What happens when only one side defines hate

[Cathoholic]

August 9, 2019

What happens when only one side defines hate​

By Jeffrey T. Brown

If you’re keeping score at home, here is where we are:

Whiteness = hate crime;

Red hat = hate crime;

Masculinity = hate crime;

Patriotism = hate crime

Enforcing laws = hate crime;

Statements of objective fact = hate crime;

Forming opinions based on facts = hate crime;

Being in or supporting the military = hate crime;

Being in or supporting law enforcement = hate crime;

Supporting candidates who aren’t Democrats = hate crime;

Christianity = hate crime;

Speaking out against real hate crimes = hate crime;

Pointing out hoaxes and frauds that create fake hate crimes = hate crime;

Opposing the murder, assault, rape or maiming of innocent citizens = hate crime;

Identifying the malignant actions of hate-filled people = hate crime;

Demanding equal enforcement of the law regardless of political affiliation = hate crime;

Desiring actual justice over political/socialist justice = hate crime;

Questioning Democrats about their history or admissions of bigotry and hatred = hate crime;

Pointing out clear conflicts of interest and hypocrisy = hate crime;

Not believing false accusations of unsubstantiated events = hate crime;

Not applauding destructive behavior = hate crime;

Opposing mob rule, anarchy and violence = hate crime;

Desiring to have the means to defend oneself from criminals, private and public = hate crime;

Saying or doing anything that does not lead to totalitarianism = hate crime.

All of these equations have something in common . . . .

. . . Unfortunately, Marxists know that the death of their opponents will eventually come to be seen by their believers as a reasonable option if they can successfully define them as so deplorable and so irredeemable that their complete removal, even by death, is what is necessary for the “greater good,” as the most evil among us now see fit to define it. . . .

. . . Those who subscribe to authoritarianism or support its advocates are being conditioned, per the unique pedigree and history of that movement, to accept that the physical assault and deaths of their resistant philosophical enemies is not only reasonable, but “morally” necessary. Bill Ayers, president Obama’s mentor, foresaw this necessity long ago, when he told FBI informant Larry Grathwohl that the extermination of at least 25 million Americans who refused to conform would be necessary . . .

What happens when only one side defines hate

If you're keeping score at home, here is where we are: Whiteness = hate crime; Red hat = hate crime; Masculinity = hate crime; Patriotism = hate crime; Enforcing laws = hate crime; Statements of objective fact = hate crime; F...

www.americanthinker.com

 

[abucs]

The whole idea of the term ‘hate crime’ is the Left’s attempt at replacing religion with its own state enforced ethical system.

Christianity believes in a good creator who invites us to search for the meaning of goodness through personal action and reflection. It teaches us through the incarnation that self sacrifice and humility are tools in this search together with fostering love where possible for others.

The Leftist religion teaches life is about one group using its power over another. There is no higher search. The state is the highest power and it legislates us into separate tribes based on race, gender, class etc. Goodness is about using the state to force separate tribes to act in a way that promotes biased and hierarchical forms of equality, however that is defined by the state.

In Christianity sin is realizing the actions of goodness which takes one to God and then rejecting it.

In secular Leftism a hate crime is anything which opposes the state defined good of equality.

There can be some overlap between what is a sin and what is a ‘hate crime’. But there is also an overlap between what is the good of God and a ‘hate crime’.

In the end, because it is totalitarian, the Leftist religion condemns Christianity as a hate crime.

Trying to make peace with the Leftist religion is simply submitting to it’s authority and waiting to be judged by it.

In our search as Christians , I believe God is found down the path of opposing the Leftist religion, not submitting to it.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone define most of those things as “hate crimes.” Honestly the left is much less fixated on hate crimes than the right are. Hate crimes are generally something introduced by the state, not something demanded by left-wing movements outside of the state.

Also how can you support authoritarianism but also hate the police and the army? In your fantasy where the Democrats impose a dictatorship, who is going to enforce their rule?

 

[angel12]

If you’re keeping score at home, here is where we are:

Whiteness = hate crime;

All credibility lost in the first line. And it goes downhill from there. Total hogwash.

 

[Peeps]

All credibility lost in the first line. And it goes downhill from there. Total hogwash.

No, I think you should do some more thinking.

“White privilege” is a phrase that has been used to describe how “being white” automatically gives whites major advantages over people of color. In other words, just by being white, I am perpetuating racism (which is a form of hatred!). As if I can help it! And when we ask what we are supposed to do about this “white privilege,” there is no real answer other than, "Give us all your money and possessions, and give us your places in the workplace and give us state of the art schools and give us admission into all the best colleges and give us beautiful homes and childcare and transportation—give us all the stuff that white people have had over the decades just because they are white (not because they work hard, stay away from drugs, avoid getting into the trouble with the law, marry and stay married to the same person, and raise our children to be good citizens). Non-white people DESERVE the same “privileges” that white people have basked in for centuries.

If you have not encountered this mindset in your area, you are fortunate. I find it counter-productive to stopping racism. It creates resentment in people who have to pay almost half their income in various taxes to help people who won’t help themselves because they blame “white privilege.”

Fortunately, there are many people of color who do reject this thinking and are on board with the ideas of hard work, good education, strong family values, and belief in God and involvement in a church.

 

[GiftofMercy]

The law is not a moral compass.
Crime is not a moral compass.
A meme doing the rounds at the moment

Anna Frank, those who killed her were following the law.
Those who hid her were breaking the law.

The law of God and the teachings of Jesus are are only true moral compass
The secular world’s definitions of left, right, hate, love, are not ours in considering a moral compass.

 

[angel12]

No, I think you should do some more thinking.

Wow, make assumptions much?

As he stated them, his list is hogwash. And I’m using that word only because it’s more polite than an accurate description would be. You can interpret the words anyway you choose to try to make them true, but his actual statements are not.

 

[dvdjs]

In other words, just by being white, I am perpetuating racism (which is a form of hatred!).

Hardly. The idea of white privilege is that being white in this country affords you some degree of immunity against inequities in treatment that are regularly visited upon people of color.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The whole idea of the term ‘hate crime’ is the Left’s attempt at replacing religion with its own state enforced ethical system.

In the USA an actual hate crime (which has nothing to do in the assertions of the OP) involves an action that is a crime. For example, killing someone is a crime. Killing someone because they are white, or black, or a woman, or a man is a hate crime.

Edit
And just to be clear, a “crime” is an action (or inaction) that is prohibited and may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. It appears that the OP is using the word “crime” in a way that isn’t consistent with what the USA actually considers a law.

If you want to find more information on what the USA considers a hate crime and why take a look at the FBI’s site on the topic.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes

Defining a Hate Crime​

A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

 

[Theo520]

Hardly. The idea of white privilege is that being white in this country affords you some degree of immunity against inequities in treatment that are regularly visited upon people of color.

If ‘white privilege’ is so powerful

• Why didn’t Obama identify as being white?
• Why did Elizabeth Warren pretend to be Indian?
• Why did Kamala pretend to be “African American”?
• Why did Robert O’Rourke pretend to be Hispanic?

 

[Rockoh22]

All credibility lost in the first line. And it goes downhill from there. Total hogwash.

Liberal CNN commentator Angela Rye had a fiery exchange with a Republican strategist during a panel discussion Monday night, telling him that “white men who think like you” are the “greatest terrorist threat in this country.”

Go to the video at 1:30 she states it clearly. White men is the problem.

CNN commentator to Republican guest: 'White men who think like you' are the 'greatest terrorist threat' in US

Liberal CNN commentator Angela Rye had a fiery exchange with a Republican strategist during a panel discussion on Monday night, telling him that "white men who think like you" are the "greatest terrorist threat in this country."

www.foxnews.com

 

[Cathoholic]

Emeraldlady . . . .

Anyone who thinks Trump represents Christianity . . .

Yet another Emeraldlady straw man argument.

(Somehow I knew “Trump” was going to get dragged into this thread and Emeraldlady did not disappoint.)

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady . . . .

Anyone who thinks Trump represents Christianity . . .

You reference a conservative blog bagging ‘the left’ as calling Christianity a ‘hate crime’. What else does that mean than this ‘left’ is against Trumpist Christian ideals?

 

[Cathoholic]

Emeraldlady . . .

What else does that mean than this ‘left’ is against Trumpist Christian ideals?

It means just what the title says it means.

What happens when only one side defines hate.

If you want a thread on “Trump” why not just start one?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Awesome observation!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Why didn’t Obama identify as being white?

In the United States there had classification rules/laws that became collectively known in the south as the “One Drop Rule.” In a nutshell if someone had any traceable African American ancestry they were considered black. Those rules were primarily used for laws around slavery and Jim Crow, but there appears to be some aspect of it that has embedded itself in American culture. While it didn’t stop someone from identifying as white it would interfere with others taking them seriously.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html

 

[Cathoholic]

ThinkingSapien . . . .

In the United States there had classification rules/laws that became collectively known in the south as the “One Drop Rule.”

Yeah Theo. So the Obama team WANTED to use this white privilege in their election strategy, but some of the team members reviewed things and said . . .

. . . “Oh oh. Check it out. We’ve got the “One Drop Rule” to contend with!”

After that meeting Obama was stuck.

Is this (or anything like this) what you are implying ThinkingSapien??

If so would you mind backing it up.

If not, WHY bring it up in this context?

@Theo520 explicitly asked (here it is again) why Obama did not invoke this “privilege” (and you put up this post talking about a “One Drop Rule” that is irrelevant to Obama claiming or at least emphasizing his black or his white heritage in a presidential election contest).

And at least I am thinking . . . .So what?!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Hey there, that is quite an interesting interpretation that you’ve got.

 

[Peeps]

Hardly. The idea of white privilege is that being white in this country affords you some degree of immunity against inequities in treatment that are regularly visited upon people of color.

I happen to believe that reparations to African Americans are a good idea. I would support laws that provide a reasonable reparation to African Americans.

I think that had Pres. Lincoln lived, black people might have been assimilated into the U.S. even as many other ethnic groups have been accepted and allowed to succeed.

But Pres. Lincoln was murdered, and a weak President (General Grant–a great general, but terrible President!) took the reigns and reconstruction was a disaster, and the Democratic Party supported organizations like the Ku Klux Klan that terrorized black people, and white people, including “Christian” white people, continued to believe that black people were not completely human, but a “lowly” species that needed charity rather than acceptance and equality.

Decades of “dehumanization” of black people–believing them to be less than human–has caused tremendous harm to African American progress–this isn’t “white privilege,” but rather, an evil belief that is only now beginning to be refuted by most educated people in this country.

Whenever a group of people is dehumanized, it becomes possible to treat them any way we wish. This is what happened to the European Jews in the first half of the 20th century–for centuries, people believed that they were “sub-human”, and this made all kinds of atrocities acceptable, since they were “beasts,” or “vermin,” not human.

The same thing is happening in the U.S. right now with unborn children–people are refusing to accept the science of genetics that proves that an embryo is fully human, just not mature yet–and instead, these embryos and fetuses are consider “not human,” which makes their violent destruction acceptable and even desirable.

I believe that after so many centuries of being viewed as “subhuman” or “non-human”, African Americans deserve some kind of reparation that will hopefully elevate their status to “fully human”, and enable them to become fully assimilated into the U.S. population and have all the tools they need to acquire their share of the American Dream.

As for white privilege–I don’t believe it. It’s not white privilege that helped white people to succeed in the U.S. while the black neighbors languished in poverty and remained under-educated and unable to even buy bootstraps, let alone pull themselves up by them.

I believe it was white EVIL a great and terrible evil because it came from the father of lies, Satan himself–and evil that enticed white people to buy into the lie that black people are not fully human. This evil lie kept black people from sharing in all the opportunities that the U.S. offers.

And I believe that at this time in history, the majority of white people are rejecting the “sub-human” lie and welcoming black people into their lives because we recognize that they are, indeed, fully human and deserving of all the privileges that human beings enjoy in this land.

 

[Cathoholic]

Peeps . . . .

I happen to believe that reparations to African Americans are a good idea. I would support laws that provide a reasonable reparation to African Americans.

The nice thing is Peeps, you don’t need a “law”.

You can just send a monthly check from you to any “African Americans” you want to without legislating.

I personally think your attitude is condescending toward blacks, but you can do it your way without me on board. You can send out checks from your own bank account right now.