Giving Hatred a Bad Name

Most people – in this culture bereft of moral understanding carelessly utilize the word “hatred” as something of a universal evil; even Pope Francis – the ostensible Vicar of Christ (Note: I am a Roman Catholic) – seems to incoherently utter “hate,” or “hatred” as a causal – or motivational – basis for those which have a differing view with Pope Francis (You see Pope Francis seems a bit confused about his duties – as Pontiff – he seems to think can actually correct Jesus Christ’s teaching, and the teaching Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church…). Thus, Pope Francis impugns the motives of those which resist, and oppose illegal immigration, ascribing “hatred,” racism, nativism, and most recently “populism,” viz: “It is important for young people to know how populism is born,” the pope said Tuesday at a book launch in Rome. “I think of Hitler in the last century, who had promised development for Germany. They should know how populisms begin: by sowing hate. You can’t live sowing hate.” Pope Francis.

Note that we lifted Pope Francis’s words from a Breitbart article titled: “Pope Francis Compares Populists to Hitler, Born of ‘Hate’” which may read @: https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2018/10/24/pope-francis-compares-populists-to-hitler-born-of-hate/

Our current interest is not in discussing the imperial and haughty Pope Francis, nor his views on populism (although we may touch upon such a subject down-the-road), but we think that hatred has been given a bad name, and we think it is time to come to its defense…And the ubiquitous public societal use of the term hate, or hatred, likely exceeds that of the public use of the term love; exceptions: the term love is used excessively inside most Roman Catholic Churches – in lieu sermons which would indicate one’s moral obligations to God – and the least-of-His-brethren – as it is likely utilized often in personal relations…. Hated is lumped in with the incessant ism’s that the social-political Left reflexively attribute to those which do not feel as Leftists feel (Note: we would use “think” in lieu of “feel,” because Leftist thinking is emotionally grounded, and therefore emotional reflex which is expressed in words)…

Let’s go to the dictionary to begin our discussion of hatred. The online dictionary renders: hatred: “the feeling of one who hates; intense dislike or extreme aversion or hostility”; and hate: “to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward;” from: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hatred…

So let us, first of all, see if hate and hatred are universal evils… Suppose – in our travels along the highways and byways which our daily endeavors direct us – we chance upon an individual cheating a marginally mentally handicapped person and one angrily intervenes on the behalf of the handicapped individual; hating the advantage the other was taking of him/her… Or again, one comes across a man accosting a young woman; making unwanted and unsolicited advances upon her person. Angrily one puts a stop to the cad’s despicable actions… Another situation one may have encountered which may incite one’s anger – and hatred – at injustice, viz: suppose a Judge and Constitutional Scholar is given an appointment to SCOTUS; his nomination is opposed because he has demonstrated himself to be constrained to the letter of the law. If a case – or statute – is presented before him, he has shown that he will hold the case and statute to the limitations imposed by the United States Constitution; thinking – in agreement with the Founders – that expansive penumbras as chimeras. The judge – as a consequence of being eminently qualified for a position of Justice on SCOTUS, and meeting every reasonable test, and examination presented – as he awaits the Senate vote, is sandbagged by a number of scurrilously malicious charges from 36 years in his past; the allegations haven’t any corroboration at all, but the judge is placed in a position of guilt, until he may prove himself innocent. You hate the injustice of such actions and the injustice which animates those who calumniate against the judge… Additionally, the Allied powers in WWII hated that the Nazi’s and the Japanese were murdering innocents by the millions, which prompted us from putting and end to the evil of the 3rd Reich and Japanese Imperialism… We could touch many more evils e.g., abortion, sex-traffickers, drug-traffickers, pederasts and pedophiles, Sharia-supremacism, terrorism, parents neglecting their moral obligations to their children, this culture which teaches: “If it feels good, do it” etc. All of those things morally germinate a righteous anger – at the injustices perpetrated by one person – or group – against those which become their victims, and it is that righteous anger and hatred – of the evil acts – which results in making right, what was made wrong.

Thus, hatred may be – but need not be – a moral response to injustice; to the harming of the innocent, and the vulnerable. Those which ascribe hatred to those whose actions that they find objectionable may be guilty of the very thing they accuse others. If they think another’s actions are hateful, and morally objectionable, they should make the case for moral conduct (Pope Francis – as well as others – are morally obliged to do so; this requires more than calling another hateful, or a racist, natives, sexist, homophobe etc.); edifying the in-informed, and/or ill-informed may alter their conduct. If one cannot explain another’s moral failing, then one likely is – like Pope Francis seems to do – confusing one’s feelings with the moral law… Now what is absent in almost every public display (and truth be told private interactions) which is scrutinized by those which enjoy positions of authority is an invocation, articulation and explanation of morality, and moral obligation; there is plenty of moral condemnation, but not a syllable uttered regarding what is moral, why it is moral and why humans are called/obligated to strive to align their behavior in accordance with the moral law.

It is our view that any sincere concerned societal leader (Politicians, teachers, members of the Press, clergy, particularly Pope Francis who habitually laments the environmental issues, but seems okay with sins of the flesh…) regarding social violence, anger, hatred, abuse, etc. would be incessantly discuss objective moral principles (for those concerned about religion involving itself in State affairs, we point to Kant’s Categorical Imperative; we will explain in a subsequent blog post…) as they delineate the moral duties which encumbers each of us as citizens of the United States and as members of the human race… We note that most having positions to teach objective moral codes, are likely incapable of doing so, but they could learn, and they could advocate such teaching to become part of public school curriculums…The United States Constitution presupposes a morally ordered i.e., restrained citizenry (“We the People…in order to form a more perfect Union…”; the Preamble can only be approximated through a moral common ground, which is the necessary condition of any enduring Union); the Founder’s expected the Churches to fulfill this duty, and is largely why Congress was to leave the Churches unaccosted vis-à-vis the 1^st Amendment… The alternative is to continue upon the path our society has chosen lo these last 60-70 years – wherein we denounce – those with whom we have a disagreement – as deplorable hateful bigots of one variety or another; that path which is becoming more and more a dystopia…