Thursday, March 30, 2006
D.C., i.e., hypocrisy, at work
According to this article in today's Post, "[a] D.C. lawmaker has introduced two bills to promote the use of respectful language in District laws and publications that refer to people with disabilities." The bill's sponsor noted that the word "lunatic" appears in the D.C. Code 29 times, while "idiot" appears 13 times. Which is interesting and amazing, because there are precisely 13 idiot-lunatics on the D.C. Council.
I know I'm overreacting, but this rubs me the wrong way. It is a natural evil to suffer from low IQ or psychological problems or mental defects or what-have-you. It is much better to be a person of normal intellect, who does not suffer from those difficulties. But so what? I think the two previous sentences are true, but I also happen to think that the mentally deficient are human beings made in the image and likeness of God.
Which brings me to my meager point. The people who want to remove "offensive" language from public life are the same people who think women should be able to abort their unborn children if it appears the child is going to be an idiot or a lunatic. This is preposterous.
(Of course "idiot" and "lunatic" were abandoned by the psychology industry long ago. If the DC government just wanted to update thet Code to correspond to more modern categories, that would be fine. But the article makes clear that that is not the intention here.)
I know I'm overreacting, but this rubs me the wrong way. It is a natural evil to suffer from low IQ or psychological problems or mental defects or what-have-you. It is much better to be a person of normal intellect, who does not suffer from those difficulties. But so what? I think the two previous sentences are true, but I also happen to think that the mentally deficient are human beings made in the image and likeness of God.
Which brings me to my meager point. The people who want to remove "offensive" language from public life are the same people who think women should be able to abort their unborn children if it appears the child is going to be an idiot or a lunatic. This is preposterous.
(Of course "idiot" and "lunatic" were abandoned by the psychology industry long ago. If the DC government just wanted to update thet Code to correspond to more modern categories, that would be fine. But the article makes clear that that is not the intention here.)
# posted by Anonymous : 4:12 PM
