Today there is a battle going on over words. Especially in the modern political arena establishing the meaning of words is crucial to winning hearts and minds. Right now there is an insidious effort to suck the life out of the words used to order our lives together as human beings. Take for example the terms pro-choice and anti-abortion. These are the standard monikers used in the modern media to denominate those who support unlimited infanticide (increasingly applying to children in and out of the womb), and those who stand for the sanctity of human life, respectively. By using the term "anti-" the media have painted pro-life people as "a-giners;" crabby people who want to spoil the fun of others and disrupt their freedom to do as they please, even up to and including limiting their ability to kill other persons. "Shame on you crabby people. All you can do is say, 'No.'" The Republican Party has been excoriated as the party of "no." "There go those a-giners again, always being against things. Can't you people get with it and really help people by doing something positive for them?"

I don't know about you, but for me the word "no" comes in handy sometimes. For example, what if you find yourself being held up at gun point by a criminal, intent on robbing and murdering you? You would prefer a nearby policeman to be quite clear on "no" or it might just cost you your life. What less than "no" would actually be an acceptable response to the threat of murder or mayhem? What kind of compromise between the criminal and the policeman would be acceptable to you when the gun is put to your sweating temple? So, when bad things are happening, the little word "no" comes in quite handy. A world that won't use the word "no" is in quite a lot of trouble. A person who cannot say "no" is actually a person in an arrested state of development, stuck in the adolescent phase; and who can only ask, "Hey, why not?" For such people the 1960s never ended. They are dangerous in both church and state. Kyrie eleison! This "anti-no" campaign stakes out the terms of political debate so that those who want to put the brakes on are seen in an uncomplimentary light.

Those who want to reframe the terms of political discourse are quick to "spin" or reinterpret the opinion of those who oppose them in the most unkindly way. Take for example the concern that the Affordable Care Act (which is not about affordability, health, or care!). Those who declined to vote for it were characterized as desiring to leave the suffering uninsured in the streets to die or that they were opposed to civil rights. Those who declined to vote for an expansion of social programs administered by an already bloated government bureaucracy are accused of wanting to "starve the children" to death. If you are painted into a corner by this kind of speech, it is difficult to get out of the corner without tracking the paint of unkindness with you. The most invidious motives are attributed to those who merely want to ask good questions.