March 28, 2008 at 06:07:36
All You Need is Hate
by Mickey Z.
I did something unexpected the other day: I watched a little of The O'Reilly Factor. The host made two proclamations that might've made me chuckle if they weren't so frighteningly emblematic of America's intellectual vacancy. According to O'Reilly, Arianna Huffington is a member of the "far left" and her website, Huffington Post, is home to "hate speech."
Of course, the myth of a monolithic Left—one that includes everyone from Dan Rather to Derrick Jensen, from Barack Obama to Ward Churchill—is extremely useful to anyone seeking to stifle public debate. However, it only requires an iota of objectivity to recognize that Arianna Huffington dwells in the realm of what might generously be characterized as the "liberal Left" (or, more accurately, the "soft Left"). Along with Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Al Franken, and others of her ilk, Arianna Huffington may not actually be a radical, but will gladly play one on TV.
But let's move now to the far more noteworthy O'Reilly claim: the Huffington Post is a hate site. In a recent article, the popular Fox TV host focused on Huffington Post visitor comments like this one about an ailing Nancy Reagan: "I feel no pity for the bitch who took delight in watching thousands die of a horrible disease and watching the poor having to eat out of dumpsters because of her husband's political beliefs."
Of course, one could justifiably take issue with the harsh tone, the use of the word "bitch," and the assumption that Just-Say-No Nancy consciously "took delight" in others' misery. I'm certainly not endorsing the cowardly commentary of internet trolls, e.g. childish name-calling or the spineless reliance on sexism, racism, etc...but the primary point of the above comment seems germane to me. Our society and our planet are in critical condition (or worse) thanks to willful decisions made by human beings occupying positions of power. So, why are we being so damn polite when talking about these elites? Why do we show any mercy when discussing the villains who knowingly pollute, exploit, wage war, steal, and treat all living things as if they were expendable? Why are we so afraid to hate those most responsible for our current global nightmare?
Well-paid entertainers like O'Reilly cow us into fearing the label of "hater" when, in reality, elected (sic) officials and the corporations that own them display sheer, unrestrained hatred in every move they make. They hate freedom, they hate justice, and they hate solidarity. They hate the environment, plants, animals, and even humans. They hate everything...except fame, power, and profits. Why the hell do we give any of them one shred of respect? They haven't earned our deference; they haven't earned our patience; they haven't earned the benefit of anyone's doubt. They have earned nothing except our utter contempt and loathing.
Pacifist types might cringe at my words and urge us all to eschew hatred. Moderates will talk of the need to find common ground. The candlelight vigil crowd tells us that we must love our enemies. Personally, I'd rather heed the words of Malcolm X: "We are nonviolent with people who are nonviolent with us."
I feel no solidarity with the professional liars who make up the corporate media. I feel no compassion for the career criminals that stock the corporate ranks. I hold no love for the pinstriped mountebanks we call "politicians." If that sounds like "hate speech" to you, well...that's because it is.
Mickey Z. is the author of the forthcoming novel, CPR for Dummies (Raw Dog Screaming Press), and can be found on the Web at .
RLCC Comment: There is nothing wrong with hate. You are supposed to hate evil. However, evil is offense. Offense includes violence. Right along with hating all the things mentioned by Mickey Z, one is supposed to hate violence too. One is supposed to hate all harm. Therefore, Mickey Z needs to become consistent. His hypocrisy is showing. Loving one's enemies does not mean not hating them at the same time. The terms love and hate work within particular contexts. There is a context in which there is a love/hate relationship with all fellow human beings. We are also to turn this spotlight in upon ourselves in the process of soul searching that is so very, very important to overcoming all that we come to know is offense (against God; against all that is right). Our conscience must hate the selfish things we've done. We must loath ourselves as we have been. We must change away from behaving in ways that we learn to loath.
RLCC Comment: There is nothing wrong with hate. You are supposed to hate evil. However, evil is offense. Offense includes violence. Right along with hating all the things mentioned by Mickey Z, one is supposed to hate violence too. One is supposed to hate all harm. Therefore, Mickey Z needs to become consistent. His hypocrisy is showing.
Loving one's enemies does not mean not hating them at the same time. The terms love and hate work within particular contexts. There is a context in which there is a love/hate relationship with all fellow human beings. We are also to turn this spotlight in upon ourselves in the process of soul searching that is so very, very important to overcoming all that we come to know is offense (against God; against all that is right). Our conscience must hate the selfish things we've done. We must loath ourselves as we have been. We must change away from behaving in ways that we learn to loath.
Link to source-webpage, obtained via: OpEdNews - OpEdNews.Com Progressive, Tough Liberal News and Opinion, March 28, 2008, 6:03pm
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)