I remember first hearing the term “politically correct” in seventh grade. My social studies teacher, Mrs. Horowicz, insisted that when we write historical dates, we use “BCE” and “CE” instead of “BC” and “AD.”

The logic behind this notation derives from the notion that BCE and CE are more “inclusive” to non-Christians because BC, which stands for “Before Christ,” and AD, short for “Anno Domini,” Latin for “year of our Lord,” imply that the basis for the calendar year is rooted in Christ’s birth.

By denoting that particular year as “year 0,” the current year indicates how many years have passed since Christ’s birth. But to hide the Christian origins of our calendar, critics insist that “Before Common Era” (BCE), and “Common Era” (CE) should be used to assuage the sensitive egos of non-Christians.

I would have pointed out the logical fallacy in this cockamamie dating scheme had I been capable of critical thought at age 12. If our calendar is clearly Judeo-Christian, why bother to pretend that it is not? Heck, why not adopt the North Korean calendar and call this year Juche 99, and Christ’s birth year as 1911 BK (“before Kim Il-Sung”)?

Political correctness, or “PC” for short, is a recent movement whose origins date back to the 1980s. According to legend, a number of ex-hippies and civil rights advocates were not satisfied with what they achieved during the 1960s civil rights movement. While they may have achieved equality of opportunity for the underprivileged, they were not satisfied with their result.

PC is an attempt to change our language to provide a more “inclusive” environment for the marginalized and underprivileged in society. But the ultimate goal of PC is to change the way people think. If people change the language they use in order to help the marginalized feel more “included,” they may just believe the words they utter, and society will accept these ideas as fact.

Eliminating “BC” and “AD” from the vernacular is one example of PC because its advocates the wish to eradicate the apparent Christian bias in Western society. Although I mentioned that their goal was “inclusivity,” this inclusion is only achieved by marginalizing mainstream viewpoints.

In this case, most Christian Americans must change their dating scheme to accommodate the other 21.5 percent of the American population. That is even assuming that every religious minority cares about the Christian “bias” in our dating scheme.

“Inclusivity,” is an ironic term. The inclusion of underrepresented groups does not involve advancing their views but rather suppressing those of the majority. Instead of studying the reasons behind Christian-based dating and discussing the pros and cons of various remedies to the problem (if it actually is one), Mrs. Horowicz simply rendered “BC” and “AD” politically incorrect and banned their use in the classroom.

This seventh grade dating debacle is hardly an anecdote in the ever-increasing influence PC holds over society. Mrs. Horowicz and her PC legionnaires were not just changing the way we differentiate between years that occurred before and after Christ’s death, but were seeking to delegitimize the Judeo-Christian basis of Western society.

Therefore, this dating scheme was hardly an isolated incident, but is part of a pervasive and widespread effort to marginalize “incorrect” words, views, and ideas.

If the American PC crowd were a political party, Chairman Julian Bond of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People might also serve as PC Party General Secretary. As leader of the NAACP, Chairman Bond has overseen nationwide censorship efforts to protect African Americans, a race who Bond believes has particularly sensitive eyes and ears.

This was the case in Pennsylvania last year, when the state NAACP decided to petition state “human rights commissions” to ban Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because the book contained derogatory terms that would offend the sensibilities of his helpless and sensitive subjects, excuse me, his fellow African Americans.

The peril of PC is not the dream of a polite and thoughtful society, but rather the power it possesses to silence ideas in a free and democratic society.

The consequences of violating the sacraments of PC are direr in Philistine societies that have not adopted freedom of speech. When Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders produced a 15 minute web film denouncing radical Islam, the Dutch “Openbaar Minsisterie” (“justice” department) indicted him for “hate speech.” He now faces over a year in prison if convicted.

Even worse for Wilders, he is not allowed to use “truth” as a defense. When he tried to call witnesses that would corroborate his views, the court refused, offering a chilling statement: “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct; what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.” In other words, not only does Wilders not have the right to free expression, but he also lacks the right to defend himself in court.

Despite his “illegal observation,” Wilders will not roll over but is instead using his trial to shed light on Islamist terrorism and its attempts to suppress free speech in Europe and beyond. While most normal people would bow and ask for the court’s mercy, Wilders is defiant and ready to be a martyr in the war against PC.

Even though society has shown itself willing to stand up to PC when it gets out of hand, PC cannot be defeated unless our societal values themselves change. PC only holds water because we as a society decide it is a value we cannot do without.

The dangers of allowing a small minority to change not only how to speak, but also how to think, are clear. Anyone who does not wish to live in a world run by the Pennsylvania NAACP or the Dutch “Justice” Department should heed this warning and stand up to the PC crowd. When they tell you not to say something because it is “offensive,” just say “NO.”