A misuse of linguistics in theo-cultural comment

There are some good points made in this article and I think that the point -as I understand it- of transcending a blame-victim mentality, is a good one (after all I have recently made similar arguments):
TheOOZE beta | evolving spirituality. � The End of Blame (by Brittian Bullock).
But I would advise the reader to start at paragraph four to avoid an off-putting misapplication of linguistics. I'm really sorry to do a bit of a cutting things out job on this, but it really is hard to read some of these things with a linguistics background in place. I'd encourage Brittian to develop the basic insight (best put in the last couple of paragraphs) which I really think are helpful, but to ditch the linguistics, and the reason for that is what I'll note down below.

Here's the first faux pas: "The English language is structured very aggressively. It’s officially a S-V-O type. Which means that full and proper sentences contain a subject, a verb, and an object (and in that order)"

Yes, English is S-V-O. How is that 'aggressive'? That value judgement has no real genesis within the simple fact of syntactic system; it's hard to know where it's come from. Or why a VSO language such as Hebrew or Japanese isn't 'agressive'. It's the choice of verbs and nouns that achieves 'aggressive' language not the syntax per se. Because the syntax has to be used for both pacific and aggressive -and other- moods and descriptions, it is relatively 'neutral'.

Similarly, "In SVO language there is [sic] always three things present. First there is definitely an action–something’s happening. Second there is a clear object or person it is happening to. And thirdly there is absolutely a subject inacting what’s happening." Yes that's true enough (I'll not quibble for the moment, it's broadly okay). However, that is a description of the roles that are necessarily implied by a transitive verb. Case grammar, for example, is an attempt to construct an approach to grammar that starts with such basic semantic relationships rather than rules for relative ordering of elements (again simplifying). Those relationships are logical and universal and not inherent in SVO languages; VSO have the same things to try to express, they just do it slightly differently.

So, the next move: "thirdly there is absolutely a subject inacting what’s happening. There is always a victim. There is always someone to blame. “Johnny kicked the dog.” is an example of this. The poor dog is being victimized and little Johnny is at fault. ... our brain is constantly throwing around systems of blame." The 'victim' is only properly a victim in sentences where something violent or oppressive is being described or implied. Otherwise we are simply talking about the grammatical object who might in other circumstances be the recipient of a gift ("Johnny stroked the dog" or "Johnny fed the dog") or perhaps the something more neutral ("Johnny saw the dog" or "Johnny called the dog").

And so this is a valid point: "But what if there was an additional sentence I tagged on to the beginning of the earlier phrase about Johnny and his dog? “the dog bit Johnny. Johnny kicked the dog.” well it changes things doesn’t it? Suddenly Johnny doesn’t look so bad."
It just doesn't need the mistaken linguistic analysis that preceded it. The valid point about that is simply about what information is communicated and could be summed up with the old adage 'circumstances alter cases'.

"In fact the Garden/Fall narrative in genesis holds similarities"; yes, and it's told originally in a VSO language; blaming can be done through either syntactic system, clearly. I'm all for a good chunk of what is written about blaming in this article, I'm (as someone with linguistic training) not at all helped by the misleading language analogies.

Then we have another not uncommon but still unhelpful language strategy that a number of preachers and writers engage in. In this article we find it here: "Glory literally means fullness or wholeness". This is a form of the etymological fallacy; the idea that a word (typically, but not exclusively) means "properly" (or "literally" or "correctly" even) what its etymological origins did. This simply isn't so; we need to pay attention to how it is being used in its context (linguistic, social etc). It's etymology may even be misleading as a guide to what a writer or speaker may mean in the present context.