Back in the day, before this dratted COVID lockdown, and when I was leaving the house in the morning, at least five days a week, to go to work, I still had conversations with people outside of my immediate family. We might disagree but we would each make our point.
I would occasionally debate/argue with a certain colleague who, although claiming to be an evangelical Christian, seemed sympathetic towards Islam. One of his arguments was that Malcolm X, as he grew in knowledge and changed his view, was eventually going to become a Christian. It was inevitable. Me? I couldn’t make that leap of logic, there was just not enough supporting evidence. Again, I believe this individual’s POV was based on trying to give Malcolm X the benefit of the doubt, in other words, extending both sympathy and empathy towards Malcom.
Now, while I looked at Malcolm X and thought his evolution from hater to a man of peace was admirable, I still could not make the logical leap required to connect him to Christianity but, apparently, it made my friend feel good to hold that view and, I imagine, justified him in some of his other views about the black experience and Islam.
While the Black Muslim movement seemed based on a radicalization of Islam and hatred for the “white devil,” Malcolm X seemed to eventually see through that and thus moved closer to historic, or middle-eastern, Islam.
I see nothing in what I’ve read and learned about historic Islam that makes me think it would send any of its adherents into Christianity short of a conversion that all Christians must experience. In fact, I see nothing in the “Judaism of today,” or Islam, that makes it any easier for the individual to make the transition to Christianity. Remember, the Judaism of today is not the Judaism of Jesus’ time. The only thing, thus, that effectuates the move to Christianity is repentance. It seems to me that Islam was, and still is, a repudiation of the basic tenants of Christianity. If you’ve never read a book or serious article about the beginnings of Islam, you might find it interesting.
So, where am I on going with this? I just read a piece about the development of Orwell’s NewSpeak and how it is being used by the Left today to radically alter society. (It can be found at: https://genzconservative.com/the-orwellian-vocabulary-of-snowflakes). How does it tie in with my thoughts on Malcolm X and/or Islam?
Have you ever been in conversation and the statement is made, “Well, you have to respect his opinion,” aimed at seeking your acceptance of what you view as wrongheaded or, more correctly, outright error?
Let me be clear, I hold a world-view that is based on my reading of the Jewish/Christian Scriptures and what I have been able learn and understand about the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. If you hold some different view, whether it be purely doctrinal, or whether it be some other world-view based on adherence to another profession of faith, I do not respect those views, nor you for holding such views. My respect for you stops at the line of you being a fellow traveler in time, a human being. To respect a POV I hold to be contrary to my own views seems to suggest that I understand why one might hold different views and accept that such views might be correct.
I respect others as human beings, and I allow for the freedom of thought and religion that has brought others to hold views and see things quite differently than me, but I do not respect those views. How could I respect views that are completely contrary to everything I, myself, believe? That might be one description of madness.
This, to me, is where Newspeak comes in. This whole Cancel Culture thing got its start in asking, nay demanding, respect for views of others that were contrary to one’s own views. Eventually we ended up at the point where if one does not concur with a certain POV, that one is evil. Talk about a lack of respect, right?
One example – Abortion. Abortion advocates love to muddy the waters by suggesting that they are not radical abortion enthusiast but are really only pro-choice. Such people like to paint pro-life advocates as ANTI-abortionists. This attempts to evade the whole idea of what abortion is. Abortion is not a simple medical procedure like having one’s appendix removed. Abortion is the wanton destruction of human life. That being the case, pro-life advocates are opposed to the extinguishing of innocent human beings while still in the womb. There is no point of compromise in such cases, life is life is life.
Abortion, for the most part, started as a “procedure” that was conducted in early pregnancy. In fact, in order to conceal what was really going on, we were told that life had not yet begun, the fetus at that young age was just a clump of cells, like a cancer tumor that could be removed without future consequence. Unfortunately, for the abortion advocates, we have now become an enlightened society that, at all costs, “follows the science.”
That said, the pretext for early abortion, that the child was not yet a living being, has been shown for the lie it always was and that has given us abortion up until, and at times, after the moment of birth, including the horrendous late-term abortion where the body of the child is drawn out of the mother, leaving the head inside the birth canal so it can be stated that birth has not been completed and the head, subsequently crushed allowing then for removal of the, now, dead child.
Orwell nailed the problem in this statement I will quote:
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
Very profound. If you don’t know the words, you certainly can’t think it. While I already know the words, it is our children and grandchildren in our government-controlled schools who are at risk and for whom I fear; they might never hear the words.
Change My Mind! 