It is stupid to compare politicla correctness to the rules of a religion

Political correctness mirrors religious orthodoxy The principle of political correctness (PC) is that by controlling language people's thinking can be aligned with a desired ideology. Political correctness in the modern context is defined as: conformity to a body of liberal or radical opinion on social matters, characterized by the advocacy of approved views and the rejection of language and behaviour considered discriminatory or offensive. [6. Oxford Dictionary of New Words, 1997] Another definition makes the point in terms of orthodoxy: marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology. [7. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 1991 ] PC has been around for a long time, especially in association with religion. Prof. Hughes, in his academic study of the history of PC, emphasizes the comparison: Puritanism ... has considerable and enduring relevance to political correctness, since it encapsulates strictness in morality with a Pharisaic attitude of being “holier than thou,” combined with an unhealthy curiosity, even an inquisitiveness or inquisitorial attitude concerning the “lapses” and “nonconformity” of others. Not for nothing has political correctness been stigmatized as the New Puritanism. [8. Hughes, Geoffrey, Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture (The Language Library) , Wiley-Blackwell, 2009] Orwell's novel 1984 introduced many people to the concept of language controlling thought and action through newspeak. The novel was written in 1949, but Orwell already had an example to draw upon. ...political correctness first emerged in the diktats of Mao Tse-Tung, then chairman of the Chinese Soviet Republic, in the 1930s. But over half a century later it had mutated, rematerializing in a totally different environment, in an advanced secular capitalist society in which freedom of speech had been underwritten by the Constitution for two centuries, and in American universities, of all places. As Christopher Hitchens acutely observed: “For the first time in American history, those who call for an extension of rights are also calling for an abridgement of speech” (in Dunant, 1994, pp. 137–8). [8. op cit] Political correctness places extraordinary restrictions on personal freedom Ordinary restrictions on personal freedom include laws against violent crime, the enforcement of contracts, and mundane things like traffic codes. Extraordinary restrictions are long lists of prohibited word uses and incentives or laws to bring obedience to liberal social goals. In this context, "extraordinary" means "beyond the ordinary," not "unique in history." 1. The rules of political correctness are obeyed Pro argues there is no set of formal laws and rules that the left lives by and tries to enforce like that of a religion. Is it okay for a leftist to tell racist or sexist jokes, fail to recycle, have no concern for global warming, and oppose welfare programs? No, it is not acceptable. We are not discussing whether the rules are good or not, it is whether they constitute a code. Many religious rules are good –there's nothing wrong with “do unto others ...”-- while others are just symbolic. For example, recycling aluminum and lead are perfectly sensible rules, while recycling glass bottles and banning Styrofoam are purely quasi-religious symbolism. (Styrofoam is inert, so it would make as much sense to ban rocks.) Keep in mind that rules are not necessarily laws. Social pressure is a way of enforcing rules. The war over political correctness in speech was fought the 80s and 90s, and the people favoring free speech lost. Political correctness is now ingrained in language. Political correctness has now moved to enforcing behavior: requirements for recycling, bans or punishments for smoking, outlawing ordinary light bulbs, banning dissenting speakers on college campuses, enforcement of academic speech codes, and so forth. 2. The rules are written down Pro argues that there is no holy book or collection of holy texts center to their beliefs that at one point explicitly lists the rules that people should live by or try to enforce. For this to be a valid distinction from religion, religious codes must be written and political correctness not. Pro's model is that the way a religion begins is with someone writing a book of rules and then everyone adopting it as the center of a religion. Quite the opposite, religions begin with traditions, myths, and rules, and eventually someone codifies them. The Christian Bible was not written until after the death of Christ and Christianity was well established. The rules of political correctness began in academia before they were written down, but now they are well documented. For K-12 textbooks, the rules were formally codified in [9. "Reflecting Diversity, Multicultural Guidelines for Educational Publishing Professionals" by Karen Baicker, 1993]. There are large numbers of PC style guides from states and agencies. Liberal educator Diane Ravitch compiled a long list of PC requirements from the style guides. [10. "The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn," Vintage, 2007, Appendix 1] For newspapers, the rules are embodied in the Associated Press Stylebook. [11. http://tinyurl.com...] For example, the AP banned “illegal immigrant” [http://tinyurl.com...] and restricted the use of “Islamist” [12. http://tinyurl.com...]. The semi-official status of the Stylebook pressures journalists to conform to the rules of political correctness. On university campuses, written speech codes have been adopted and are strictly enforced. [13. http://thefire.org...] PC is imposed from the top down, so the universities are key to imposing the orthodoxy. Violators are subject to sanction and required "sensitivity training." 3. Political correctness dictates behavior I didn't claim that political correctness was a religion or that it mirrored every part of religion. I only claimed that the rules of behavior prescribed by political correctness mirrored rules of behavior characteristic of religions. Rules of worship are not part of all religions, but there are always rules of behavior. Buddhism and Jainism do not require worship any God, but they prescribe behavior. The Jains have very strict rules mandating vegetarianism and forbidding the killing of animals, even insects. Some religious rules deal with worship, but most deal with behavior. Only four of the Ten Commandments deal with worship, the rest with social behavior. The Puritans, to which political correctness is most often compared, had elaborate rules of behavior well beyond the Commandments. Puritans forbid their adherents for attending theater, and in England Puritan power grew to eventually getting theater banned. 4. Everyone knows PC rules Pro claims "people question whether or not the rules of political correctness are even a real thing." Let's see if readers know political correctness. Identify the PC term in each pair: waitress or server, Mrs. or Ms., prostitute or sex worker, retarded or mentally challenged, terrorist attack or man-caused disaster. Which is politically correct, using: paper or plastic bags, gasoline or electric car, water or Coke [tm], bicycle or SUV, disposable plastic water bottle or reusable metal bottle. Nearly everyone knows what the PC answers are, even if they don't conform. The Hawaiian religion (pre-1800) had over 400 rules for which violation merited the death penalty. [14. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Stepping on the king's shadow was a capital crime. A commoner possessing any yellow object committed a capital crime, because all yellow objects were deemed property of royalty. The ruling class also comprised the priestly class, and the king was considered divine. Everyone learned the rules without having a written language. PC is a code of orthodoxy given by an elite that governs speech and behavior, mirroring religion.