Recently, much hay has been made about a Guest Opinion that claimed people who display a Hate has no home here sign are hypocrites in that such signs are code for I hate Trump.

Although it is usually impossible to judge the intentions of actions, the display of such signs logically demands that the owners claim they hate no one, that they are sending a message to some who, in their opinion, do hate others, and that they are morally superior to such haters.

The problem is that the sentiment Hate has no home here can only be justified religiously under the rubric that humans are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Secularism has as its basis that religious beliefs are merely personal, biased world views. Even if God does exist, he, or at least his revelations to humanity, are irrelevant to the public square.

Secularism appears to be stuck in the Enlightenment, which claimed that morals could be justified by pure, detached reason, as if that overall project has not been discredited by academics for over 100 years.

So, without a religious basis, morality becomes a mere shouting match over who can scream the loudest or act the most indignant. Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote all animals ... strive instinctively for an optimum combination of favourable (sic) conditions which allow them to expend all their energy and achieve their maximum feeling of power. Thus, if person A thinks it is to his or her advantage to discriminate against person B, who are you to judge? One could even argue this is perfectly Darwinian. Ironically, the quote comes from Nietzsches book, Beyond Good and Evil.

We have here a clear example of how the pen is mightier than the sword. The ideas that permeate a culture are far more dangerous than even going to war. Barack Obamas dissemination of his functional atheism (as he was labeled by famous atheist Richard Dawkins) has had a far more pernicious effect on our culture than Donald Trumps personal puerile and bellicose behavior ever could. For example, the Family Research Council (admittedly a Christian organization) claims in its report Hostility to Religion: The Growing Threat to Religious Liberty in America, that there has been a 76 percent increase in violations (might we say hate toward?) of legitimate religious freedoms that can be tied directly to Obama administration policies.

Additionally, the hatred of the political left toward the political right is on display daily. The lack of condemnation over Kathy Griffins bloodied Trump head has been deafening. The shutdown at universities of speakers not following politically correct orthodoxy only makes our divisions worse. (So much for diversity and dialogue.)

Furthermore, what greater hate can there be toward a fellow human being than to support his or her execution before he or she is even born?

And, of course, people who have honest doubts about climate change are not met with logical counterargument but simply insulted. Take Trumps pullout from the Paris agreement. As columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out, the agreement was completely non-binding, non-enforceable and allowed China and India to continue to put our planet in jeopardy for another 13 years. Predictably, there was a cacophony of catcalls skewering Trump for his alleged scientific naivet.

However, science does not work as straightforwardly as we are taught in school. Consider Thomas S. Kuhns 1962 book, The Structures of Scientific Revolutions. Parade magazines capsule review calls it a book of science as explained by a physicist and philosopher who suggested that understanding is not merely a matter of gathering the facts. The book demonstrates how scientific advancements actually happen and undercuts the justification for any arrogance on the part of those who respond with mere disdain to those, for example, who may have their doubts about climate change or its causes.

Recently, this paper editorialized and lamented that the courtroom appears to be the last bastion of decorum in a society where most people seem to think the rules apply to everybody but them. But given that progressives have spent the last 50 years undermining traditional sexual mores while naively thinking their rejection of some moral standards would not spread like a cancer to the remainder of human behavior, how could we not but have arrived at this point?

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Charles D. Dern, Ph.D., Plumstead, is an adjunct teacher of philosophy and theology.

View original post here:
As ye sow, so shall ye reap - The Intelligencer