining power and control over the people and the fruits of their labors.  To this end they deliberately attacked faith in the existence of God, sought to silence any public advocate of righteousness and virtue, and sought power and influence in government by whatever means necessary including seduction of the people by allowing them to share in their spoils. 

The center of gravity in this political struggle was belief in God.  In attacking this faith, the enemies of liberty denied His existence or twisted the truth of His nature.  They taught that belief in God was foolish and man must not believe in anything he cannot verify or witness with his own senses. There was no proof of God’s existence, they claimed, nor was there a transcendent standard of good and evil, right and wrong.  They re-framed the right to free exercise of conscience to be only a right to free exercise of worship, and that in private, outlawing any public intimation of religion due to the feigned offense it gave to non-believers.  They pretended that people purporting to believe in a non-existent God did so in order to exercise control and dominion over others through their churches and the morality that they legislated.  They denied faith; they denied the Holy Ghost; they denied the Savior; they denied sin and convinced people it did not exist and there was no reason to restrict it or seek forgiveness for it.  

Because the truth had a tendency to resonate with people and encourage belief in God, which resulted in public virtue, they sought to silence the voice of believers through a court system infested with unrighteous lawyers and judges.  Motivated not by truth and justice, but by prestige in skill of winning arguments and associated monetary gain, unrighteous lawyers sought high profile cases in which to demonstrate their skill and cunning devices in court, to get rulings tantamount to good being evil and evil being good, which would swell their fame and increase their earnings.  Without conscience they applied their art to make people cross their words or contradict themselves, fabricating evidence to make the innocent appear guilty, or the guilty go free.  Unrighteous judges rendered judgment not according to the laws and justice, but according to their own whims or interests, inventing authority and setting the law at naught for personal gain, fame and power.  Evil men thereby eliminated enemies and stole property in collusion with these judges under the guise of the law and justice. 

Conspiring men did whatever was necessary to gain access or placement in government in order to turn it to their uses in plundering more and more property and wealth from others. These means frequently included murder as was the tradition of such men from the time of Cain to present.  Even as their actions and designs became more apparent, they enjoyed swelling popular support as policies of redistribution of wealth gave promise to the indolent and covetous among them that they could reap without sewing, get something for nothing, and have perpetual entitlement to eat the bread of another man’s labor.  

In this environment of greed and wickedness, the would-be tyrants corrupted the laws and government, despoiled the industrious in society, criminalized opposition and ultimately brought upon the nation the judgments of God.  The people suffered judgment in loss of liberty and subjection to an unrighteous ruling class.  They suffered judgment in drought, famine and wrecked economy.  There was no peace among them within or without.  War continually afflicted them until ultimately the sword devoured them, eliminating their wickedness from the face of the earth.  

He who hath ears, let him hear; who hath eyes, let him see.

Have the forces of political correctness in our day silenced objection to vice and wickedness in our society?  Has the Christian virtue of tolerance been redefined to mean “acceptance”, further minimizing opposition to the evil trends in our society?  Are basically good people hamstrung by the fallacy that to discriminate between good and bad, a requirement of choosing the right, is contrary to the teaching of Christ to “not judge”, and therefore stand silent so as not to be condemned publicly for “discrimination” and “intolerance”?  Are we complacent in our defense of liberty, and the public virtue required for its preservation?

I conclude with the following warning and admonition from two inspired and righteous men.

“We are too “broad minded” to challenge what we do not believe in.  We are afraid of being thought intolerant – uncouth – ungentlemanly.  We have become lukewarm in our beliefs.  And for that we perhaps merit the bitter condemnation stated in the Book of Revelations 3:16: ‘So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.’” (Ezra Taft Benson)

“Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle.  Courage, not compromise brings the smile of God’s approval.  Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but as the determination to live decently.  A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh.  Remember that all men have their fears, but those who face their fears with dignity have courage as well.” (Thomas S. Monson)