Blog

2 Feb, 2022

Blog

The True, the Whole Truth, So Help Me God

In part one, we saw that it was actually Allen who inaccurately redefined freedom, love and justice. Dictionaries from three different eras were pretty consistent in their definitions of these words. However, it was Allen who put his own conservative spin on these words and changed their meanings to fit his purpose.

In part two, Allen created a fictitious melodrama with a five-headed villain who is redefining words and causing serious damage to our society.

In this part we’ll see why Allen believes it’s important to recover the biblical meaning of words and to live our lives according to the true meaning of words as found in the bible.

Allen: “For Christians, it is vital that we be open-eyed and discerning about the destructive ways that language is being manipulated. To do this, we must recover a biblical lexicography. “We cannot be the Church if we lose our vocabulary and the conceptual framework that makes us Christian. Nothing is more needful today than the survival of Christian culture” Christian culture survives if we understand that words have objective meanings… that are given by God as revealed in Scripture.  God is not some impersonal cosmic force, but a person, and He speaks and reveals Himself to us.”

“Objective meanings that are given by God”? Now there’s conflict of terms right out of the gate. What if I don’t believe that God is person? Am I rejecting an objective truth? But finally, we’ve come to the root of Allen’s proposed dilemma. We need to restore the true meanings of words that God originally assigned to them. Now, how does Allen propose we do that?

Another Christian writer named Elizabeth Youmans supports Allen’s premise that words are God-given. She writes, “Therefore, is it surprising that the enemy would target language to dumb it down and rob and pillage us of a biblical vocabulary? When words are defined biblically, they help us think and reason… and free us from secularism.”

There’s that fear of secularism again. I was curious about this so I emailed Dr. Youmans and asked three questions. Who is the enemy? What is a biblical vocabulary and how can it be robbed and pillaged? What does it mean to define words biblically? She responded by sending me the entire text of what transpired in the Garden of Eden as found in Genesis. But that’s a topic for another blog.

Words Are a Gift

Allen: “The written Word of God has come to us through the Jewish nation. Most of our best words, in fact – new, adventure, surprise; unique, individual, person, vocation; time, history, future; freedom, progress, spirit; faith, hope, justice – are the gifts of the Jews.”

Is anyone else’s crap detector going off right now? I’m not a linguistic historian, but I can say with confidence that the words he calls “gifts of the Jews” are not uniquely Jewish.

We have a vague dastardly new villain that is trying to destroy our language to control us, but on the other hand we have heroes to save us, and it starts with the Jews because they gave us our best words.

Anyone want to venture where this discussion is headed.

Allen: “These (Jewish) words are gifts—priceless gifts to the whole world. Yes, they were given through the Jewish people, but their ultimate source is God,”

What a Surprise!!!

Serious Consequence of Redefining Words

“The Word” who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This is why we are not free to redefine words like freedom, love, justice, and many more without serious consequences.

The concept of “The Word” (Logos) becoming flesh and dwelling among us is a very Greek idea that goes back to the age of Plato. The fact that it made its way into the New Testament is a tribute to Greek philosophers and their influence on whoever wrote the book of John. But that’s a topic for better scholars than me.

So what are those serious consequences?

When the Judeo-Christian roots of Western civilization are rejected, the result will inevitably be a loss of human freedom, tyranny, and bloodshed. This is a lesson we urgently need to heed in our time.

There we have it. The serious consequences of rejecting the Biblical definition of words are “loss of human freedom, tyranny, and bloodshed.” Oh my! Looking at this historically is it really accurate for Allen to suggest that American history is void of slavery, tyranny and bloodshed? That just seems far fetched. Anyway, I’m sure if we keep reading, he will give us the solution to our pending doom.

The solution

Allen: “Our task is to deeply understand the true meaning of words and order our lives accordingly. Not only this, we need to speak the true meaning of words to the broader culture.”

The true meaning of words? Excuse the pun, but what does he mean by that? Does anyone want to guess where Allen suggests we find the true meaning of words? Keep reading and it will become clear that for Allen, Christians hold the ultimate truth and that their truth must be shared with the broader culture so it can be accepted and obeyed by all.

In These Trying Times

Allen: “In these trying times, this will lead to conflict. We must be gracious, kind, and compassionate, yet refuse to be silenced or pressured into going along with false definitions. There is probably no more powerful way of being salt and light at this moment in history.”

What does he mean by “in these trying times” and “at this moment in history”? Once again Allen is being vague and for a reason. It’s a dog whistle for Evangelicals everywhere who would understand this reference to be from the book of Esther.

“If I continue to remain silent my family and I will be wiped out.  Perhaps I was put here for Such a Time as This!”  (Paraphrase of Esther 4:14)

This storyline has been used by believers since the time of Esther. Their lives and their families are in danger from some vague evil that is out to destroy them. Apparently, this new evil villain is out to spread false definitions. Oh dear!

Allen: “Words are not empty vessels to be filled with whatever meaning we wish. They are not tools to be manipulated to acquire power. Words are precious conveyers of reality. They need to be treasured, conserved, embodied, and passed down to future generations. God’s Word is the North Star that guides us into all truth.”

What is Truth, Dammit?

Jesus said, “everyone on the side of truth listens to me” (John 18:37).

Allen, neglected to add the next verse, Pilate said to him, “what is truth?” There is no recorded answer from Jesus. Not to worry, Allen is about to answer that question for him.

So Allen, what is truth?

Allen: “God’s Word is the only sure foundation for free, flourishing societies. The church is the repository and steward of the truth. We contribute to building flourishing communities as we understand, and order our lives according to, the true meaning of words. This should begin in our families and churches, but also in our interaction in the public square.”

Onward Christian Soldiers

We have been blessed by God to be a blessing, and there is no more powerful way we do this than by how we use and embody language.

This conjures up a rather comical image in my mind of a Christian soldier but rather than carrying a shield and sword he’s carrying a dictionary, but not any dictionary, as we shall see it, it needs to be an 1828 Noah Webster dictionary. So as the song goes, Onward Christian Soldiers marching off to war… with an 828-page dictionary.

 

I can imagine a conversation like this in the “broader culture”.

Man: (Speaking to a woman) I really love you!

Woman: I really love you too!!

Christian Soldier: Hark, I couldn’t help but heareth thy professions of love one to another. It is important that both of ye are sure what thou really mean by “love”. (So, he begins to read Noah Webster’s definition of love… all 453 words.)

Man: Come on Babe, let’s go. This guy’s a twit.

Woman: Good idea. Let’s get away from this dweeb.

Christian Soldier: Verily, I say unto thee, those words are not found in my dictionary. I adjure you in the name of free men everywhere and to avoid tyranny and bloodshed you must refrain from using unauthorized non-biblical vocabulary.

Man and woman walk away muttering something under their breath.

Christian Soldier: Hark, I heareth that… and I’m not sure what thou hast suggested is even possible.

Salt of the Earth?

“We must refuse to be silenced or pressured into going along with false definitions. There is probably no more powerful way of being salt and light at this moment in history.”

Have to wonder how he supports this idea biblically. Whatever happened to “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Can’t find anywhere in the bible where it says, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples… how you use and embody language.”

The irony of Allen’s argument is that in an attempt to disseminate his understanding of the truth he is using deceptive means. It was he who changed the true meaning of love, freedom and justice to his fit his own purpose. Now he’s altering the spirit of scripture to make “false definitions” the most important issue for Christians. Not a surprise though as this kind of deception has been going on since the first century. New Testament scholar Bard Ehrman in his book Forged says “The use of deception to promote the truth may well be considered one of the most unsettling ironies of the early Christian tradition.” And so it continues 20 centuries later. At least it’s a longstanding tradition in Christianity.

If Allen wants to be taken seriously by anyone other than evangelicals, he needs to stop ranting about some fictitious melodrama that is not even mentioned once in the bible. Then he should roll up his sleeves and get to work solving some real-life problems like poverty and human suffering that are mentioned again and again in the bible. Nonbelievers don’t want to hear what he thinks is important for Christians. We want to see how his beliefs make a real difference in the world.

Consider these words of Edgar Guest

I soon can learn to do it if you’ll let me see it done;

I can watch your hands in action, but your tongue too fast may run.

And the lectures you deliver may be very wise and true,

But I’d rather get my lessons by observing what you do;

For I might misunderstand you and the high advice you give,

But there’s no misunderstanding how you act and how you live.

One good man teaches many, men believe what they behold;

One deed of kindness noticed is worth forty that are told.

Who stands with men of honor learns to hold his honor dear,

For right living speaks a language which to everyone is clear.

Though an able speaker charms me with his eloquence, I say,

I’d rather see a sermon than hear one, any day.

Coming next: Built From the Bible Up?

In the final part of this series we’ll take a closer look at Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary. According to Allen, it is a dictionary build from the Bible up. But there are some serious issues with this dictionary that Allen considers essential for a nation of free people.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Feb. 2, 2022

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

26 Jan, 2022

Blog

The Five-Headed Beast

In part one Allen claims that words are being stripped of their true meaning, which poses a grave danger to our society. In part two Allen names the Villain who is responsible for causing this calamitous situation and we find out it’s a five-headed beast. We’ll take a brief look at what these five philosophies actually are and see if we can discern why they make a toxic mix that is so threatening to Christianity. I have included some lengthy explanations about each head of the five-headed beast because it is important to not rely entirely on someone else’s take on what they really mean.

 

The new religion is a five-headed beast.

Allen: “Again, the new religion isn’t merely secular or atheistic. It needs to be understood as a toxic mix of postmodern relativism, Marxist social analysis and a Nietzschean will to power. All of this feeds into and supports the redefinition of words and language.”

The Five Heads of the Beast

Secularism

So, what is Secularism?

Separation of religion from state

The separation of religion and state is the foundation of secularism. It ensures religious groups don’t interfere in affairs of state, and the state doesn’t interfere in religious affairs.

Religious Freedom

Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. Secularism ensures that the right of individuals to freedom of religion is always balanced by the right to be free from religion.

Secularism is about democracy and fairness

In a secular democracy all citizens are equal before the law and parliament. No religious or political affiliation gives advantages or disadvantages and religious believers are citizens with the same rights and obligations as anyone else. Secularism champions universal human rights above religious demands. It upholds equality laws that protect women, LGBT people and minorities from religious discrimination. These equality laws ensure that non-believers have the same rights as those who identify with a religious or philosophical belief.

 

Not quite sure why Allen and other Christians would object to this. Is it toxic to believe that “Secularism is about democracy and fairness, or that in a secular democracy all citizens are equal before the law?”

Perhaps what he objects to is the phrase “The separation of religion and state is the foundation of secularism. It ensures religious groups don’t interfere in affairs of state, and the state doesn’t interfere in religious affairs.” From where I stand, secularism is a good thing.

Atheism

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there are no gods nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods (plural).


There are as many different kinds of Atheists as there are Theists. One of the most rational discussion about how theists misunderstand atheism can be found on the YouTube channel Genetically Modified Skeptic. What’s more important to discuss than a definition of Atheism is how Atheists are misperceived by Theists.

Phil Zuckerman in his well documented article entitled Atheism, Secularity and Well-Being writes that “it is often assumed that someone who doesn’t believe in God doesn’t believe in anything, or that a person who has no religion must have no values. These assumptions are simply untrue. People can reject religion and still maintain strong beliefs. Being godless does not mean being without values. Numerous studies reveal that atheists and secular people most certainly maintain strong values, beliefs, and opinions.” In addition, compared to religious people, atheists are actually less nationalistic, less prejudiced, less anti-Semitic, less racist, less dogmatic, less ethnocentric, less close- minded, and less authoritarian.”

If asked who I would trust more, an Atheist or a Theist, I would choose the former. From where I stand Atheism is not as toxic as some would have us believe.

Post Modernism

Post Modernism says that there is no real truth and that knowledge is always made or invented and not discovered. Because knowledge is made by people, a person cannot know something with certainty – all ideas and facts are ‘believed’ instead of ‘known’. People believe that they know what the truth is, but they will think that the truth is something different later. This is the opposite of ‘objectivity’, which says that the truth is always there and people have to discover it.

Since postmodernism says that the truth is just a thing that people invent, people can believe different things and think it is the truth and all be right. Postmodernism says that one person should not try to make another person believe what he believes, because it means nothing to say that one belief is right and the other is wrong. Postmodernism says that if somebody has a belief and tries to make somebody else believe it also, it means that they are just trying to have power over them.

I can see how this would be very threatening to Christians. This one head of the five headed beast opposes the very essence of Christianity. No objective meaning of words? No objective truth that goes beyond normal limits or boundaries? No objective reality? Pretty scary stuff for theists.

However, Allen does indeed believe in objective truths.

Allen: “Christians “understand that words have objective meanings… that are given by God as revealed in Scripture.  God is not some impersonal cosmic force, but a person, and He speaks and reveals Himself to us.”

If I’m not mistaken, he just supported postmodernism’s idea that truth is just something groups have invented and believe to be true. What if I don’t believe that “God is actually a person”? Am I rejecting objective truth? How about the six-day creation story? Is that an objective truth?

Postmodernism says that different groups can believe different things, and that no one group should try to make others believe what they believe. From where I stand, I would agree.

Marxist Social Analysis

Marxist Social Analysis is a method by which researchers expose how communication phenomena influence taken-for-granted assumptions regarding who “ought to be” and “ought not to be” empowered in a given society. The thoughts and beliefs of the ruling class tend to be accepted both by those in power and those disempowered by them. Thus, the underlying goal of a Marxist analysis is to reveal the ways in which (words) help create and maintain, political oppression.

Allen: “Marxist social analysis sees the world as a zero-sum competition between “victims” and “oppressors.” The “oppressors” use language to create a “reality” that is imposed upon so-called victims– often without them being aware of it– as a means of maintaining power and privilege. The “victims” can liberate themselves by “unmasking” these (untrue) socially constructed realities.”

I’m not an historian, but I believe there is enough evidence to declare that religion is one of the most egregious oppressors in the history of mankind and specifically Christianity in the common era. It seems that Allen is arguing on the side of the ruling class. Notice that he calls the disempowered “so-called victims”. Is it possible that Allen and evangelicals in general don’t want people to discover the real truth? That the bible has been and still is being used by the Church to create and maintain social control.

Members of the disempowered group are starting to question the control of the church. They are attempting to unmask the false realities that the Church has been using for millennium to maintain power. This is perhaps why Allen and other evangelical are so threatened by this. Could “the redefining of words and language” actually lead to freedom from religion?

Critical Theory

Allen: “Today, this form of Marxist thought is widely taught on college campuses under the rubric “critical theory.” Critical theory studies have mushroomed in the English, history and social science departments of Western since the 1960s, completely replacing the older study of Western Civilization.”

Since Allen chose to include “critical theory” here, we’ll address it now. Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole. It differs from traditional theory, which focuses only on understanding or explaining society. Critical theories aim to dig beneath the surface of social life and uncover the assumptions that keep human beings from a full and true understanding of how the world works.

When Allen says that “critical theory” has replaced the older study of Western Civilization” we have to take a look at exactly what he is saying. The older studies of Western Civilization simply taught nothing more than names and dates. Let’s remember that history is written by the victors. Critical theory’s aim is to help students gain a full and true understanding of how the world works. Why would Allen oppose that? Guess we’ll see later.

Allen: “I’ll have more to say on this in my next entry in this series.”

Nietzschean Will to Power

Nietzschean will to power: There is will to power where there is life and even the strongest living things will risk their lives for more power. This suggests that the will to power is stronger than the will to survive.

Allen: “Words are no longer about truth. Nietzschean will to power seeks to manipulate or coerce others into using new definitions—even leveraging the power of the state as a means of attaining cultural supremacy. Now you begin to see the approach of the new religious orthodoxy towards language. Words are no longer a means of communicating truth. They are tools to control others, and ultimately to become master.”

Not sure where Allen got the idea that “will to power” seeks to manipulate others into using new definitions, or that the state is involved in this sinister plot to attain cultural supremacy. When Allen says words are no longer a means of communicating truth, does he mean “his truth”? And when he says that words have become tools to control others, is his fear that the Church is losing its power to control others? An increasing number of people are beginning to question the Church’s authority? No wonder he’s on this crusade.

Important questions for Allen.

  1. Have Christians ever used words to control others?
  2. Is leveraging the power of the state as a means of attaining cultural supremacy something both political parties do or just liberals?
  3. Is this new religion you speak of really a religion? Does it have members, bylaws, and buildings where they congregate? Do they have tax exempt status?

Allen goes on to quote Orwell’s famous book 1984 as a chilling view of how the state can use language to control the masses. The famous quote from 1984, “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” was viewed, even before 1984, as a rather prophetic view of the future of our society.

What the rest of us call Big Brother, Allen calls a toxic new religion. Perhaps Allen is using this language because his readers would have a more visceral reaction to a villain called “a toxic new religion” than “Big Brother”.  By attributing manipulation of language to a new toxic religion (which doesn’t even really exist) Allen is alerting his readers to a new threat that needs to be feared. But no worries, he offers a salvation from this “toxic new religion”. Can you guess what it is?

Allen: “There is, as the Bible says, “a more excellent way.”

What a surprise!

What we’ve discovered in this discussion is that, for Allen, a new toxic religion (which in reality is neither a religion nor toxic) consisting of secularism, atheism, postmodernism, Marxist Social Analysis and Nietzschean Will to Power. Somehow when all these concepts are combined it leads to a redefining of words and language. So, we have to ask, why is that so threatening to Allen?

Allen: “Over the years, as this toxic new religion has begun to displace Christianity at the center of the culture, biblical meanings have been eroded, and words have been redefined. Christian culture survives if we understand that words have objective meanings… that are given by God as revealed in Scripture.?

Ah, there it is. Christianity is being replaced at the center of culture and is losing its power. It’s all about power.

Coming next:

In part three of this series, we’ll explore more about Allen’s God-given objective truths, where we actually got our “best words”, why this melodrama resonates with his readers and how he proposes Christians deal with the new toxic threat.

 

From Where I Stand

Jan. 26, 2022

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

13 Jan, 2022

Blog

Redefining Words

Much is being written these days about the phrase Whoever Controls the Language Controls the Culture. There seems to be a lot of concern in Evangelical circles that Christianity is being pushed out of its place at the center of culture by some sinister new religion that is out to destroy our society by redefining words.

One such writer is Scott Allen who I discovered while doing research about the phrase “He who controls language controls the culture”. Other Christian writers have also written about this topic. I will address them in other blogs. But first, Let’s see what Allen has to say.

First, a short introduction to Scott Allen from Wikipedia

On November 4, 2014, Allen was elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly. He serves in Senate District 33, Assembly District 97. In 2015, Allen recorded a “Christmas message” for the Wisconsin Assembly Republicans’ YouTube channel. In that video, he proselytizes, “For those who may watch this who are not Christians, I invite you to consider the hope offered by the Prince of Peace,” and he quotes the Bible: “We are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved”.

Satan is redefining words.

Allen: “In part 1 I argued that a new religion has taken root in the West, and it advances by redefining words — vacating them of their true meaning and hijacking them to serve new purposes. This is a powerful tactic. We can already begin to see how the redefinition of a single word—marriage—is leading to massive social and cultural repercussions. But we are not talking about a single word. We are talking about an entirely new dictionary.”

I guess we can see where this is going. Allen says that the true meaning of words has been hijacked and changed over time. I have serious doubts that this claim is true. To illustrate that he might be in error I have used three different dictionary sources from three different eras. By comparing the actual definitions from different eras we can see if words really have been stripped of their original meaning over time. Plus, I’m not sure what Allen is referring to when he says, “true meaning” of words.

Defining Marriage

Let’s look at the word “marriage”, since Allen brought it up first. Older dictionaries do say that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. However, online dictionaries simply say that “marriage is the relationship that exists between two people who are united as spouses”.

From where I stand, this might simply be a case where language is changing to be more inclusive. Not sure why being more inclusive is seen as controlling culture or why it’s so threatening. In addition, I’m wondering how it would “lead to massive social and cultural repercussions” as Allen claims. Also, who gets to say “what” the true meaning of a word is? Does Allen have the dictionary that has the “true” meaning of all words? He believes he does, as we shall see in part two.

Also, Allen doesn’t say what old dictionary he’s quoting, but later in his article he says that Noah Webster’s 1828 edition is a “dictionary built “from the Bible up”. So, I’ll reference that one first.

Defining Love

Allen: “We could look, for example, at the word “love.” In the old dictionary, love meant to seek the greatest good of another person, even an enemy, and to take action accordingly, regardless of one’s feelings. In the new dictionary, love is nothing more than strong feelings or emotions.”

Allen’s take on the meaning of love is humorous. In the old (Christian) dictionary love meant to seek the greatest good of another person, even an enemy, and to take action accordingly, regardless of one’s feelings. How virtuous! How Noble! One can almost hear the trumpets playing… DUM, DA, DA DAAAAA. But in the new (Humanistic) dictionary love is nothing more than strong feelings or emotions. How unprincipled. How ordinary. In contrast you can almost hear the last bit of air being squeezed out of bagpipe as those words are read. It seems that Allen might be taking some liberties of his own while summarizing how older and newer dictionaries define certain words. But back to the meaning of love.

Noah Webster’s definition of love is pretty wordy (453 words). If you feel the need, you can follow the link and read it for yourself, but I’ll just summarize it for you. It gives examples of things we could love. For example, I love my wife and I love my morning cup of coffee because they give me pleasure. It also says that Christians love their bible and that we should love God above all things. (Now would that be an objective or subjective definition of love?)

However, what you won’t see in Webster’s definition of love is what Allen says it contains, “to seek the greatest good of another person, even an enemy, and to take action accordingly, regardless of one’s feelings.” I’ll let you decide for yourself.

Dictionary Comparison of Love

  • (Noah Webster’s 1828) verb transitive luv. 1. In a general sense to be pleased with; to regard with affection, on account of some qualities which excite pleasing sensations or desire of gratification. We love a friend, on account of some qualities which give us pleasure in his society. We love a warm room in winter. The christian (sic) loves his Bible. In short, we love whatever gives us pleasure and delight, and if our hearts are right, we love God above all things. 1. noun An affection of the mind excited by beauty and worth of any kind, or by the qualities of an object which communicate pleasure, sensual or intellectual. It is opposed to hatred. We speak of the love of whatever contributes to our pleasure or supposed profit. The love of God is the first duty of man.
  • (Random House 1987 hard cover) 1) profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person 2) a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection 3) sexual passion or desire 4) a person toward whom love is felt
  • Merriam-Webster Online:  1) strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties 2) attraction based on sexual desire: affection and tenderness felt by lovers 3) affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests 4) warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion.

Defining Freedom

Allen: “In the old dictionary, “freedom” was defined as the ability to choose the good, right and true.  In the new dictionary, freedom is defined as the ability to do anything I want, so long as it doesn’t harm anyone.”

Hmmm, once again we’re seeing a bit of dishonesty from Allen as he takes more liberties with the language of definitions. Not even Noah Webster mentions “the good, the right and true”. I’ll let you read and decide for yourself.

But before we move on, we really must address Allen’s new age definition of freedom. In the new dictionary, freedom is defined as the ability to do anything I want, so long as it doesn’t harm anyone. Let’s see, what might he mean by that? Does a person have the freedom to love whomever they want, as long it doesn’t harm anyone else? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Allen would probably not approve of that kind of love.

Dictionary Comparison of Freedom

  • (Noah Webster’s 1828) 1. A state of exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement. freedom is personal, civil, political, and religious. 2. Exemption from fate, necessity, or any constraint in consequence of predetermination or otherwise; as the freedom of the will. 3. Any exemption from constraint or control.
  • (Random House 1987 hard cover) 1) the state of being free rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. 2) exemption from external control. 3) the power to determine action without restraint, 4) personal liberty as opposed to bondage or slavery.
  • Merriam-Webster Online:  1) the quality or state of being free: such as 1a) the power to do what you want to do: the ability to move or act freely, 1b) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action 2) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another, 3) the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something unpleasant, painful, or unwanted

Defining Justice

Allen: “In the old dictionary, “justice” was defined as equal treatment regardless of race, sex or religion. In the new dictionary, justice is equal outcome, regardless of personal action or behavior.”

Does anyone else see the problem here? Noah Webster’s 1828 definition of “justice” never mentions “equal treatment regardless of race, sex or religion”. Think about it. But we’ll come back to that in the next part.

Notice Allen’s new definition of justice. Justice is equal outcome, regardless of personal action or behavior.  This is a below the belt shot at the less fortunate. The subtle implication is that the poor want to be given everything, and don’t want to work hard for it like he did. Expressing disapproval of those slackers is something that would resonate with his readers. But that’s not the point. The issue at hand is how dictionaries actually define justice. You will not see “justice is equal outcome, regardless of personal action or behavior” in any of the following definitions?

Dictionary Comparison of Justice

  • (Noah Webster 1828) 1. The virtue which consists in giving to every one (sic) what is his due; Distributive justice belongs to magistrates or rulers, and consists in distributing to every man that right or equity, deciding controversies according to the laws and to principles of equity. Commutative justice consists in fair dealing in trade and mutual intercourse between man and man. 2. Impartiality; equal distribution of right in expressing opinions; it is a duty to do justice to every man, whether friend or foe.
  • (Random House 1987 hard cover) 1) The quality of being just, righteousness, equitableness or moral righteousness. 2) rightfulness or lawfulness 3) the moral principle determining just conduct 4) the administering of deserved punishment or reward
  • (Merriam-Webster Online) 1) the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishment 2) the quality of being just, impartial, or fair 3): conformity to truth, fact, or reason

Oh, we got trouble…

Just like Harold Hill in The Music Man, Allen is creating a trouble where none actually exists. It seems a bit silly to say that we are in grave danger not because of the hatred or the lies or the corruption that permeates our culture. We’re in grave danger because the “true” meaning of words are being changed. From where I stand it seems that Christians really love this kind of melodrama So much so, that it’s been around for centuries. An evil enemy is changing our language to destroy us? Really? It’s clearly not happening. But don’t take my word for it and don’t take Allen’s either.

Pick up an old dictionary (if you can find one) and look for yourself.


The citizens of River City were plagued with new vocabulary also.

Music Man: “I need some ideas if I’m gonna get Christians out of the serious trouble they’re in.”

Man: “Christians ain’t in any trouble.”

Music Man: “We’re going to have to create some. We must create a desperate need in Christians…”

“Oh, you got trouble… with a capital T that rhymes with V and stands for Vocabulary.”

Coming next: A Five Headed Beast

In part two, we’ll see that the sinister villain that is out to destroy our society by changing the true meaning of words, is a five headed beast.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Jan. 13, 2022

Dale Crum

Next Post >