Thursday, March 26, 2009

Merriam-Webster Caves into Homosexual Agenda


I received a WallBuilders e-newsletter on March 23, 2009. Here is the first paragraph of that e-newsletter:

The aggressive push to redefine marriage has now moved to the literary arena, and the newest ally in the gay marriage movement is Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.


The e-newsletter goes on about a WorldNetDaily article that exposes Merriam-Webster’s cave-in to the Secular Humanist/Homosexual agenda to transform America away from Biblical Morality toward a relativist morality.

Christian Americans are being duped into letting their children receive relativist morality while anything that is Judea/Christian is frowned upon or downright forbidden in public education.

The result is children growing up with two choices in life: the few hours of the example of their parents or the many hours of educational authority figures and indoctrinated peers.

The Supreme Court decided
prayer in schools was a violation of the government First Amendment edict of not allowing Congress to establish religion and forgetting that Congress can make NO law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Thus the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ex nihilo created an ingrained twentieth century concept – The separation of Church and State.

I challenge anyone to find the words “separation of Church and State” in the U.S. Constitution. You can believe me and save some time: There ain’t no such thing.

The First Amendment does not separate Christianity from government;
the Amendment merely states the government cannot establish a particular religion as a State religion. And HELLO! The religion the Founding Fathers were talking about was not Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, various and numerous other religions nor the false religion Secular Humanism (which to the extreme is the religion of atheism in the sense of ideology). Nay good citizen, the religion spoken of was Christianity.

Even if a majority of the Founding Fathers were Deists, they were Christian Deists. The moral foundation of Christian principles was to be the rule of law in America. The government simply could not favor a Christian religious doctrine over another in endorsement.

Friends this is not separation of Church and State. (Incidentally the word “Church” implies Christianity as well.) The more the Left in the 20th and 21st century utilize the Judicial System to override American heritage, the more America fulfills the dreams of Secular Humanism and increases the viability to make Christianity slowly illegal. Why? The reason is the mere practice of Christianity will violate the rule of law which an otherwise free speech or free religion would be perceived to incite violence, discrimination or a civil offense against a religion other than Christianity, an atheist, ungodly homosexual practices or whatever Secular Humanism defines as normal relative to the age.

AND NOW the American icon of the English language – the Merriam-Webster Dictionary –
defines marriage as between two opposite sexes (i.e. traditional) AND between Same-Sex couples (Secular Humanism/Homosexual Agenda).

JRH 3/26/09

2 comments:

Naumadd said...

A dictionary is a GUIDE to how language is used, not a RULEBOOK to how it must be used. A dictionary ought to reveal the definitions most commonly used for a word without commentary on political views of those compiling the dictionary. Of course, the word list and definitions of those words in a specific dictionary ought not ever be seen as some "approved word list" and "approved definitions". If a definition that is used isn't included in a dictionary, that ought not be construed as meaning such a definition is wrong or disallowed or illegal. It simply means, in general, there wasn't enough space for the definition or that definition wasn't common enough to warrant being included. Of course, a missing definition can also hint at the political agenda of those writing the dictionary.

In any event, dictionaries are guidebooks, not rulebooks. If you don't like a definition change it. If a definition doesn't exist, create it. That's the nature of the tool of language.

Theway2k said...

Naumadd this sounds like a plausible apologetic for the dictionary industry; however most dictionaries reflect what the writers believe a common usuage of a word.

Thus when Merriam-Websters under the most common definition #1 sub-part 2 says that "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>", the dictionary is saying that same-sex marriage is of usuage on par with traditional marriage between a male and female (e.g. common usuage definition #1 sub-part 1: "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law")

We can apologize this away as a guidebook rather than a rulebook; nonetheless Merriam-Websters dictionary is guiding American students (who use the dictionary most often) that same-sex marriage is as normal as traditional marriage.

Indeed same-sex marriage is illegal in every State in America except where a Leftist judiciary has stepped to re-write State laws.

This is a very serious mis-use of guidance.

As in a dictionary definition of a profane word, the word "vulgar" should precede a same-sex definition.