>>2640733 (l/b)
UK Anon here. The following is something I wrote in 2015 ( I never got round to finishing it) but it seems to be applicable here, even in its incomplete state.
What’s Wrong with Righteousness?
There was a time in this country when the pursuit and maintenance of personal virtue, integrity and honour – all constituents of righteousness - preoccupied a large proportion of society, whether a person be servant or king, male or female, poet or priest. Only criminals rejected outright the value of noble character and even then there was a certain honour among thieves. There was truth in the saying: an Englishman’s word is his bond. To break one’s word, even at a trivial level, was considered such a slur on one’s character that it was something to be avoided at all cost.
What has happened so that now, in 2015 England, it would be difficult to find anyone who would admit, without apology, to the pursuit of virtue above all other considerations? How many people do you know who pursue righteousness before riches, principle before pragmatism and truth before personal ambition, and don’t mind admitting it? It’s almost as though there is some sort of shame in being a seeker after righteousness, as though such an endeavour must necessarily result in a Pharisaic, holier-than-thou boasting: I’m so glad I’m good and not like that dreadful person over there!
Take the Ten Commandments: when did you last hear anyone claim to actively try to follow the commandments? Many self-assigned, evangelical Christians would claim such an effort to be unnecessary and “legalistic” and contrary to grace, while secularists would be more likely to aver priggishness than piety.
The Ten Commandments are largely dismissed as being an outdated form of legalism, inapplicable to modern society except, of course, when applied to the behaviour of others: I can steal from you, or take your wife in adultery, but don’t you dare steal from me or take my wife!
And therein lies the paradox concerning the pursuit of righteousness. To which of the Ten Commandments do people object when applied to the behaviour of others? Don’t steal? Don’t be envious of your neighbour’s property? Don’t commit adultery? I don’t know of anyone who would be pleased to invite another to steal from them, or envy their goods, or take their wife in adultery. It’s only when I want to steal from you, or take your wife, or covet your property that the Commandments become legalistic or priggish or generally undesirable and outmoded. Everyone else must practise righteousness towards me, but God forbid that anyone should expect the same of me! They must pursue righteousness, I am free to pursue my selfish interests. And since “everyone else” is also an “I”, in the end, no-one practises righteousness.
Why do people hate righteousness? Why do they hate what is good? Why do they hate to pursue for themselves that which they require from others?
In the absence of a personal pursuit of righteousness, governments attempt to enforce righteousness through the blunt hammer of the law. But who decides on what does or does not constitute righteousness? God's righteousness, summarised in The Ten Commandments, is the polar opposite of Satanic evil; but Satanists would call that evil, "righteousness." Thus, when governments are infiltrated by the secular and, worse still, the satanic, they have the power to impose the practice of evil on the people, by law, under the guise of righteousness, (or tolerance to use the buzz word of the day) leading to a good/evil divide and rank hypocrisy, because one can be certain that those who desire to enforce evil laws on the people, insist that they, themselves, be treated with Ten Commandments' righteousness and justice, not satanic selfishness and perverted justice.