“Anger and Cowardice Fester Hate”
To the Wilmington News Journal
Wilmington, Ohio
Re: (1 April, 2017)
3 April, 2017
Haters and Losers
I think it was the curious title which drew my attention to the editorial: “Anger and Cowardice Fester Hate” (Wilmington News Journal, 1 April, 2017). I am not sure of his meaning, but I infer from the rest of the article that by “fester” he means “foster.”
To the point, my objection is that the writer can afford no legitimate place for the love of Good if he cannot account for the proper hatred of its opposite, Evil. Does not He who calls citizens to love what is Good and Right also call His same audience to hate Evil as well?
The proper place, then, for hatred and anger is a worthy discussion for anyone who wishes to truly love what is Good and Right. The writer wished to charge his readers with their ethical duties, accordingly:
“Nothing should give someone justification for threatening or harming people because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or where they were born.”
The author impugns those who “hate” with, well, sin – one may suppose, if one may speak of such an “outdated concept” for our modern world; he heartily disapproves “haters” of any sort. This capitally wrongful sentiment of the hater is a product of “anger” and “cowardice.” That is, our author regards both anger and cowardice, apparently, to be “sins” – if you please – the indulging of which leads to an even greater sin: hate.
There is a virtue, one of the Seven, called “justice,” which requires its adherents to oppose, even inveigh against, its opposite. Exactly such a disposition must to be brought to bear against Lawlessness if justice is to prevail. Indeed, and to properly carry out such, one must be able to discriminate between Right and Wrong; between Justice and Lawlessness.
As the Biblical account has it, we all have an innate understanding of Right and Wrong. It is written – the knowledge of Good and Evil – upon the hearts of everyone. And we, all of us, have violated the standard from “jump street.” We all know we are guilty. This infectious “original sin,” which poisoned the whole race, takes various expressions in violation of the Big Ten. But behind these violations is a disposition of the heart toward self-centeredness. Such a disposition might be homoerotica. It might be pyromania, kleptomania or nymphomania. Some of us “combo” folks have all kinds of inclinations! And, indeed, I aver, it may well include a perverse animus against particular brands of sinners: to wit, the popular neologism, “homophobia.”
Sinners are called to repent, and, ironically, to hate sin; hence, the “self-loathing” syndrome one hears of among modern psychologists.
It surely seems to the normal ethicist that one must hate Evil in order to properly love Good. Thus, there is a proper and desirable hatred. But a person must have some means of distinguishing good from evil in order to fulfill his duty in the matter. Yes, a standard is necessary.
Oujala! I might suggest the very Law of God, loathsome as the notion is to the modernist who has no need of such an archaic and unfashionable means of discriminating between Right and Wrong.
The reader does not know the standard by which the writer names judges some deeds or dispositions to be wrong or sinful and worthy of exposure and denunciation per his editorial. I might offer by illustration of my point a quick opinion upon the three dispositions that he lists. To wit: Cowardice, singularly, is always wrong; it is sin. Anger and hatred may be right or wrong depending upon their objects – good or evil; one must love good and hate evil.
Moreover, he recounts the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center report of great increases in the number of “hate crimes.” No matter that the exponentially increased number of sexually perverse deeds and attendant diseases made known incessantly to the public have increased exponentially since its post-60s unleashing.
I am happy to take up this concern for national morality. To the point, there is no greater national misbehavior, crime, sin, or holocaust than the ceaseless shedding of innocent blood by abortion. And the sexual perversion and infidelity and disease which accompanies this “sexual liberation” was long ago warned against.
But our editorialist, ostensibly, has other greater crimes in mind and he has called us to some ethical or religious standard, some moral obligation. Indeed, he pontificates against threatening or harming people on four particular grounds: race, religion, “sexual orientation,” and birthplace. The first and the last are of no interest; no one in the public arena is arguing for rights on the basis of family tree. The middle two deserve more attention. What about religion and “sexual orientation”?
On what basis does he set forth these commands? Whence came they and how shall he define “religion” and “sexual orientation?” Are all religions to be tolerated? Cannibals? Aztec practitioners of human sacrifice (or other “Native American” religions)? Is there not a distinction to be made between “orientation” and action taken thereupon?
What says our aspiring pontiff of bestiality? Pedophilia? Okay with that?
Incidentally, let the latter “sexual preference” above not be confused with the marriage of young people. On what grounds does current law. or would our author, prohibit sex and marriage for 14-year olds? Catherine the Great was engaged at 14 and married at 16, for example. But she, Germany, and Mother Russia tolerated no sodomy, bestiality, or pedophilia. (Strange how modern folks have acquired a tolerance for all manner of bizarre sexual deviancies and yet cultivated a distaste for marriages among young “heteros”!)
What say you to what we call “settled law”? Canon Law? Precedent? How about Biblical law – indeed, the Law of God as affirmed by Christendom down through the ages? The Commandments; the Big Ten?
When a society is unable to define Right and Wrong in order to distinguish righteous from unrighteous hatred, the accusation, “hater,” becomes nothing more than a political term wielded by one enemy against his opponent.
We could clear up much of the growing confusion by taking up, again, His morality which includes defining and hating evil. “Oh how I love Your law . . . my meditation,” and “I hate every false way” and “I hate those that are double-minded” (Ps. 119: 97-113).
The conclusion of the matter is simple. The real losers are the ones who are, finally, hated by God. Better to mind His Law, rather than be on His bad side.
Comments are currently closed.