Tags
Charity, Christianity, disinformation, domestic terrorists, First Corinthinians, God, hate, Hester Prynne, insurrectionists, Judeo-Christian Tradition, love, misinformation, narcissism, racism, the narrative, The One, The Scarlet Letter, virtue signaling, white supremacy
credit: RILA-faculty
“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”
1 Corinthians 13:13 King James Version
credit: youtube
“The greatest of these is love,” that’s our—contemporary English–translation of “charity.” One might profitably sum up Christianity with that verse alone. Do all Christians—a company in which I am proud to hold membership—“love” everyone? Do they want to buy everybody a Coke and sing in perfect harmony? If you recognize the reference, you’re obviously of an age. The iconic, and very silly, Coca Cola commercial to which I refer aired in 1971, my junior year in high school. It seemed meaningful at the time…
In a word: no. Christians don’t love everybody. They do, however, have a significant advantage over non-Christians: if they’re serious about their faith, they at the very least try not to hate others. They do this by honoring not only scripture, but the Constitution, which was inspired by the Judeo-Christian tradition, and which exhorts us to treat all as equal under the law and essentially, to leave others alone. That, gentle readers, is actual tolerance.
That is also a great advantage of Christianity: no one is forced to believe. No one is canceled, called names or deprived of their job. Yes, I know in centuries past some Christians were as stupid and oppressive as human beings can tend to be. They tried to force others to appear to embrace the one true faith. Some even thought they were doing those they oppressed a favor, the favor of everlasting salvation. But God knows his own, and thankfully, Christianity grew out of those decidedly un-Christian tendencies. Some faiths have not.
Why am I a Christian? Because I’ve studied and decided to take the necessary leap of faith. That I, and more than 2.3 billion others—Christianity remains the largest faith worldwide–have made the same decision does not, as Thomas Jefferson said, break the legs or pick the pockets of those who have not made that choice. I also believe there is, by design, a hole in the souls of men only God can fill. Fulfillment awaits us all—if we wish. Thus endeth the proselytizing for today.
The point is not that I am holier than thou. Lord knows how I’ve failed and continue to fail, how very human I am and always will be. The point is, while I do not love everyone, and find some people disagreeable, and some more than disagreeable, and a smaller portion of humanity actually evil, I choose not to hate. Should someone harm Mrs. Manor, for example, I am tempted to say all bets would be off, but that’s not quite correct. I would merely see that what was necessary to do was done.
Hate, you see gentle readers, destroys the soul. It’s self-destructive, an impossible burden, a conceit that we can, through our hate, affect others and in some warped way, make the world better. It’s an act of malignant narcissism. The world will, of course, be better when we force others to think, speak and act as we prefer, because in the application of our hate, we signal our intellectual and moral superiority. We signal our virtue, because all the “right” people must hate the beliefs, philosophies, actions and persons we hate. How could it be otherwise, particularly if we are the self-imagined, credentialed, extensively schooled, but not educated, elite?
Better that we try to live our lives at least making the effort to love others. We’ll fail. We’re not going to love everyone, but at least it’s the foundation of our beliefs and relationships with others, and that has the potential to truely make the world better. We start, in the political sense, with the Constitution and the social compact, which requires of us little more than obeying the law, doing unto others as we would have them do unto us, and pretty much leaving others alone. The benefits are great, but hate—evil—exists not to make a better world or better people, but to destroy both.
Hate is a powerful emotion, and for those espousing the secular religions of socialism and communism, the driving force. Hate is all-encompassing, seizing the thoughts, desires, intentions and actions of those who allow it to infect them. I say “allow,” because hate is a choice. It destroys common sense, logic and reason and justifies the misery hate produces because when one is justified in their hatred, any means justify the noble ends.
Hate is the driver of racism. We know because the supply of racists, white supremacists, domestic terrorists and insurrections is grossly insufficient to meet the demand. Thus are Americans who merely stood on, or even near, the grounds of the Capital on January 6 all of those things, and all worthy of burning hatred and righteous prosecution because they’re haters! Have I yet mentioned those consumed with hate invariably project their hatred on others, ascribing to them rage and prejudice they do not share?
We know because of innumerable race hoaxes, from lost shoelaces in college dorms to horrifying nooses hanging from construction cranes, a “noose” found on the site of the construction of the temple of The One, and a garage door pull at a NASCAR track, the latter requiring the efforts of no less than 15 FBI agents. We know because virtually every Republican politician, particularly those who are particularly effective and popular, are worse than Hitler, and if you’re not only Hitler, but worse than Hitler, what means is insufficient, what means out of bounds, to effect the end of destroying them?
We know because essentially half of America is now labeled systemically racist, irredeemable, forever branded with the scarlet R of racist, unable to ever cleanse the contagion of racism. The best such hated wretches can ever do is to become “anti-racist,” or “allies” of those who brand them, confessing their eternal damnation, thus demonstrating the superior morality and intellect of those that hate them.
To the rational, the idea that half of America circa 2022 could possibly be racist is beyond absurd. Where is the proof? None is forthcoming, individually or collectively, because hate is its own, ultimate, self-evident proof. Hatred is wrong wherever it works its evil designs, but love, inspired by faith, requires proof, actual evidence and common sense. That man is racist! Those who hate accept the mere accusation as proof, because it aligns the true believer with other true believers and signals their individual and collective virtue. Those who love, or at least recognize the value in the effort, say: “where’s the proof?” They demand proof because they realize the presumption of innocence will not be applied to them if they deny it to others. To do otherwise is to deny the value of all human beings, to give in to hate.
credit: barnes & noble
Hatred is also expressed in THE NARRATIVE. The twisting of language serves to brand those so accused with an indelible scarlet letter. What could those who spread misinformation, disinformation, hate speech or-–gasp—the slightest appreciation for Donald Trump, be other than haters? The application of the label is definitive, and because no proof, other than the accusation/labeling is required, irreversible. Even Hester Prynne’s community began to see her innate goodness, to love rather than hate, but circa 2022, no forgiveness is forthcoming for the labeled.
Hatred is also jealousy—envy–another fundamentally evil virus that afflicts humanity. It seeks to lower others, to reduce them in liberty, their very humanity, ostensibly for their own good and the corporate good, but in reality to vindicate the psychopathology of those that truly hate. Hatred is the driving force of slavery, reducing others in value and humanity that their servitude is self-evidently justified and moral. This is justification for socialism and its more murderous next step, communism, for under those secular religions, all but the elite are slaves.
We see it manifested in hatred for the uncommon, common man, the American who works, contributes, raises a family, obeys the law, the social contract, who honors the Constitution and who leaves others alone. Why should that man or woman be the subject of hate, when those who riot, loot, destroy the life’s work of honorable people, and even murder, are celebrated, proclaimed victims of people who victimize no one. The 2020 “summer of love” was an orgy of hate, encouraged and abetted by those whose hatred is apparent in their self-imagined elite posturing. We see it in the two-tiered system of justice that vilifies the Normal and excuses, even praises the criminal.
Those projecting their hatred reveal their beliefs on the existence of God. God is the source of truth, grace, mercy and love, yet Democrats/Socialists/Communists reject His existence. However, they have no doubt about what constitutes hatred, and ultimately, evil: opposition to their beliefs and policies. Thus do they violently resist “hate speech,” and more recently, “misinformation” and “disinformation” which is essentially anything anyone says or writes that would tend to put them in a bad light—usually telling the truth about them—and/or anything with which they disagree. In essence, the mere existence of those that oppose them is justification for the elimination of the First Amendment and the Constitution in general.
Hatred drives them to reject the very concept of objective truth. They reject the Ten Commandments, even though one need not be Christian to know ignoring them inevitably leads human beings to misery. Instead they substitute “your truth,” or “alternate ways of knowing,” in other words, impossible to support or prove beliefs or assertions, which of necessity reject objective reality. The Commandments are sage advice all moral people practice, purposely or coincidentally.
Food for thought, gentle readers, in our turbulent times. As I’ve so often said, our political troubles would end if all who would be American would willingly embrace our national faith—the Constitution. If our representatives would say, “I want this policy, but it’s unconstitutional, so I’ll not propose it.” Perhaps, it is first necessary to embrace the word of God, before embracing man’s best attempt to codify his Word, and love, or at the very least, avoid hate.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Nice cyber-soliloquy. But in the end you still think only your political motives are correct. By contrast I tend to think mine are more fluid. But then again, I’m more moderate than you… politically. You’ve interpreted the Constitution in a way that seems obvious to you…. yet interpreting the obvious is simply part of that human diversity. It’s the idea that we DO interpret. Whether it’s the Bible or the Constitution, there’s an interpretation to fit all seasons… all justifications. I might “interpret” that this precise reason is why the Founders created the Supreme Court as the judicial stopping point in the interpretation of our freedoms as outlined in that document. Yet that Court is made up of simple humans.. who change over time and are replaced by different humans… who indeed interpret differently than their sitting predecessors.
The tenor of your post here suggests you might be feeling a bit of a social rebuke for being part of that “Trump group” that a majority of the voters have shunned, under a myriad of accusations. You are correct… the man’s politics (or lack thereof) and inept experience coupled with his pathological behavioral dysfunction, indeed occupies my political thoughts, that represent to me that he’s a clear and present danger to the Republic. I don’t happen to agree with the “Yeah, he’s all that, but look at all the good he’s done!” That’s my interpretation. It has zero to do with Biden comparisons. The man announced with fanfare his running in 2024.. yet his entire speech was fact checked as being all lies to deceive, as usual, and his base screamed their approval of those lies. They like his interpretation of what they want to hear.
Dear Doug:
You keep trotting out this tired, transparent “interpretation” dodge. The Constitution is written in language easily understood by the common man. In fact, laws the common man cannot understand are unconstitutional, void for vagueness. Of course the Constitution must be interpreted, but that interpretation is provided for in its text. Likewise, the method for changing the text of the Constitution–constitutional amendment–is also included in its text.
I assert the only way to unite Americans is for all to embrace the Constitution. You dodge the issue. Allowing everyone to interpret, or ignore, the law as they please isn’t working out terribly well, is it? The only political motives that are correct, the only motives that can save our republic, are those enumerated in the Constitution.
And no, I’m feeling no social rebuke whatever, merely laying out issues for us to ponder.
What American(s) have failed to embrace the Constitution? Is this your own summation based on your own interpretation of their actions (or inactions), or have Americans actually stated openly that they do not embrace the Constitution? Please share if you have a list.
Dear Doug:
I can’t decide if you’re playing devil’s advocate or really haven’t been paying attention. But OK, a partial list and a question:
Which group of people, Americans if you will, have advocated, and tried to enact, or have already done these measures:
Abolishing the electoral college?
Packing the Supreme Court?
Committing actual violence at the reversal of Roe?
Legislating from the Oval Office with a pen and a phone?
Usurping the role of the Congress in forgiving student debt?
Passing anti-gun/liberty laws in clear violation of the Second Amendment?
Colluding with big tech to violate the First Amendment freedom of speech?
Denying Americans freedom of religion under the First Amendment (Covid)?
Creating a two-tiered system of justice where leftist criminals are allowed to run amok while persecuting Normal Americans for misdemeanors not normally prosecuted?
Refusing to protect our sovereignty?
And the list goes on and on. Who, I wonder, wants to do, or is doing all of that, and so much more?
I’m a little confused here, Mike. As I recall, a democracy.. ooops.. there’s that pesky semantics again.. I mean.. democratic Republic, operates in a way that allows for opinion and ideas to be presented, debated, and enacted as law or policy according to our Constitution. Challenges to enacted law/policy are also allowed according to our Constitution… and judgements are rendered as to Constitutionality by the courts. Seems to me that all of these items on your list can follow that path… at the State or federal level or both. So, you want to alienate Americans who present ideas for policy, providing said ideas pass YOUR interpretive scrutiny of their Constitutionality (which really means, your moral judgement) before hand?
As I mentioned before, our Constitution manages our Republic by allowing for all ideas to be entertained, and that’s the expression of our freedom. You afraid of a “wrong” idea in your opinion making it through the process? I will agree that sometimes “crap” laws do make it through unscathed… but that’s just my interpretation on what I might consider is a crap law. A number of items on your list here were never even close to being enacted yet you present them as an existential threat to the country. It seems to me any idea that’s presented under the auspices of the Constitution is in fact an embracing of the Constitution and it’s processes. Those that violate the process should be prosecuted as defined under the Constitution.
Where’s the impetus in all this to threaten a civil war?
I mean, if you truly need me to I can go individually down this list to indicate what might be a serious threat or a pie-in-the-sky cautionary tale?
Dear Doug:
No. Constitutional republic. There’s a difference.
There you go, dancing around the issues again.
Not dancing around a thing. Just observing your grievance politics disguised as a cry for unity.
Dear Doug:
Of course. Hoping all Americans will agree to follow the Constitution and the rule of law is a grievance policy.
While you are assembling that list of Americans who have declared themselves as not embracing the Constitution, I’ll continue with this…
“The Constitution is written in language easily understood by the common man.”
You mean, like the Second? Seems it took modern day Supreme Courts to interpret that 18th century “common man-ness” to mean everything but.
“I assert the only way to unite Americans is for all to embrace the Constitution.”
Well, that’s all well and good, but our diversity has guaranteed that we all “embrace” differently. Was there a time in our history that you can point to where we all embraced the Constitution together, equally? Some sort of MAGA point in time we all might want to return back to? When would that be exactly?
“The only political motives that are correct, the only motives that can save our republic, are those enumerated in the Constitution.”
Seems to me the Constitution reflects the way we manage our democracy… oops.. our Republic. Our motives, political or otherwise, one would think, would be dictated by whatever religious or moral conviction we hold dear, along with the spirit by which our country was founded to maintain the individual freedoms we so love.
Democracy in any form can indeed sometimes be “messy”. Our form was never meant to be a Utopia… and it’s gonna get worse as the world population continues to grow (our greatest “unseen” enemy) and the human challenges for survival, whether due to climate, politics, or planet-killing asteroids, become increasingly apparent.
I personally think the Constitution is in need of a language upgrade… but at the same time I doubt the country is “adult” enough to do it with the same moral equivalent as the Founders. Life was far less complicated back then. So.. we stick to what we have and accept the growing diversity of “embracing”.
Dear Doug:
Ah. Then you reject all Americans willingly living under the Constitution. So what then? “Our Democracy?”–the tyranny of the majority? Secession? Civil war? We’re either one country willingly united under the Constitution, or we’re something else, and nothing else is close.
Doug
You do realize that the Constitution is the only thing that gives legitimacy to anything the Federal Government does?
The USC specifies a Republic with democratic tendencies whose reason for being is to protect the Natural Rights of its citizens.
If part of its citizens believe in Natural Rights and another part starts gaining power that sees that concept as just a speed-bump on the way to their totalitarian rule…
That mixture, if heated too high, does not lead to a “lack of unity” it leads to breaking something that cannot be put back together.
Have you even read what a heavy lift it was to get all of the States to join up back in the day?
“You do realize that the Constitution is the only thing that gives legitimacy to anything the Federal Government does?”
That, and our collective allegiance to it.
“If part of its citizens believe in Natural Rights and another part starts gaining power that sees that concept as just a speed-bump on the way to their totalitarian rule…”
To me that’s a rather broad and ill-defined statement, suggesting biased judgement toward some aspect of policy, or anticipated policy yet to follow the Constitutional process.
“That mixture, if heated too high, does not lead to a “lack of unity” it leads to breaking something that cannot be put back together.”
Heat does that universally… but the question is more about what’s causing the heat. Is the goal.. or should the goal be… unity? How is, or should, unity be defined? What does “unity” look like to the degree we are assuming we need more of it? Biden gets elected partially on a platform of “unifying” the nation. To the average voter that might mean simply an application of Rodney King’s suggestion (or my mother yelling an me and my sis)… “everyone just shut the hell up and just get along”.
“Have you even read what a heavy lift it was to get all of the States to join up back in the day?”
I’m a humanist so I tend to see things as part of human group dynamics. Absolutely ratification was a heavy lift across the Thirteen Colonies. I significantly doubt such a similar document could be created today inside our complex society… and wide diversity (and well beyond just diversity in ethnicity). Some of that back in the late 1780’s was tempered by each state creating their own individual Constitution.. given all politics is local. And once created there even was civil unrest across some states regarding taxation and federal limitations. It was a struggle.
Not sure your point.
Doug
I checked with some fact checkers who all agreed that that everything you wrote here is false.
Ah… it’s all about the sources, is it not?
Living successfully in the World has always meant getting good at sorting out truth from ever present deceptions made by dedicated and skilled deceivers – going back eons.
Regarding sources: I like to ask, “How accurate have their predictions been, uno, about the future before it was revealed by events?”
Fauci or the Great Barrington authors?
All those who predicted DJT would go nowhere in politics vs those who said he was going to be elected?
Who said Russiagate was legit and the Walls are closing in?
I could go on forever.
Sources, indeed.
Dear Rum:
Those disparaging a given source have the obligation to prove that source wrong, not merely sneer at the source as though the sneering is itself proof.
Have your fact checkers check this:
The “hammer” that Paul Pelosi was assaulted with was Nutty Nancy Pelosi’s Grand Gavel.