To the Wilmington News Journal
\nWilmington, Ohio
\nRe: \u00a0(1 April, 2017)<\/p>\n
3 April, 2017<\/p>\n
Haters and Losers<\/p>\n
I think it was the curious title which drew my attention to the editorial: “Anger and Cowardice Fester Hate” (Wilmington News Journal<\/em>, 1 April, 2017).\u00a0\u00a0 I am not sure of his meaning, but I infer from the rest of the article that by “fester” he means “foster.”<\/p>\n To the point, my objection is that the writer can afford no legitimate place for the love<\/em> of Good if he cannot account for the proper hatred<\/em> of its opposite, Evil.\u00a0 Does not He who calls citizens to love<\/em> what is Good and Right also call His same audience to hate<\/em> Evil as well?<\/p>\n The proper place, then, for hatred and anger is a worthy discussion for anyone who wishes to truly love what is Good and Right.\u00a0 The writer wished to charge his readers with their ethical duties, accordingly:<\/p>\n “Nothing should give someone justification for threatening or harming people because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or where they were born.”<\/p>\n The author impugns those who “hate” with, well, sin<\/em> – one may suppose, if one may speak of such an “outdated concept” for our modern world; he heartily disapproves “haters” of any sort.\u00a0 This capitally wrongful sentiment of the hater is a product of “anger” and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 –\u00a0 the indulging of which leads to an even greater sin: hate.<\/p>\n There is a virtue, one of the Seven, called “justice,” which requires its adherents to oppose, even inveigh against, its opposite.\u00a0 Exactly such a disposition must to be brought to bear against Lawlessness if justice is to prevail.\u00a0 Indeed, and to properly carry out such, one must be able to discriminate between Right and Wrong; between Justice and Lawlessness.<\/p>\n As the Biblical account has it, we all have an innate understanding of Right and Wrong.\u00a0 It is written – the knowledge of Good and Evil –\u00a0 upon the hearts of everyone. \u00a0And we, all of us, have violated the standard from “jump street.”\u00a0 We all know we are guilty.\u00a0 This infectious “original sin,” which poisoned the whole race, takes various expressions in violation of the Big Ten.\u00a0 But behind these violations is a disposition of the heart toward self-centeredness.\u00a0\u00a0 Such a disposition might be homoerotica.\u00a0 It might be pyromania, kleptomania or nymphomania.\u00a0\u00a0 Some of us “combo” folks have all kinds of inclinations!\u00a0 And, indeed, I aver,\u00a0 it may well include a perverse animus against<\/em> particular brands of sinners: to wit, the popular neologism, “homophobia.”<\/p>\n Sinners are called to repent, and, ironically, to hate sin;\u00a0 hence, the “self-loathing” syndrome one hears of among modern psychologists.<\/p>\n It surely seems to the normal ethicist that one must hate<\/em> Evil in order to properly love<\/em> Good.\u00a0 Thus, there is a proper and desirable hatred.\u00a0\u00a0 But a person must have some means of distinguishing good from evil in order to fulfill his duty in the matter.\u00a0 Yes, a standard<\/em> is necessary.<\/p>\n Oujala!\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0\u00a0 I might offer by illustration of my point a quick opinion upon the three dispositions that he lists.\u00a0 To wit: Cowardice, singularly, is always wrong;\u00a0 it is sin.\u00a0 Anger and hatred may be right or wrong depending upon their objects – good or evil;\u00a0 one must love good and hate evil.<\/p>\n Moreover, he recounts the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center report of great increases in the number of “hate crimes.”\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n I am happy to take up this concern for national morality.\u00a0 To the point, there is no greater national misbehavior, crime, sin, or holocaust than the ceaseless shedding of innocent blood by abortion.\u00a0 And the sexual perversion and infidelity and disease which accompanies this “sexual liberation” was long ago warned against.<\/p>\n But our editorialist, ostensibly, has other greater crimes in mind and he has called us to some ethical or religious standard, some moral obligation.\u00a0 Indeed, he pontificates against threatening or harming people on four particular grounds: race, religion, “sexual orientation,” and birthplace.\u00a0\u00a0 The first and the last are of no interest;\u00a0 no one in the public arena is arguing for rights on the basis of family tree.\u00a0 The middle two deserve more attention.\u00a0 What about religion and “sexual orientation”?<\/p>\n On what basis does he set forth these commands?\u00a0 Whence came they and how shall he define “religion” and “sexual orientation?”\u00a0 Are all religions to be tolerated?\u00a0 Cannibals? Aztec practitioners of human sacrifice (or other “Native American” religions)?\u00a0\u00a0 Is there not a distinction to be made between “orientation” and action taken thereupon?<\/p>\n What says our aspiring pontiff of bestiality? Pedophilia? Okay with that?<\/p>\n 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?\u00a0 Catherine the Great was engaged at 14 and married at 16, for example.\u00a0 But she, Germany, and Mother Russia tolerated no sodomy, bestiality, or pedophilia.\u00a0 (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”!)<\/p>\n What say you to what we call “settled law”?\u00a0 Canon Law?\u00a0 Precedent?\u00a0 How about Biblical law –\u00a0 indeed,\u00a0 the Law of God as affirmed by Christendom down through the ages?\u00a0 The Commandments; the Big Ten?<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n We could clear up much of the growing confusion by taking up, again, His morality which includes defining and hating evil. \u201cOh how I love Your law . . . my meditation,\u201d and \u201cI hate every false way\u201d and \u201cI hate those that are double-minded\u201d (Ps. 119: 97-113).<\/p>\n The conclusion of the matter is simple.\u00a0\u00a0 The real losers are the ones who are, finally, hated by God.\u00a0 Better to mind His Law, rather than be on His bad side.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" To the Wilmington News Journal Wilmington, Ohio Re: \u00a0(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).\u00a0\u00a0 I am not sure of his meaning, but I infer from the rest […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9,18,21,26,37],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2444"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2444"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2444\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2449,"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2444\/revisions\/2449"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2444"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2444"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/michaelbray.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2444"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}