Where is the love? (UPDATED)

Regular readers will know that I frequently, some might believe too frequently, link to Mike at Waving or Drowning as someone who most consistently exemplifies for me that liberal mindset, particularly that religious leftist mindset, I find to be so hypocritical and wrong-headed.

Before I do so again, let's keep in mind that Mike and I go back a number of years... and that there was a time when we actually engaged in friendly banter, whether on our respective blogs or by e-mail... in fact, at one point, we had a standing invitation to meet for coffee should that opportunity avail itself.  My invitation to him to do so still stands.  I don't think the feeling is mutual any longer however. 

It's in that vein that I'd like to challenge Mike. 

His latest piece is promoting the idea that we should love our enemies... an ideal I sruggle with for sure, openly and honestly... and one that Mike is touching on once again:

In my last couple of talks I've been working through some thoughts on love, so I figured I'd throw them out here and benefit from your thoughts on the subject.

First there's the obvious.

Jesus said the two commands "love God and love your neighbour" tied together everything the Jews had been living for and under for thousands of years. (Matthew 22:34-40, etc.) He then raised the ante. Love your neighbours? Ha! I'm telling you that you should love your enemies! (Matthew 5:43,44, etc.)

It seems to me there's a location, or a positioning element to this:

Love your neighbour --- Love those closest to you.
Love your enemies --- Love those furthest from you.

I don't think it's a stretch to tie these two together, and arrive at the conclusion that we are simply to love everybody. That certainly makes it simple--in theory--and relieves us of the awesome task of figuring out who we should love and who we shouldn't. Love everybody.

You'll need to read his entire piece for context, especially given where I'm going next.

Now on to my challenge.

Mike has publicized on my site that I'm banned from his... for crimes committed that he won't go into but that must be serious in that, as he states, I'm the only person in the entire plant that he's ever banned.

So let's go along with the notion that my crime is heinous.  Let's go along with the notion that I've committed an egregious sin against him.  And allow me to then state openly and publicly, that I'm sorry. 

I'm sorry Mike for causing you to make an exception to your rule.   I'm sorry for whatever crime I've committed.  I apologize for causing you to go against that which you preach.  And I'm now willing to allow you to go back to putting meat on the bones of your teaching. 

I am, clearly in your eyes, your enemy.

How might you, in keeping with the mainstay of your religious beliefs as outlined in this latest piece of yours, show me the love.

Where is the love Mike?  Where is the love?

Now I address some of you who are reading this.  Mike may ignore my challenge.  And we can't let him do that because clearly he would then be, once again, ignoring his own teaching and preaching.  So I may need some of you to gently go remind Mike of the challenge.  Not an order by any stretch of the imagination but simply a suggestion.

I look forward to Mike's reply... or to his admitting that there are exceptions to what he's teaching.

One... or the other...  and ignoring this challenge is admitting that there are exceptions.

Seems logical to me.

UPDATE: A clarification, if you will, on the notion of Christ's commandment to love our enemies.  It's brief, relevant and pointed.  When the choice comes to loving your enemy OR your neighbor when one is threatening the other, whom do you choose to love (and no, I don't believe an answer of both is appropriate)?  Carry on.

Comments

[Mommynator]

The problem, dear Rick, is that his definition of Love is defective.

By his definition, to love someone is to accept everything about them, even the most heinous, dark and dirty things.

That is not what love is.

Love sometimes must be tough and seem like hatred, because the object of love needs to be brought back - from sin, destruction and even death.

So until he defines love correctly, everything else he has to say on the subject is pure drivel.

[Rick]

I have to agree with you Mommynator... however... what better way to demonstrate it but with this challenge...

I'm looking for Mike to be genuinely honest... even brutally so...

And admit that his ideals, with me as the shining example, are not just impractical, but wholly impossible to follow...

That there are behaviors we cannot tolerate... he's already admitting as such using my behavior as the example... yet he continues to talk about loving his enemies...

Either he uses me as a practical lesson to his listeners and readers as to how to love your enemies... or... we continue to use him as a practical lesson that Christ's words can't be intrepeted as he consistently interprets them...

It's either hypocrisy... or... it isn't...

Just seems so logical to me... but I'll confess that I'm not the most articulate guy in making the point... which is why I need you people...

[Morgan K Freeberg]

You're getting in the way of Mike's message.

I think -- but I'm not sure -- this is an issue that is removed from right-wing/left-wing politics. In truth, I've met others who suffer from this affliction who have no stated interest in politics one way or t'other. Except with a little bit more conversation and a little bit more digging, it always turns out they're left-wing shills.

The affliction is...this errant definition of love pointed out by Mommynator. We're supposed to accept everything about each other, first & foremost, our vices.

But then when someone comes along and puts up a barricade against getting that message out, suddenly it's perfectly alright to turn on the hatin'. It is, as you've noticed, exception-driven. Reminds me of what Palin said: "[Obama] can give an entire speech...and never use the word 'victory,' except when he's talking about his own campaign." This is a sickness. Smack these people across the face, they will not hate you; steal from them, they will not hate you; set fire to their houses, they will not hate you; interrupt their speeches, or the speeches of their leaders, and they will hate you hate you hate you forever. It's the one transgression against them that they think counts for something.

I don't know if this is synonymous with being a liberal. Still trying to figure that out.

[Leslie]

I read in a piece somewhere or other that it IS synonymous with being a liberal, Morgan...or today's kind of liberal at least, because the underlying philosophy carrying all this is Marxism which thrives on unity. Therefore to denounce the speech is to weaken the path to utopia and is therefore, the unforgivable sin.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Ah, but it doesn't completely "thrive on unity" does it Leslie? As they try to create this society that loves everybody and includes everybody, the only do so in support of the primary objective which is to demonstrate the positive qualities of themselves, and whoever else is in this club of theirs. And the club is exclusive by nature, you can't have anyone in it if you won't leave someone out of it.

If, tomorrow morning, we all -- the REAL "all" of us -- were to wake up and suddenly realize how incredibly right they were, they'd be very unhappy. With all of us on the same side there'd be no "they" at all anymore. They need their own enemies, to give themselves the definition they crave.

Example: The health care bill achieved a bare 220-215 victory on the House floor yesterday. But nevertheless, it's been quite awhile since we've heard our compassionate liberals talk about these poor poor uninsured folks who need their health care, isn't it? Much more often, the rhetoric is about "winning"; facing down that other side, and beating them. Having their victory.

Liberals act very much the way they say conservative act, when they start thinking about passing legislation and winning elections. Good guys...bad guys...winning.

[Mommynator]

The healthcare debate recently was about winning and putting people in jail who think they and their healthcare professionals should be in charge.

Yeah, that's love for you.

[Leslie]

Well said, Morgan.

[Rick]

Morgan said some good stuff over at Mike's place as well... it'll likely be ignored sadly... but I'm appreciative of the attempt.

I had left word on Mike's blog that I had apologized here and that I had a challenge for Mike... that and a trackback ping, both initially published, have been deleted.

Naturally.

This is so represents liberalism today... so represents...

Sigh.

[Mommynator]

It's like the goddess/Gaia nutjobs I'm dealing with on Facebook whom my niece has allowed herself to become involved with.

If I challenge one of her wishy-washy things, they can't argue back on the merits of what I said. They have to destroy me verbally.

Nothing, but nothing can enter their little peabrains except mush.

I'm starting to believe this requires a spiritual battle, not a battle of wits, because willful blindness, ignorance and hatred is involved.

Hang in there. You have a place here to say what you have to. I'll bet you he can't help but read what's here even if he doesn't respond.

[Jvette]

Father Corapi says true love means that you aspire that the one you love attain the highest and best this life has to offer. And that is eternal life with God.

The love of which Jesus speaks is not a love liberals understand. It's just one more thing they twist to justify their actions that are so contrary to the Gospel.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

It wasn't ignored, Rick. They're pulling out the "huh-wha I don't get it" card.

I won't bother trying to clue them in. They just live in a different world, one in which (I can hear Rod Serling explaining it now) love shares a close kinship with a desire for self-destruction. Where there is no desire for self-destruction, there can be no love. And wherever one desires to destroy oneself, there must be an abundance of love...and vice-versa.

[Rick]

But they do get it... your point was crystal clear... but they live in a world where clarity is anathema... unless you disagree with them... and then it's clear, crystal clear... that you're wrong.

[Mommynator]

As to the update question:

You love your neighbor by defending.

You are showing what love is to the enemy of your neighbor. And you ARE loving the enemy by not allowing his enmity to hurt your neighbor, thus attempting to correct him.

Whether he gets the point or not is up for grabs depending on the enemy's character.