The obvious answer is that we shouldn’t hate our enemies. In a Christian context we’re told to love them. Some religions even exhort us to have no enemies, perhaps converging on the same point.
But enemies and hate can sneak into our worldview without our realising it.
Do you hate Trump? Is Trump your enemy?
You might not think about it that way, but if Trump (or any other group or individual) seems to embody everything wrong with the world, then yes they are your enemy, and you probably hate them too.
In my latest article at MercatorNet I examine this issue in the context of same-sex marriage – a debate that’s heating up in Australia at the moment.
Check it out: https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/how-much-should-we-hate-our-enemies
From the introduction to G.K. Chesterton’s Heretics:
Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good–” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.
Now go read the principle in its contemporary application at the ABC Religion and Ethics site, with Same-Sex ‘Marriage’: Evolution or Deconstruction of Marriage and the Family? by
My latest piece on MercatorNet actually precedes my earlier posting on the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding same-sex marriage:
same-sex marriage is popularly presented as nothing more than an extension of the marriage franchise. This idea borrows its strength not from a philosophical inquiry into the nature of marriage and human sexuality, but from an uncritical familiarity with the status quo and an equally uncritical imagination of a new one. In other words, many people imagine, and are encouraged to imagine, that same-sex marriage is simply bringing homosexual partnerships “on board” with existing heterosexual marriages. Imagination can thereby combine reassuring elements of the familiar past with strikingly different novelties and reforms of the future, a combination that careful analysis cannot endorse.
Mountain under heaven: the image of RETREAT.
Thus the superior man keeps the inferior man at a distance,
Not angrily but with reserve.
I never had much time for ‘ethics’ until I came upon the natural law tradition. I’ve since learned that ‘virtue’ is of course inseparable from the path of spiritual development, and so it is frustrating to find time and time again that many people relegate ethics to questions of political control and permission. Ethics is much more than that; however much we fall short of the ideal, it is surely better than rejecting the ideal entirely?
My latest piece on MercatorNet attempts to clarify some of the context and purpose of natural law theory, for those who are interested:
While it may be feasible to reach a conclusion on the basis of non-heredity and rarity, the fact is that natural law does not approach attraction or desire from quite the same perspective as something like the loss of a limb. Rather, the whole point of natural law theory as an ethical system is to guide and inform those who are not content to accept their own desires at face-value, but who wish to shape their desires according to a more complete understanding of what it is to be human, with the goal of what Aristotle enigmatically terms eudaimonia – a term not entirely captured in the translation “happiness”, but which is often rendered “flourishing”, and in a literal sense implies the protection of a benevolent spirit.