PsalmTree

 The Rape of Truth: 

“Let you yes be yes and your no be no” James 5:12

Language is an essential tool for people living in community. It is, by definition, a body of words, symbols, signs or gestures used in a uniform fashion by people, to intelligibly communicate thought, emotion, etc. Precise communication of important truths and ideas depends on the precision with which we construct our language. 

Simply put, words have meanings that the community agrees to espouse. This social contract affords each member of the community a high level of confidence that their thoughts and ideas are accurately understood by others. So, when I say “I would like a small non-fat latte”, I have reasonable certainty of what I receive at the other end of the counter.

When language loses its precision communities begin to lose cohesion and conflict results. And, language inevitably becomes a weapon for people living in conflict. Why? Because people in conflict do not use words to convey ideas but to assert power.

You need only look as far as our political discourse. The capricious use of words is most notably used to deride opponents rather than precisely convey ideas. And, when derision is the intent, words begin to lose their meaning. 

Ominously, this seems more the purpose than the consequence. Dissembling has become the strategy for prevailing in conflict. Unscrupulous people will use inflammatory words incorrectly to deride their opponent and gain power over them. 

Look at some of the dissembled words that have become ubiquitous in our discourse today...

HATER - (to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest) Unscrupulous people now use this word to describe anybody who disagrees with their deeply cherished beliefs. When Bruce Springsteen cancelled a concert to protest the bathroom laws in one state I suggested he should stick to singing. I was vehemently branded as a “HATER” multiple times...ostensibly hating transgendered people. I actually had not thought about the transgender folks...who I do not hate...but was thinking of the thousands of fans who wouldn’t get to hear his music...none of whom were responsible for the bathroom law. That nuance was lost on the people who wanted me to shut up.

FASCIST - (a person who advocates a rigid one party dictatorship and forcibly suppresses opposition; espouses centralized control of private enterprise; belligerently nationalistic and racist) This is one of the favorite terms used to discredit our President. It’s laughable on its face. Fascist economies, like Mussolini’s Italy or Hitler’s Germany, featured “corporatism”: the state tightly coordinated or subordinated private industry, labor unions, and guilds into national syndicates to serve state-directed goals such as autarky (economic self-sufficiency), militarization, and imperial expansion. Wages, prices, and production were often controlled; private ownership existed but only if aligned with the regime’s ideology, with harsh penalties for disloyalty Deregulation slashed rules on environment, finance, and labor, shrinking agencies like the EPA and defunding oversight—opposite of fascism’s state empowerment. 

RACIST - (a program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, persecution and domination based on a doctrine that some races are inferior to others [racialism]) while racism is identifiable by certain action or policy, it must be rooted in the idea that one race is superior to another (racialism). Immigration policy is often used to label our government as racist. This is based almost entirely on the desire to effectively close our southern border to prevent illegal immigrants from entering. There is no evidence that the policy is based on race but, of course, labeling him a “protectionist” is far less incendiary or useful to opposing political advocates

TRANSPHOBIC (discrimination against, aversion to, or fear of transgender people) 

Standard definitions (fear, aversion, or discrimination against trans people) often stretch to include any skepticism about gender ideology, such as questioning child transitions, women’s sports fairness, or biological sex realities. This labels principled dissent—e.g., feminists protecting single-sex spaces—as “phobic,” equating it to violence or abuse without distinguishing intent or evidence. Critics argue “transphobia” is unfair when applied to those who merely disagree because it conflates reasonable, evidence-based concerns with irrational hatred or bigotry, shutting down debate. But...isn't that exactly what the radicals want?

BIGOT - (having an obstinate or blind attachment to a particular creed, party, sect or opinion; being prejudiced or intolerant) Bigotry is often rooted in prejudice, hostility, or refusal to engage evidence. Dictionaries consistently define it as stubborn narrow-mindedness: Merriam-Webster notes “obstinate or narrow-minded adherence to one’s own opinions and prejudices”; It involves emotional rigidity, stereotyping entire groups (e.g., “all X are Y”), and rejecting counter-evidence as exceptions. Disagreement alone isn’t bigotry—voicing evidence-based objections, even strongly, lacks the intolerance key. For instance, questioning policies on trans sports or transitions based on biology or data (as in our prior talk) is debate, not bigotry, unless it demands suppression of trans people. Bigotry demands hostility or exclusion; a principled “no” aligns with “Let you yes be yes and your no be no”.

So... why does all this matter? Indiscriminate misuse of language erodes clarity, trust, and civil discourse, fostering division and real-world harm.

• Erodes Meaning and Precision - When terms like “fascist,” “transphobia,” or “bigotry” (as we’ve discussed) get stretched beyond their definitions to smear dissenters, they lose specificity—turning nuanced debate into binary shouting matches. Words become weapons, not tools for truth, echoing biblical warnings for “yes” to mean yes and “no” to mean no (Matthew 5:37).
• Fuels Stigma and Policy Harm - Vague, loaded labels stigmatize groups, deter care-seeking (e.g., addiction labeled “abuse” reduces treatment uptake), and sway punitive policies over solutions. In politics or culture wars, this justifies censorship or violence against “bigots,” sidelining evidence-based disagreement.
• Undermines Peace and Society - It kills peacemaking (Romans 12:18, Matthew 5:9)—people retreat to tribes, emotions override reason, and shared reality fractures. History shows this path: dehumanizing rhetoric precedes conflict; precise language builds bridges

Indiscriminate language misuse has repeatedly fueled dehumanization, violence, and oppression throughout history by eroding empathy and justifying atrocities.

• Nazi Dehumanization - The Nazis called Jews “vermin,” “parasites,” and “subhumans,” stripping their humanity to rationalize the Holocaust—millions murdered after rhetoric normalized extermination.
• Rwandan Genocide - Hutu extremists labeled Tutsis “cockroaches” via radio broadcasts, inciting 1994 massacres that killed 800,000 in 100 days; this linguistic priming made neighbors slaughter neighbors.
• U.S. Historical Xenophobia - During WWI, German-Americans faced bans on speaking German, book burnings, and violence after being branded disloyal “Huns”—reducing German from America’s #2 language to obscurity. Native Americans endured boarding schools punishing tribal tongues as “savage,” erasing cultures.
• Slavery and Eugenics - Slaveholders banned African languages and drums to crush rebellion, while pseudoscience termed runaway flight “drapetomania”—a “mental disorder” justifying brutality. Nazis built on U.S. eugenics laws, sterilizing disabled people as “blights,” prelude to their murder.

Abusing language often serves insidious purposes like manipulation, control, and silencing dissent, as history and psychology show.

• Power and Control - Leaders or groups stretch terms (e.g., “Nazi,” “bigot”) to demonize opponents, rallying supporters by creating moral panic—easier to crush “evil” than engage ideas. This echoes Nazi propaganda priming genocide or modern cancel culture.
• Cognitive Manipulation - Vague, loaded words exploit brain shortcuts: ambiguity hides lies, presuppositions plant unverified “truths,” making people comply unwittingly (e.g., ads or politics). It fractures shared reality, fostering tribalism over reason.
• Silencing Dissent - By equating disagreement with “phobia” or “hate,” abusers police speech, chilling debate—our talks on fascism/transphobia illustrate how this dodges evidence for emotional blackmail. Biblical precision (yes/no, peacemaking) counters this; misuse breeds strife.

There’s a better way...if I am a Christian (and, I am), I cannot allow myself to participate in anything that will alienate the people God calls me to "love," so I need to constantly guard my heart and lips from becoming tools of destruction. James says we shouldn't equivocate. We should say what we mean, truthfully. Paul commands: “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Romans 12:18)—doing our part diligently, even amid strife, by forgiving, seeking unity, and sharing the gospel. It means discussing our differences charitably, sticking to facts, and avoiding needless division.

Live boldly out there today...