A writer at the Engage Family Minute blog begins his post with an appropriate question:
How exactly is discrimination defined, and what constitutes discrimination?
As has been noted here before (“Of Bullies, Bigots, Homophobes: The Changing American Vocabulary“), it is not uncommon for people or groups to appropriate terminology — or even twist semantics — to support their cause. Prior discussions have already covered several: homophobe, bigot, bully, tolerance, and Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s use of “rape”.
“Discrimination” was also briefly mentioned, though it has again surfaced in incorrect usage (at least by its traditional definition). In short, it bears reminding that in order to discriminate, one has to act. By themselves, thoughts, beliefs, and words cannot be discriminatory — again, by definition.
An example: The Catholic Church discriminates when Read more
Over the past two or three years, words that once held specific meaning have been “appropriated” by ideologies, interest groups, or even just ignorant websites and misused — misused to such an extent people seem to be forgetting “that word doesn’t mean what you think it means;” at least, it didn’t.
One of the first was the Latin suffix –phobia, which was eventually used as a tool by the homosexual advocacy movement to brand its opponents “homophobes.” The fact their opponents didn’t have a phobia about homosexuality was irrelevant. A “phobia” brings with it a negative connotation, and the name-calling had the intended effect: Opponents of the imposition of the homosexual agenda were forced to defend themselves; the argument changed to one of labels rather than positions. Pastor Greg Laurie recently addressed the semantics, saying “homophobe” was a useless term:
I hate the word ‘homophobic because I can just as easily come back and say ‘well, you’re biblophobic to say I’m homophobic.
Others have latched onto the semantic trend, resulting Read more