Our politicians have a great deal to say about “hate.” They condemn it, legislate against it, fund campaigns to combat it, and warn that anyone guilty of it will be punished. We are told that hate has no place in our society. And yet, for all this moral certainty, they never define what hate actually is.
If hate is now an offence serious enough to get you fired, deplatformed, exiled from public life, or even imprisoned, shouldn’t we at least know what the word means? Shouldn’t there be a clear standard that distinguishes genuine wrongdoing from simple disagreement?
Laws against hate are, by their nature, fundamentally religious. “Hate” is a moral category defined in opposition to love, and love itself is grounded in an understanding of God—the highest moral good. Any law prohibiting hate is, in effect, enforcing a moral standard derived from a conception of God. These laws do not merely regulate behaviour; they punish violations of an ideal that embodies the opposite of love, and by extension, the opposite of God.
In short, anti-hate laws cannot be separated from moral and religious frameworks. Any government introducing such laws must be explicit about the foundations of these categories. Without clarifying the religious or moral system behind terms like love and hate, the law risks enforcing an undefined, arbitrary, or covertly religious standard.
Previous generations did not face this confusion. As historically Christian nations, Western societies understood hate as the opposite of love, and love was defined by God’s law. That framework provided clarity, consistency, and accountability. Discard God as the ultimate moral reference, and what remains but the shifting preferences of those in power?
Having abandoned the Christian worldview, Western nations embraced pluralism. By definition, a pluralist society contains a plurality of moral frameworks. What one belief system calls love, another may call hate. What one tradition regards as moral, another may condemn as immoral. And yet, politicians claim authority to police hate without a coherent standard.
The truth is, they have none. Many in power now function as a religion unto themselves. Hate becomes whatever contradicts their worldview, obstructs their agenda, or threatens their desired ends. The state has assumed the role of the church, defining virtue and vice by decree, demanding obedience to its doctrine, and punishing dissent as heresy.
Consequently, without an objective standard, the definition of hate shifts. It becomes a label attached to whatever challenges the interests, narratives, or priorities of the ruling class. Justice is selective; consistency is absent; and offenders aligned with the politics of the moment can expect leniency.
This is the world our elites have fashioned—a society governed not by transcendent principle, but by political preference.
The Western world did not rise to greatness by accident. Its achievements were the product of Christianity’s formative influence over centuries. Scripture was the moral foundation of Western civilisation. Undermine that foundation, and the structure weakens. Continue eroding it, and eventually the whole house collapses.
