"Love the sinner and hate the sin" in the light of secularism

Secularism is the view that we must ignore religion when we are involved in state and political affairs.  It demands neutrality as a methodology.  Secularisation means a country as no interest being governed by religion as a people not just as a country.

One thing that is vital to secularism is working for as much equality as possible.  Without religion, we would be on a more level playing field.  Religion is about treating people differently: eg Muslims can't have communion in a Catholic chapel.  Mormons won't do weddings in the name of Wiccan gods. Secularism then if not anti-religion still results in people weaning themselves off religion.  If loving the bad person and hating their badness is possible then it is secularism that makes it possible.  It is impossible to give it a religious spin and call it, "Love sinner hate sin", and mean it when love is about furthering equality and religion is certainly not pro-equality.  Without religion we could be all equal to a better extent than we are.

The power or potential to abhor a sin and keep from wishing harm on the perpetrator cannot be accepted as real in secular contexts. It is slipped in to many things but it belongs to the Church and Church and state need to be separate. It is a purely religious or spiritual claim. Keep a firm line between religion/faith and politics.

It is not even relevant or helpful in secular contexts for the law cannot see if you are really able to love sinners and hate sins. It cannot go down the thought crime road or give privileges based on what thoughts you claim to have.

Being human is not a material reality. It is a material reality about how you do things and why. So you cannot treat sin and sinner differently.

Religion says that valuing sinners but not what they do and even in fact detesting it is not possible or likely on the human level. So it prescribes help from a higher source which is accessed by praying for it and having faith. In the eyes of the law, religious condemnations of masturbation, transgenderism, gay sex, lesbian sex, sex between two people previously married to someone else, are hateful.

It is easy to tell yourself you don’t hate a person when you actually do and cloak it by saying it is about what they do. A mother loves her son but she can temporarily hate him and slap him when he comes home on drugs. Religion is tacitly saying that people without faith and who do not pray are a threat to moral offenders. To call them a danger is hate speech.  Secular law cannot let that happen.

Christianity warns that sin must never be taken lightly.  It says "Love the sinner and hate the sin".  "Love the sinner and hate the sin" is a religious doctrine. It is no good to secular or secularised people. Secularists can maybe say that we can love the wrongdoer but oppose and despise the wrong they have done.  This can only be done by seeing the person as falling short of a legal standard but not assessing if they are moral or not in having done so.

A command is a necessary evil and is saying you must do something or suffer disapproval and hopefully punishment. Both religionists and secularists are commanding.  Many say you don’t need to be told what the ten commandments tell us.  If so why are they commandments? Commandments are trying to pressure you to behave a certain way when real goodness is spontaneous and done without being pressured.  Commandments are necessary evils at best but they do put you off morality and goodness.

If love the sinner and hate the sin is the right doctrine then anything else is bad. Secularists then are only causing hate to be disguised as love.

For atheists, there is no sin but there is such a thing as treating a person unjustly or without respect.  Sin is wrongdoing but is more than that. It is a crime against God and trying to create something that is the destructive opposite of God. It is attempted God-murder. So love the sinner and hate the sin is going to produce more hate and more commanding than love the wrongdoer and hate what they have done. With love the wrongdoer hate the wrong you have a command yes but at least you are not commanded to worry about crime against God. That is another command. To say it is necessary to love the sinner and hate the sin is to oppose the secular version and thus the secularist and to call them a danger to true morality.

We see that love the sinner and hate the sin is really a dose of passive aggression. It is a reflection on how a child lets all the evil out but an adult is smarter at concealing it and making it look good. A self-centred fake is lying if she or he claims to love sinners while loathing their sins.

Though there are overlaps between the person who says we must love sinners and hate their sins and the person who says we must love wrongdoers and hate the wrong the two are as far apart as night and day.

If love the sinner and hate the sin is a good doctrine then it is robbed of its power by the weakness of religious authority and its claims. As Jesus said a good house is built on a strong foundation.