Words matter. Ideas matter. Ideology matters.

These three assertions rely on a certain basic assumption if they are to be given any credence. That presupposition is that human beings seek meaning and purpose in ways that are different to the animals.

If we are just like animals, then why would words matter? We should simply respond instinctively to whatever is instinctively said. There would be no need for hand-ringing or political debate. Just live and let live and may the fittest (most powerful) win!

But we are not just like the animals. We have the capacity to decide what to do with our instincts. This is why we train young children to behave in certain ways. If they want to eat like little pigs, we train them into being considerate of those around them. This is helping them think differently, from ‘going at it’ to get what they want, despite others, to considering the needs of others – despite what their stomachs might otherwise suggest!

Words are the (main) way we teach over time. In basic society, those words are driven by loyalty to tribal honour. Even truth is categorised according to what brings shame or honour to the mob. In our current times, the tribes can also be political or ideological. Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind is one of the best of the current broad-brush explanations of political groupings. He established (initially) six deep moral values that occur across cultures around the world. The ‘Left” gather around a group of three – that is, they give privilege to care over harm, liberty over oppression, and fairness over cheating. The ‘Right’ are more evenly spread across all six – the ‘Left three’ just described, plus loyalty over betrayal, authority over subversion, and sanctity over degradation (or profanity).

He started to describe untruths that have arisen in recent times with his colleague Greg Lukianoff in The Coddling of the American Mind. Then Lukianoff teamed up with Rikki Schlott and they explained the defensive reactiveness of our era in The Cancelling of the American Mind. But the principles were the same as in core tribalism – what words do I use to demonstrate where I belong to my tribe? They demonstrated that extreme Left and Right groups resorted to cancelling strategies (somewhat different in mode for the two groups) to demonstrate loyalty to their tribe.

In addition to differences in moral values, and modes of cancelling, we also have differences in established ideologies. These can be thought of as tribal groupings around a system of thinking that represents core beliefs in which we put our faith. It is more than a broad collection of collective moral values – it is the targeting of those values, through a system of thought that can direct action, towards an agreed end. In this kind of thinking, means are relativistic, because they are in service to the beliefs that inform what is right and wrong. Discerning rightness and wrongness is one of those human traits that again reinforce that for us, words matter.

An example of a political ideology would be a Chris Bowen type of (professed) utter belief in climate alarmism. This belief system directs him (through his three dominant Leftist moral values) to wreck the productivity basis of our economy and to cripple household spending strength, in order to achieve the climate change end in which he believes. Such belief makes him deaf to receiving new information and blind to understanding other strategies in managing energy supply.

There are many other kinds of ideologies. But one that has become dramatically more predominant of late is the anti-Israeli form of pro-Palestinian activism. We have regularly seen anger in the manner of the protests, in the damaging property, and in the calls to violence from some of their leaders, and now two nurses.

The former new-atheist Ayaan Hirsi Ali has written about why we should not be surprised at such actions. The reason is that she has studied the words that guide the ‘hard line’ Islamist teachings. She noted in one of her posts (on Restoration: ““Hate” and the Islamic Onslaught on British Values: Part Two”) that there are three basic tactics outlined in the seventh century as described by Mohammed that are still being used.

The first is terror. The core strategy is not persuasion, it is submission.

The second strategy is ‘death for apostasy’. There is no hint of general, democratic ‘freedom of conscience.’ It is literally ‘my way or the highway’ – to death.

The third mechanism is mass show of strength. This does not include any dialogue or open discussion or debate. It is terror wrapped in threat delivered through the language and practices of death. Ali summarises the impact:

Once introduced into society, whether in Birmingham, Luton, Bradford, Rotherham, London, or Oxford, or for that matter Paris, Berlin, Stockholm or Dearborn, Michigan, these three mechanisms, reinforced by a network of masjids led by the international Muslim Brotherhood fanatics preaching the Quran and an increasingly radical online congregation, will ensure that the ideology will continue to grow. … The spiritual conviction of the individual is lost in the public, ceremonial welcome. Should the believer change his mind afterwards, he must be killed.

Words matter. And the source of these hate-filled and violent words, as Ali reminds us, is the sacred book of Islam. Like in Australia, Ali explains why many people in the UK have a sentimentalist view of how some can use this book.

But – words matter. Ideas matter. Ideologies matter. When can we talk freely about these anti-life words now being openly promulgated in our nation by some within a very old ideology? When we can, perhaps we will also be free to compare their old book with another one. The sacred text of Christianity has brought universal respect and law applied universally respectfully. It would be good to be able to discuss these two approaches openly in terms of their impact on what we call Western democracy. But if we pretend sacred words don’t matter, it will never happen.