A comedian once joked that he loved all of his kids, but there was a couple he just didn’t like. As with all good comedy, the hyperbole is often grounded in truth. To love does not always mean you have to like.
Today relationships seem more littered with eggshells than honesty. Any parent raising children can acknowledge that our love is unconditional, but our children can have behavioral cycles that are just plain unlikable. Parents can explain the reasons we don’t like the child right now, and guide them toward the path of change.
But the modern counselor will tell you to dislike, to critique, and to admonish is to hate. All negativity is to be muted in an all embracing malleable sponge that squishes every action into a mush of acceptability. Defining love as never challenging, never exposing, and never exacting, the new society now is at loss to understand why the new generation of young adults are emotionally paralyzed at the slightest hint of adversity, never acknowledging that they have been programmed to think, if they are not liked, they are not loved but hated.
Ah, then there is the Christian whose words of rebuke are not the loving words of Jesus Christ. The same Christ who fashioned a whip to chase money-changers out of the Temple calling them thieves. He called people liars, hypocrites, dull of wit, slow of heart, children of Satan, and the list goes.
There were lots of people on this earth Christ didn’t like but he loved them all enough to die on cross for them. Christ didn’t accept every act of every person and neither should I. My faith demands that I love all humankind, but I don’t have to like you.
“Truth is rarely comfortable. On the contrary, it is more likely to be the prick at the point of the goad toward betterment. Those who generally speak comfortable words generally do not have your betterment in mind.” -Andy Torbett
The widespread ignorance to the proper application of the First Amendment in this Republic has made it increasingly vulnerable to those who wish to eradicate its protections. Many Conservative activists are shamefully negligent in their constant rants of perceived infringements to Free Speech. More often than not, the “transgression” is really nothing more than a misunderstanding of whose First reigns supreme, where and when.
The pivot point is found in understanding to Whom or What is the First’s protections weighted in the Where the Whom is found. In the public arena, the First is weighted towards the individual. In the private arena, the First pivots its weight towards the private groups, entities, places of worship, and dwellings of private individuals.
Recently, this writer read a social media post of an individual bewailing the violation of their First because the private social media group, a gun owner group, had curtailed posts that were in violation of the group’s standards. But here, the First’s protections for private group outweigh the First of the individual. The private group can exercise their First to limit the First of an individual whose speech compromises the standards of their group.
Similarly, it is not a violation of the First for an entity, whose purpose is to raise funds for specific purpose under specific guidelines, to regulate the speech of those, who are members, when they are speaking under the banner of said entity to prevent a violation of the laws that govern them. In another instance, an individual can mock and ridicule the beliefs of a Religious organization in the public space but to go into the The First Church of the Debonair Deacon and present your disdain for edicts of the parish will probably earn you the “left foot” of fellowship, which is well within the First of the Church to toss your heathen backside out the door.
It is imperative that we realize that the Left is constantly looking for leverage into organizations protected by the First. Mismanagement of the protest of perceived violations of the First runs the risk of establishing a precedent that will create a chink in the armor that protects our Natural Born Right to Free Speech. Knowledge is power, yet through ignorance, we cede that power.
By Andy Torbett
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” –James Madison, Federalist No. 51