Namecalling
Namecalling is a daily occurance. It certainly seems innocent enough, especially when it's all in good fun. But even when it's done out of spiteful anger it seems all too excusable. The problem with namecalling is that what it really is, at its most vile core, is an attempt to dehumanize one's enemy. When John is no longer a human being, but a selfish, arrogant, stupid son-of-a-b*tch, it's much easier to hate him. Specifically, it's easier to justify that hatred. Once your enemy is no longer even human, you don't have to be corteous or show them any manners. And morality is out the window. You can treat them in any way you wish to and your conscience is absolutely clear.
So whether you're lumping all liberal socialists together as lazy, idealistic elitists; or you're lumping all conservative Christians together as cold-hearted, close-minded biggots; or you're lumping all members of a certain race together under a hurtful stereotype, you're engaging in the dehumanization of another human being. If you believe that all Christians in this country are just blind followers of some archaic religion trying to stand in the way of scientific progress and your right as an American to kill unborn babies, it makes it a little easier to hate them. It also makes it easier to justify taking action against them. Once you've established the motives of the far Right as being primarily evil there's no longer a problem with leading the crusade to remove all Christian influences from schools, media and the government. All you're really doing is weakening the oppressive hold those close-minded biggots have had on our country for too long! Examples of this sort of dehumanization when it comes to members of a certain race are sadly too numerous to mention.
In the end, this might make it easier to hate the people you don't agree with, but this sort of dehumanizing was the first step toward the Holocaust. We should all strive to show love and kindness to our neighbors, anything less would be antithetical to the essence of Christian living. That doesn't mean we always have to agree with our neighbors or tolerate their beliefs, but we must always be tolerant of them as human beings. They have still been created in the image of God, and nothing can ever truly justify defiling His image.
So whether you're lumping all liberal socialists together as lazy, idealistic elitists; or you're lumping all conservative Christians together as cold-hearted, close-minded biggots; or you're lumping all members of a certain race together under a hurtful stereotype, you're engaging in the dehumanization of another human being. If you believe that all Christians in this country are just blind followers of some archaic religion trying to stand in the way of scientific progress and your right as an American to kill unborn babies, it makes it a little easier to hate them. It also makes it easier to justify taking action against them. Once you've established the motives of the far Right as being primarily evil there's no longer a problem with leading the crusade to remove all Christian influences from schools, media and the government. All you're really doing is weakening the oppressive hold those close-minded biggots have had on our country for too long! Examples of this sort of dehumanization when it comes to members of a certain race are sadly too numerous to mention.
In the end, this might make it easier to hate the people you don't agree with, but this sort of dehumanizing was the first step toward the Holocaust. We should all strive to show love and kindness to our neighbors, anything less would be antithetical to the essence of Christian living. That doesn't mean we always have to agree with our neighbors or tolerate their beliefs, but we must always be tolerant of them as human beings. They have still been created in the image of God, and nothing can ever truly justify defiling His image.
posted by David at
12:49 AM
4 Comments:
I wouldn't argue with you. You certainly make a worthwhile point. I wonder, though, whether we can allow for some "namecalling"? What I have in mind is Christian rebuke. When Jesus called the Pharisees 'a brood of vipers', was He merely trying to dehumanize them? I mean that I would agree that much namecalling is, as you say, an attempt to dehumanize or vilify someone in order to make our hatred seem reasonable. But does it follow that it is the only possible motive for namecalling?
By
david, at May 15, 2006 11:51 PM
You're right. I suppose rationalizing hatred of someone isn't always the only motive for namecalling, but at the same time I don't think namecalling is entirely necessary, at least not for us fallable human beings. Jesus is God and had every right to rebuke the Pharisees the way He did, but do I have the same right? I'm not sure. Obviously I can tell other people when I think I'm right and they're wrong, but there's no reason I should have to resort to namecalling. I think I'd just rather err on the side of caution.
By
David, at May 17, 2006 2:10 AM
I agree. Even if we can namecall, it would be a rare case that we did so with proper motive.
Pushing this a little further, if you don't mind, what about euphemisms and the like? Is it mere namecalling to refer to people who cross our borders illegally as "illegals" rather than "immigrants" or "undocumented immigrants"? Or to refer to a woman as a "girl"? Or to those who live on reservations as "Indians" rather than "Native Americans"?
Must we express ourselves in euphemism and politically correct language in order to properly avoid mere namecalling?
By
david, at May 17, 2006 10:12 PM
I suppose it would again depend on the motives for such euphamisms. I refer to people who illegally cross our boarder as "illegals" in order to draw attention to the fact that they really are breaking the law. I call girls girls because it comes naturally to me, not because I'm attempting to demean them. If someone had a problem with being referred to as a girl (like Jen Shepherd, actually) I would have no problem refraining from calling her a girl.
Of course, practically speaking, the problem doesn't end up being with my own conscience, it's whether or not someone decides to take offense at a particular name. In the case of Jen Shepherd being offended at being called a girl, it's not that big of a deal. But supporters of illegal immigrants wanting to refer to them as "undocumented immigrants" becomes a big problem, as it starts to invite the acceptance of lawlessness.
By
David, at May 18, 2006 12:27 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home