Shameful Language

A rather disjointed page looking at some words from novel angles. Food for thought.

Atheism
Politics
Memes
Mind
Matters
Random
Interact
Feedback
Email
Links
Forum
Home

Keep The Wonder, Lose The Faith
Neologenetics
The Language of Indoctrination
The World English Foundation

How can there be creatures without a creator?

The word creature is scientifically incorrect when used to describe animals.

Frankenstein's monster would have been a creature, he had a creator. Mickey Mouse is a creature, created by Walt Disney. But ordinary animals (ha! ordinary!) have not been created by anything as lame as a creator, they have been built by the evolutionary algorithm. Nothing has decided that they should live, they have just got on with it.

If you hear somebody use the word creature when they mean animal please correct them. I do:

 

"Ophelia is a history graduate. She is Editorial Advisor to The Philosophers' Magazine. She worked as a Zookeeper for some years, looking after gorillas and elephants, among other creatures. "

Creatures require a creator. Don't you mean animals?

Martin Willett

Hmm. Hadn't thought of it that way. I just like the word 'creatures' for some reason. Or 'critters.' I do mean animals, yes, but...I don't think I'm falling into Intelligent Design here!

OB

------------------------------

Ophelia Benson

Butterflies and Wheels

www.butterfliesandwheels.com

Christians can and do use such casual language use to reinforce their case, they point out that the word creature implies there must be a creator (and “therefore” that he had a son called Jesus and the Bible is true in every word and their understanding of his story is the only true revelation). It's just sloppy use of language. We need not give them this cheap debating point, if we mean animals say animals, or living things.

When the word was first coined a belief in a creator was assumed to be universal, there was no plausible alternative hypothesis. The world has now changed. We know better.

Privilege

Middle English via Old French privilege from Latin privilegium 'bill or law affecting an individual', from privus 'private' + lex legis 'law'

Private law. This is an evil concept when the private individual is given special rights in the wider community, literally one rule for them another rule for us. This form of privilege must be fought in all its forms:

class privilege

rights of clergy

rights of nobility

immunity from prosecution

privileges of rank and wealth

I was heartily pleased today to hear that the Italian judiciary had thrown out the idea that their Prime Minister had any form of immunity from prosecution. Rule one for a true democracy should be equality before the law.

Privileges within institutions are another matter entirely. Private laws (or more accurately, rules) and private rights and duties are acceptable within voluntary affiliations and institutions. It is when people take the rights of their private clubs such as the Church, the Palace or the House of Lords and get the rest of the community to accept them that an abuse has occurred.

Clerk and Clerical

What does clerical mean? Today we think of it as meaning low level undemanding office work. What is shameful about that? The shame is in the origin.

Clerk comes from the same root as cleric and clergy. In the olden days cleric and clerk were synonymous because only ordained officers of the church were allowed to read at all. Only those surrendering to the absolute discipline of the Church were allowed to read. Reading among the general population was frowned upon. Peasants and women were not to be trusted to read, teaching them to read would be considered a sin, they were not even comfortable with kings and barons being able to read. Of course this attitude is very conducive to theocracy and the absolute despotism of the religious authorities. This is the pattern we see today with fundamentalist Islam, they want to keep the general population in ignorance of everything except their approved religious works, the last thing they want is enquiring minds free to research for themselves.

Throughout history there has been a conspiracy trying to keep the general public in ignorance and trying to keep all education as religious in nature. We see traces of this everywhere, even today with missionaries teaching religion before any secular knowledge. The concept of magic words, spells and incantations recorded in old books or engravings translated to the masses via men in pointy hats carrying sticks is widespread. The masses were to be kept in awe of the written word, it was dangerous, people could be killed by reading aloud. When I was a boy a friend told me there was a word that martial artists could use to kill people just by saying it, talk about dangerous knowledge!

Just think about the word tome. What does it mean to you? A book filled with magic, secret knowledge, to be read only by the initiated. Today the Quran is kept free from the touch of infidels even in British courtrooms and libraries, lest its ju-ju power rubs off. You can't just pick up a copy of the Quran in the library and read it, you have to ask for it at the desk. Some Moslems will refuse to touch a copy of the Quran that has been “defiled” by the touch of an infidel, somebody who refuses to accept their brand of brainwashing.

All “holy books” should be systematically opened, read and laughed at, at least once a day, in every public library across the world.

Secretary

The word secretary obviously comes from the same root as secret. The job consisted of enciphering and deciphering coded secret messages for their lords and masters (and of course mistresses). This allowed their masters to be illiterate and prevented any form of scrutiny of public policy. Secretaries had to be bright but more importantly they had to be discreet.

The UK civil service is riddled with secretaries: permanent, deputy, under and assistant and various combinations. Is it any wonder that the civil service resists open government? It was a system of secrecy and privilege well before there was any idea of public service. Intrigue was their raison d'être. They were servants of the crown before they were public servants. Even that phrase is telling, servants of the crown, suggestive of butlers, footmen, lickspittles and toadies to the idiot under the crown rather than public officials, officers bringing their own personal honour and duty to the public trust. Let's call them them what they should be: administrative officers, senior managers, departmental heads, etc. We need people with the ability to take responsibility, not toadies who remain anonymous hiding behind the royal crest until they get their gong.

Atheism | Politics | Memes | Mind | Matters | Interact | Feedback | Email | Links | Search | Forum | Home
© 1999 - 2010 by Martin Willett.
mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited