...to paraphrase the Bo Diddly song. As I am writing this, a number of people are calling for my head after I presumed to ask how offensive it is to publicly declare hatred. Apparently the question itself is very offensive. Firing offensive. Never coming to this site again offensive. (Please, please, please reconsider. What would we do without you?) Destructive offensive. In other words, unpardonable with or without a public apology and exile to a re-education camp. I will leave for another day the fascinating question of why so many, especially anonymous, posters were so threatened by the question even being asked.
I wrote recently about the difficulty in dealing with people who publicly display their hatred; in that case, bloggers who hated the Catholic Church. A week later, former Miami Heat player Tim Hardaway declared that he "hates gay people". I heard the offending part of the interview and it was startling for its sincerity and the athlete’s complete ignorance of the coming public reaction.
But the question remains: what public declarations of hatred are acceptable? Some ground rules first. Everybody’s hatred is not equal. If I say I hate the Celtics, or head cheese, it is understood that I mean I really, really don’t like them. We are not talking about that, though this is what Hardaway may have actually had in mind. Let’s assume, for purposes of discussion only, that the athlete and the anti-Catholic bloggers "hate" in the literal sense.
A practicing Christian, by way of example, may feel a certain way about Catholics, or lawyers or gays, but is not allowed to treat them badly. Instead, he must treat them well. Thinking well of Jews and Muslims, I assume they have similar requirements placed on them by their religions. But none of us, either as a matter of religion, morality or common sense is required to think well of Catholics, gays and lawyers. Of course, one way to treat them well is to not publicly humiliate them. What the athlete and Edward’s bloggers said probably did not amount to public humiliation, at least of their intended targets. They have instead humiliated themselves and their employers by their public confession of private unworthy feelings, feelings shared my many others too fearful or too smart to say what they think.
So, to the feelings of outrage; where do they come from and how helpful are they? I argued several weeks ago that there should be no calls by Catholics for firing John Edwards’ anti-Catholic bloggers. Personally, as a Catholic and a conservative, I appreciate knowing their attitude. If I were gay, I would like to think my reaction to the athlete would be similar. His hatred doesn’t affect me at all. It is his problem. I don’t want him crawling to whomever is the gay equivalent of Jesse Jackson and begging forgiveness. Who would believe it anyway? The whole purpose of those kinds of public exhibitions is to humiliate the bigot, a liberal trick that some conservatives are envious of and wish to emulate. Many, many people hate gays, Catholics and lawyers (If I could just get in touch with my gay self, I would hit the trifecta); they just don’t say it out loud. Despite the new tone of their public selves, Michael Richards, Hardaway (eventually) and the bloggers are most likely to harden their feelings (which will hereafter be kept secret) after the public humiliation, the modern equivalent of stoning.
Love is word that is used loosely, and its converse no less so. Mostly when people use either word they don’t mean it. Mostly, when people express outrage, they don’t mean it either. They are just grateful all their secret thoughts, worthy and unworthy, remain secret.
So readers, what is the public harm that comes from people expressing what they actually feel, if what they feel is hate? Don’t forget the "why" part of your answer.
John
Hate, for me, is a word and sentiment used very reservedly. I hate Osama bin laden. I hate the memory of the man who was Adolf Hitler. Those are the sorts of extreme cases where I tend to actually think and feel hatred. Other than that, it's more a matter of strong dislike, dislike, etc. etc. I strongly dislike George W. Bush, for example, but I by no means hate him. And that's not being semantical. This is something I have given a great deal of thought to over the years, and have arrived at this pattern of thinking and feeling quite comfortably. There are two primary reasons for this:
1) It's just not in me to feel hatred for people, only in extreme cases. Guess it's the way I'm put together. For those that seem to feel hatred at the drop of a hat, or use the term loosely (as you point out that others use "love" loosely), I'm more dumbfounded than anything. That, and I feel sorry for them.
2) Hate is an extremely negative emotion and state of mind - in fact, it is probably THE most negative. It's easy for it to become destructive (what do my two examples - bin laden and hitler - have in common? They were both fueled by hate, hence the reality that, yes, hate CAN affect others). For this reason, it's good for folks not to feel such things very often, and to certainly not dwell on it when they do.
I actually don't recall the word "hate" being used too loosely, which is why Hardaway's remarks took me aback so much. We don't often hear someone using the word "hate" in a serious manner. And, unlike yourself, I don't believe that a lot of people are going around with hate in their hearts, but just don't say it. Strong dislike? Yes, possibly. But hate? Nah. Of course, I could be either transposing my own criteria onto others, or looking at the world through a Pollyanna looking glass. Or, I could just have some faith in humanity that, despite all our foibles, we're most of us basically good people plugging along doing the best we know how. And hopefully learning a little on the way.
John, this is your best post ever. As an "anonymous" who often raises ire from both conservatives and liberals on this blog, I have had expressions of hate and other insults hurled at me. I, too, have asked, 'what is wrong with expressing one's belief, one's opinion, even if, or especially if, they run counter to the standard being held at the moment"?
I don't hate liberals and I don't hate conservatives. I don't hate Catholics and I don't hate athiests. I don't agree with hard conservatives and hard liberals, or with Catholics or athiests, but nearly every time I question a comment made, I am almost immediately branded, branded being a manifestation of hate, as a member of what is perceived as a member of the "other" group, e.g. if I question a conservative I am immediately "branded" as a liberal, and vice versa. Neither could be farther from the truth. OK, I am more conservative than liberal, but not that conservative, nor am I liberal.
My point is, people should listen to what they perceive is "the other side". Sometimes, 'the other side" makes good points. So long as people are treated with the respect due to them as fellow human beings, those ideas and concepts held by them should be subject to discussion. Minds can be changed. I'm not gay, don't want to be, and don't hang around with gays, but gays have the right, under the law, to do what they want within legal limits. To "hate" gays is wrong. To "hate" conservatives or liberals is wrong. To "hate" Osama Bin Laden is wrong. As a firm believer in Jesus, I have been taught that Jesus would not "hate" OBL. or Hitler, or GW Bush, or Hillary, or anyone.
God's second command, after love God, is to love your neighbor. The difficulty is loving those who you would otherwise "hate".
Hate is a human emotion. We have been taught to rise above it as best we can, and to accept that we cannot. To work to be better. To "hate" the sin (whatever that may be in your construct) but not the sinner.
"Hate" is honest. Wrong, but honest. So let's all try to understand, people are different, and are all God's children. Let's all try to be a little more tolerant of other people and of their opinions.
John,
I sit in awe of the honesty of this post. But seriously, don't you think it's time to give head cheese another chance?
Wally,
Thank you for your kind words. Based on my related earlier post, I expected to get blasted early and often. That may still be coming. With regard to head cheese, I will try that again the same day I try blood sausage again.
John
For Christians, a feeling of hatred towards people is clearly something that we should never, ever embrace or accept. Christ told us to love our enemies, so who's left to be hated? The harm in expressing hatred is that we then accept our sinful feelings rather than attempting to address and remove the hatred. When Christians speak out against homosexual acts and other sin, we are not hating the person, just the action. This is something that liberals often have trouble understanding, as evidenced by their support for hate speech laws.
you so don't get it. sayting "homosexuality is bad" is the same to homosexuals as saying "african-americanism is bad" to african americanism. being told your whole ife is wrong, when you have no choice over your orientiation, is hate speech.
not to mention the words tossed around while "hating the sin," like fag etc
Dear Mike,
I agree with everything you said. But my question is this: Given that even Christians have been known to sin, what is the public harm of expressing your hatred publicly? The sin is in the hatred and exiists whether or not you tell anyone. Are we better off as a society if we know what people think, or are we better off not knowing and perhaps not then encouraging it?
John
To Mike:
Is it true that every time a "hateful" word is used that it is hateful? If an Af-Am uses the N word to another Af-Am, is it as hateful as a Cauc-Am using the N word? If a gay person uses the Q word, is it as hateful as a hetero using the Q word? Why may gays chant, "We;re here, we're queer ..." but if a hetero uses the Q word it is hateful?
Isn't it all about intent? Or context? Or the feeling held or meant to be conveyed? Or is ok to spew to draw a reaction from heteros, but not ok to spew to draw a reaction from gays?
I think we get it, we just need to know what to get. What are the "ground rules" and do they apply equally, or just if you are not in the "group" you can't use the "group's" words?
Please explain.
Allow me to channel Ralph Langenheim for a moment, and respond to this thread with just a quote:
Speech is speech, even if it's stupid.
Democrat State's Attorney Julia Rietz.
sayting "homosexuality is bad" is the same to homosexuals as saying "african-americanism is bad" to african americanism
For most Christians, or at least according to the Bible, homosexuality is no better or worse than any other fornication or adultery. It's quite true that many have tried to connect certain behavior with identity, but I don't think some one with homosexual feelings is any more bound to them than someone with any other sexual urge.
Regarding John's question about the public benefit of holding in your hatred, or in general, keeping some thoughts to yourself, I think there is at least a benefit to the individual in doing so. C S Lewis pointed out that a peculiar thing about humans is that we feel what we want to do, and at the same time, have an idea of what we ought to do, and these two things are not always the same. I think choosing the latter builds character.
However, I think in political and societal discourse these days, the things that people keep to themselves are not necessarily mean things, but things that "offend" the easily offended.
For example, years ago I wrote a short article that was published in a conservative campus paper that examined the racist criticism of black conservatives. The responses I got from black readers focused on the aspect that I am white and I don't have any right to say anything about "their" people. Very often, one group tells another group that only they have the right to comment on "their" people. While there is some emotional appeal to this aspect of "We have control of our identity", if you think about it for a while, you'll realize that this "rule" can pretty much silence any opposing views. This is especially true given the trend to turn behaviors into "identity".
Anyway, it was amusing seeing the comments calling for the "firing" of John. I say Gordy should double his salary ;)
Thank you Adam. I was just going to ask for cost of living.
You have answered the half of the question I didn't ask. I agree that it may be better for the individual to stifle uncharitable thoughts. On the other hand, I get the distiinct impression that Hardaway and the blogresses had not concluded their thoughts were "hatred." Thus, I wouldn't expect any stifling except the IQ kind. That is, the understanding how other people will react. So, back to my question. Are we better off as a society if we know what people are thinking? Otherwise put, do we want people self-censoring to avoid politically correct public corrections? Say that three times fast.
John
So far I have found this thread fascinating -- it certainly made me examine my own feelings about hate and its public expression. I think an important part of this issue is each individual's interpretation of the word "hate." My initial reaction to the word is strongly negative, and I would characterize myself as one who tries very hard to suppress and ultimately dispatch that emotion.
HOWEVER, using the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as a resource, I looked up the actual definitions of the term:
• verb feel intense dislike for or a strong aversion towards.
• noun 1 intense dislike; strong aversion. 2 informal a disliked person or thing. 3before a noun denoting hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice: a hate campaign.
Rather than providing clarification, these definitions seem to make one's own interpretation of the word even more subjective. For example, a have an "intense dislike for" or "strong aversion to" all sorts of things, including Brussels sprouts, but even if I say "I hate Brussels sprouts," the word in that context has an entirely different meaning than in the declaration, "I hate homosexuals."
I even have an intense dislike for certain individuals, though that number is very small. I would stop short of saying I hate them, but at that point is it just a matter of semantics?
My internal value system does not allow me to hate a person or persons only actions or inanimate objects.
It's about time somebody stood up for hate! Poor racists, having to hear people dissaprove of racism!
Or, wait, sorry....rather, you're standing against those who stand against hate....or you're standing up for the expression of hate, and against those are against those who express it....
Or....or...wait, what were you doing? Whatever it is, it sure seems icky. In my book there's nothing wrong when people disapprove of public expressions of irrational hatred. Nobody forced Michael Richard to apologize---he could have kept shouting the n-word for the rest of his days. Last I checked people had freedom of speech to object to hatred, just as they have it to announce hatred. Or was there something I missed?
"Last I checked people had freedom of speech to object to hatred, just as they have it to announce hatred."
Exactly.
If you hear speech you find objectionable, the best remedy is your own words.
I am impressed by the Bo Diddley reference.
Oil Man,
How nice for you. My internal value system is not so flawless. I do, however, have a difficult time wrapping my brain around hating things. Perhaps you could tell us some of the things you hate and how they have reacted.
John
You asked, John---I hate the way the glass looks after I drink all of the buttermilk. I hate seeing cigarette butts and other people discards on sidewalks, streets and roadways. I hate the poor traffic patterns in the City of Urbana. I hate seeing people not stop before turning right-on-red, I hate partisan politics at the local level. And the list goes on.......
"...how they have reacted." NO reaction, so far, from these actions or inaimate objects.
Oilman,
I think it is safe to assume you have moved on to oranges while the rest of us are still at apples.
John "bananas" Bramfeld
When I was in junior high, my best friend would occasionally remark "I hate bigots," and then we would laugh like loons at how clever we were. I still think about it forty years later, so much so that it was my automatic response at seeing the title of this thread.