Dangerous Words, Destructive Results

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Nov. 20, 2008

Words have consequences − serious ones. History proves this with depressing frequency.

The Nazis told Germans that all their troubles were caused by the Jews. As a statement, this was inaccurate. But as a belief, it led to the extermination of six million human beings, including over a million children.

The Islamic extremists tell Muslims that all their problems are caused by the Americans and other “infidels.” As a statement, this is incorrect. But as a belief, it led to 9/11, and will lead to more terrorist attacks.

When you choose words, you should ask yourself two questions: (1) Are the words accurate? (2) What effect will the words have on listeners? You know what you want to say, but what will your listeners hear?

●  The editor of the English medical journal Lancet wrote an editorial blaming Americans for causing global warming by producing too much greenhouse gases. This is probably not scientifically accurate, but the editor’s choice of words was frightening.

The editor called our alleged overproduction of carbon dioxide “biopolitical terrorism.” Since he blamed “each U.S. citizen,” the reader must conclude that all Americans are terrorists. Even worse, the editorial appeared two months after 9/11.

Perhaps the editor was using what he felt was legitimate exaggeration to make his point that global warming is a problem. But his journal is read worldwide. Did he stop to consider how readers in the Middle East might perceive his words? Did he realize that his editorial, coming so soon after 9/11, might be interpreted as justifying the mass murder of 3000 Americans?

But whether he realized it or not, he might be seen as not only excusing a terrorist act, but also encouraging more such acts. Raising consciousness is one thing; evoking hatred is quite another.

A group of media personalities sponsored a TV ad accusing SUV owners of “supporting terrorism.” But how do we expect people to act toward terrorists and supporters of terrorists? “Key” their SUVs? Set fire to their SUVs? Set fire to their SUVs with them inside? Crash airliners into their office towers? Release smallpox virus? Explode a nuclear bomb?

Calling every American a “terrorist” either trivializes real terrorism like 9/11, or equates Americans with mass-murderers. In the first case, Americans are not justified in fighting terrorists, because we are as evil as they are. In the second case, all people are justified in fighting and killing us.

But in either case, moral distinctions are utterly lost. In either case, violent words encourage real violence. What do we expect people to do when they hear their political opponents called “Nazis” or other terrible names? What did we do with Nazis? We killed millions of them in a horrible war. Calling someone a “terrorist” or “Nazi” is a not-so-veiled invitation to kill him.

●  PBS will soon air a two-hour special that purports to “debunk the Old Testament.” In case you forgot, the initials stand for Public Broadcasting Service, partly funded with taxpayers’ dollars. Is it really the function of a publicly funded institution to promulgate its own religious opinions?

Of course, if the program put forward the view that the Old Testament is factually true, PBS would be deluged with complaints and lawsuits from the ACLU and others eager to defend the “wall of separation” between church and state. But the “wall” seems to have a door that opens only to the Left. Use public funds to promote religion? No way! But use public funds to advance the notion that Judaism and Christianity are based on lies? No problem.

But wait − it gets worse. The PBS “documentary” is advertised as supporting the claims of Bill Maher, creator of the obnoxiously anti-religious film “Religulous.” Maher is quoted from his TV show “Real Time With Bill Maher” as repeatedly referring to the Old Testament as “the book of Jewish fairly tales.”

Maher is anti-religious and goes out of his way to slander and belittle the Old Testament. Who cares? I care, and so should you. Maher’s characterization of the Old Testament is almost exactly the same as Hitler’s. Hitler referred to it as “Jewish mumbo-jumbo” and “priestly twaddle.” I had read this in histories of Nazi Germany, but when I went to Google to find a reference for this column, the first link I came to was an Islamic website. What does that tell you?

There are several problems here:

·         It is not the role of a tax-supported organization to advance any specific view of a religion, either for it or against it.

·         During the Middle Ages, Jews were forced to pay special taxes in Christian and Muslim nations. Some of this money was used to finance suppression of the Jews and desecration of their synagogues and cemeteries. Thus they had to pay for their own humiliation. Isn’t this exactly what Jewish taxpayers are now being forced to do by PBS?

·         Similarly, during Kristallnacht in 1938, hundreds of Jewish synagogues and businesses in Germany were destroyed or damaged. But afterward, the Jews were fined the amount of the damages. The government forced them to pay for their own persecution. Shouldn’t that fact have given PBS pause? Why didn’t it?

·         The same applies to devout Christian taxpayers. In addition, they are forced to support public museums that exhibit a crucifix in urine and an image of the Virgin Mary in dung. Forcing people to fund insults to their most deeply held beliefs is hardly what one expects in a free nation. Perhaps it is not quite as free as we thought.

·         There are historians and archeologists who devote their careers to studying the historical basis of the Bible. Why are they not included? There is a scholarly journal called Biblical Archeology Review. Why is it not quoted?

·         It is dishonest to select experts who favor one viewpoint while omitting experts who favor the opposite viewpoint, and then claim to be “scientific.” Science requires that opposing viewpoints contend.

·         It is cowardly to claim to be “objective,” and then ridicule the Old Testament while not ridiculing the Koran. The Exodus is a “myth,” but Muhammad really visited heaven on horseback? Is that so? Objectivity cannot result from fear of offending one group but not another. Objectivity requires courage, which seems to be in short supply − especially in the media.

·         It is revealing that Maher and others use words to ridicule the Old Testament that are quite similar to those used by Hitler. The Nazis undermined belief in the Bible in order to justify establishing a dictatorship and exterminating the Jews. That fact should make PBS and Maher very reluctant to imitate Hitler in this way. Why doesn’t it?

·         If, as PBS and Maher claim, the Old Testament is a myth, then the Jews have no claim to Israel. This is exactly what Muslim extremists claim. Why should our tax dollars be used to spread such propaganda?

·         Those who now undermine belief in the Bible may not intend to facilitate the elimination of Israel, the decline of Christianity and the advance of radical Islam, but in fact they are doing just that. We can only guess people’s motives. All we can know is what they do, and we should judge them accordingly.

Are all Americans “bioterrorists”? Is the Old Testament “the book of Jewish fairy tales”? Words indeed have consequences. And by their fruits you will know them.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com