These days, if you disagree with someone’s orthodoxy, you can get called a “hater”, as if there was something wrong with hating. I imagine a dialogue that goes something like this, between me and a person I will call the hate labeler:
Me: I believe that since God ordained and created marriage, it is not subject to human re-definition as the union of two people of the same sex.
H.L.: That’s hate speech, you must be a homophobe.
Me: I suppose here is where I am expected defend myself, or deny I hate, or insist that I am not phobic. I won’t do any of that. I do hate it when someone tries to tamper with God’s definitions. What’s wrong with hating?
H.L.: Hating is wrong. Anything that tramples on someone’s self worth is wrong and bad.
Me: Wrong and bad according to whom? Why should I care about someone’s self worth? What standard are you appealing to if you value people’s feelings about themselves?
H.L: I am appealing to the intrinsic value and dignity of all human beings. The Declaration of Independence states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”
Me: Hold the fort, are you appealing to the Declaration itself, or to the Creator? That Creator who not only endows human rights but also defines marriage, and has a long list of things He hates, may have an issue with your accusation of hate speech. Maybe you should appeal to Darwin instead.
Why do I suggest appealing to Charles Darwin? I am assuming, here, that most “hate labelers” hold to a Darwinian view of human origins, or none at all. In such cases, what would be their basis for believing in the worth of a human being?
So the next time you get called a hater you should reframe the dialogue. Check out my March 14 post on social justice.