As recently noted at Bloggledygook, I’ve been trying to pull together a number of different things I see, such as attitudes expressed in blog posts, statements made by public figures, actions taken by the US government, and many other things. It has been tough slogging, until today when I read a blog post that had a title and a message that was essentially, “the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.”

History is rife with statements like that.

“The only good injun is a dead injun.”

“The only good Jew is a dead Jew.”

“The only good Kraut is a dead Kraut.”

“The only good nip is a dead nip.”

“The only good gook is a dead gook.”

“The only good nigger is a dead nigger.”

The list goes on. Some statements prompted by wars, others by racism, yet others by simple, unreasoning hatred.

Making it impersonal, using offensive names to make it abstract merely hides the fundamental hatred. A hatred which is more tragic because it is hollow, because it originates out of fear.

The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him but because he loves what is behind him.
   -G.K. Chesterton

Are we fighting for hatred?

It begins to sound more and more that we are fighting not simply for self-defense, but in the name of hate.

Is this truly the best we can do?

I think it is not our best.

If we fight out of hate, we will lose because we will have become the same as our enemy.

This is not hyperbole. You have to only look at our own history for what hate can prompt “right-thinking men” to do.

Just this summer a murderer was finally convicted of a crime that 40 years ago when he committed it a jury of “right-thinking men” would have refused to reach a verdict of guilt.

Never underestimate the power of hate in how it twists and distorts right-thinking into something its practitioners would reject if they were not in thrall to the hate.

I am choosing not to link to the post that prompted the crystallization of my thoughts (along with many others) because I am not interested in getting into a blogwar, nor do I desire to give the despicable sentiment expressed in the post that was the catalyst any additional readership beyond the large volume it already has.

There is more to life and blogging than trackbacks to gain momentary traffic consisting of people who will doubtlessly disagree and leave frequently idiotic and always hate-filled comments.

There is more to life than blogging.

We each have to make our own decisions, we each must choose between unreasoning hatred and reasoning doubt.

The unreasoning hatred is far more comfortable, but the reasoning doubt has more probability for long-term success, despite what those who chose hate may spew in their absolutist screeds.

What are the fundamentals? What are we truly defending when the President stands up and says, “The terrorists hate everything we stand for.”?

I ask you to read what is written on the right and the left sides of the political spectrum, and then ask that question of them both.

I suspect the answers you might get if they choose to reply will be unsatisfying.

Neither side truly represents the fundamental principles.

As I am sure has been articulated before, but not recently that I have seen as well as that by Josh Neuhouser at The Descent of Wonder:

Ideas are dangerous, and not because of the reasons people usually cite. It’s not because they have the chance of making people think and question their assumptions about the world, but because the more an idea gets propagated throughout society, the simpler it becomes, eventually losing all nuance and possibly (usually?) have nothing to do with the original intent/meaning.

Our founding principles have lost all nuance and possibility, and now have nothing to do with the original intent and meaning, not as currently interpreted by our courts, our legislative branch, nor our executive branch, not even if those supposed advocates of “originalism” get their way, for their thinking is not in alignment with the spirit of the ideas.

I recently posted a quote that might have perhaps made some uncomfortable and others react in derision:

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face — forever.
   -George Orwell

As Michael Reynolds wrote at The Mighty Middle in tribute to Rosa Parks:

George Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning against the power he thought government had to obliterate freedom and even to erase the fundamental yearning for freedom and justice. The counterpoint to Orwell’s pessimism was Rosa Parks. She was the proof that humans will never entirely submit, will never be entirely cowed, will never finally forget freedom and accept tyranny. After two hundred years of slavery and a hundred years of Jim Crow, after a million lashings and lynchings, there, at the very epicenter of American racism, was a tiny little black woman, outnumbered and overpowered, who still knew right from wrong, still burned for justice, still had the courage to say, no, I won’t submit.

Yet, despite the counterpoint of the individual that Reynolds celebrates, in the 50 years since Rosa Parks and her simple defiance, in the five decades since George Orwell’s warnings, the power of government has expanded both through the advance of technology and in an increase of scope of power through fear in the wake of terrorist attacks.

Most of the choices I have seen in the past four years have been made out of fear, or made when using fear to manipulate, to spin.

What was true 54 years ago has not changed, what we have to fear most is fear itself, along with the hate engendered that is so easy to manipulate.

Technorati Tags: amber and cruelty, anti-torture amendment, left wing, left wing politics, left wing weblogs, left-wing, left-wing politics, left-wing weblogs, politics, right wing, right wing politics, right wing weblogs, right-wing, right-wing politics, right-wing weblogs, some thoughts