I recently flagged an article, not a commentary, just a news description of the recent massacre of at least 147 civilians in Kenya, specifically targeted by their Islamic murderers because they were Christian.

I was then informed in several comments online, worded politely, that it was inappropriate for me to have done so because it might have inspired negative feelings about Islam and Muslim people.

Through some twisted moral logic, those that deemed my actions “inappropriate” were attempting to shame me for placing a higher value on disseminating facts about a horrific massacre, than on maintaining the politically correct narrative that Islam is a pacifist religion.

Hiding such facts helps propagate the cynical lie that only irrational bigots have objections to Islam’s teachings, or to policies that support an increased political presence of Muslims in Western nations. The media use the power label “Islamophobia” to stymie such objections.

But this article is not about Islam. It is about power.

Words have power.

And while there is a pantheon of power labels that have been created to intimidate people into silence, there is none more passively aggressive than the word “inappropriate”.

The technical definition of “inappropriate” is “not suitable or proper in the circumstances”. It can be applied to practical judgments about the utility of everyday acts.

For example, if it gets hot outside, it could become inappropriate for me to wear a wool sweater. But the word is also used these days in a way that I find not just “inappropriate”, but wrong, bad, even evil. Perish the thought of me making a moral judgment. How inappropriate.

And that is my point! The word “inappropriate” has been co-opted and is now used as an insidious weapon to guard against considerations of right and wrong. It makes no judgment of a moral situation and refuses to allow anyone else to. It dictates appeasement and disallows thought.

“Appropriateness” requires us to obediently bring our minds and, ultimately, our culture in line with whatever new and exotic thing demands acceptance from us.

Language is a tool for communication, but it is also a weapon. Word meanings can be manipulated to undermine group solidarity in order to bring about a transfer of power. The misuse of the term “inappropriate”, particularly in moral and political discussion, is a conversation stopper, used to cut off any moral reasoning that could end in the speaker being told, “No, we will not throw away our values and surrender to yours.”

We are more susceptible than ever to emotional manipulation through language because we are told that it is bigoted to believe that Truth exists, simply because people disagree about what is true.

Instead, we are told we should accept that language only conveys the feelings of the speaker, relative to his culture, and cannot convey reality. Since we cannot know Truth, even if it exists, we are told we must therefore make up our own personal truths, subject to parameters dictated by the State.

As a result, western civilisation no longer knows what it stands for. So many of us now want and believe such radically incompatible things that we have lost the ability to reason altogether. A tyranny of moral and cultural relativism now dictates the collective moral conscience of the West.

It is a tyranny imposed not by any Caesar, but by the logic of making an idol out of Diversity, believing diversity should be mandated as a pursuit for its own sake. We no longer feel qualified or even safe to declare something absolutely wrong or right anymore, for fear of being labelled by the power words of competing interests.

Thankfully, Bermudians still seem inclined to speak in the moral language of right and wrong and we do not hesitate to share our opinions. Arguably, it is part of our charm. I have, however, noticed a worrying trend toward the polite, nihilistic language of relativism in print and in private, indicating the rise of a serious existential threat from the spectre of Diversity to our group solidarity as Bermudians.

It is our Island’s history of Christianity, however more honoured in the breach, that has given us our nation’s common moral language of right and wrong. Values grounded in Christ’s admonishment to love God and our neighbours.

I honour and respect all forms of spirituality here in Bermuda, but their presence does not refute the timeless truth that a common belief system plays a critical role in maintaining nationhood. We need not all become Christians, thank God. However, I would argue that our historically Christian culture should be carefully nurtured.

Values can evolve; progress can be made. But Tradition must be respected, for it is what preserves our nation’s character amid the hubbub of competing, atomised voices, with nothing to hold them together or morally accountable, but their individual wills to power.

• Stephen Notman is a barrister, writer and college lecturer.