Tuesday, September 05, 2006
When Words Don't Have Meaning
On numerous occassions I've read a reminder from Ed Cone and Lex Alexander that "words have meaning." They are usually reminding me and/or others we have been careless with our choice or use of words. (I have a hunch this mantra or something similar was drilled into them in the classroom and by their editors.)
I know early on I was constantly embarrassed or angered whenever I was corrected like that. Yet, if I am honest, I have learned from my mistakes everytime.
There is one contraversial subject that this mantra doesn't neccessarily apply to- naming our enemy in the Middle East. I say it because I've read and understood the logic of not using terms like terrorists, insurgents, Islamic Fundamentalists or Fascists... the list goes on. How do we define our enemy?
One term that I heard used is "evil." There is a large and well funded group in the Middle East who will not stop until the world submits to their God and their leadership and all of the remaining population who refuse is murdered. I guess I'm saying it really doesn't matter what we call them, their actions include murder, oppression, cowardice, lying, disloyalty, cheating and everything else that we all agree has nothing to do with being good.
It is true that at times all countries have participated in some evil deed. But whenever a country or organized group of people state their sole purpose is to
I know early on I was constantly embarrassed or angered whenever I was corrected like that. Yet, if I am honest, I have learned from my mistakes everytime.
There is one contraversial subject that this mantra doesn't neccessarily apply to- naming our enemy in the Middle East. I say it because I've read and understood the logic of not using terms like terrorists, insurgents, Islamic Fundamentalists or Fascists... the list goes on. How do we define our enemy?
One term that I heard used is "evil." There is a large and well funded group in the Middle East who will not stop until the world submits to their God and their leadership and all of the remaining population who refuse is murdered. I guess I'm saying it really doesn't matter what we call them, their actions include murder, oppression, cowardice, lying, disloyalty, cheating and everything else that we all agree has nothing to do with being good.
It is true that at times all countries have participated in some evil deed. But whenever a country or organized group of people state their sole purpose is to
- convert the world to their God, and
- submit wholey to their leadership and
- begin murdering all who refuse to do either,
they become the enemy of the world.
Comments:
<< Home
Nothing wrong with the definition you offer. I think the "words have meaning" problem arises when people (our leaders, bloggers and the press) try to impose your definition on people to whom it doesn't apply. Someof the people fighting against us in Iraw, for example, are fighting an occupying army to regain their previous power, not to convert the world to their God. Your definition doesn't fit for Hezbolla either. So it'sgood that you've thought this through, now listen for how often people are portrayed as enemies when they don't fit your definition.
you are right- if I say Hezbolla is a terrorist organization I am right. If you say it is a political organization, you are right. And not everyone in that group can be considered evil.
My point is that we have an evil enemy.
Post a Comment
My point is that we have an evil enemy.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]