No, I'm not!
Thanks for coming forward, even if it was only to tell me I am "one of them": those pesky religious zealots and fanatics who spew hate speech. I'm sorry you thought my original commentary on your letter to the Cleveland Plain Dealer was long-winded. I used less than 1,000 words, even including the full quote of your 112-word letter. That such a relatively short piece on such an important topic would strike you as long-winded implies profundity is not your forte. Quite honestly, I thought a shorter response in kind (that is, on the order of "Screw you, Harmon, you bewildered jackass!") would have been a greater waste of ink, because it would have left the dialog in the gutter where you began it.
If you HAD managed to get through my long-winded comments without your attention-deficit disorder getting the better of you, then you would, perhaps, understand the following:
The sentence that follows is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "hate speech." LeBron's children are bastards, and they are illegitimate. This is merely a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, as you mistakenly suggest. Why? Because these are legal terms that mean one thing and one thing only: that the kids were born out of wedlock. It has absolutely nothing to do with their health, their happiness, or their worth or "legitimacy" as human beings. If you had paid attention in school, or if you had read more books, most particularly a dictionary, you would have known that.
This also doesn't have anything to do with religion, as you suggest. My wife and I were married in the University Heights firehouse by the mayor of that city 35 years ago. This was a civil ceremony, not a religious one. But if we had had our two children without this state-sanctioned ceremony, they would have been illegitimate—bastards in the technical legal sense. And I would not be insulting them by saying so. I would simply be stating a fact.
Even atheists know through the experience of millennia that out-of-wedlock births do more to impoverish society than to enrich it. If you are trying to argue that out-of-wedlock births have become a good thing for everyone involved, then you've not yet convinced anyone. In fact, out-of-wedlock births are on the rise not because more people think they're a good idea, but because more people are irresponsible and simply don't care. So for LeBron to add to this problem deliberately, no matter how slightly, is not the end of the world, but is an understandable discourtesy to the population at large and particularly to the fans who like him best. So who might reasonably be seen as demonstrating more "hate," Mr. Harmon? The talented man-child who is brilliant in the game of basketball but who cheats at the game of life by ignoring whatever rules he wants to? Or his well-wishing fans, who are his fellow players in the game of life and who work hard to play by all the rules so that the game continues?
LeBron's biggest and best fans love the guy and want him to be successful and do the right thing and become the best man he can be. If some fans and their children would like to see him marry the mother of his children (as real men have always been expected to do, even by atheists who recognize the desirability of a civil society), then what do you care? As a basketball player, LeBron is a good example. In a society where out-of-wedlock births is a problem, he's a bad example. That's not being "closed-minded," as you allege. What would be closed-minded would be the Cavs' signing Osama bin Laden or some other murderer just because he "never misses from downtown." Not to worry, Mr. Harmon, I don't really expect you to follow my logic.
Let's try this, though: Your opinion might be wrong, but I would never deny its legitimacy. It's legitimate because everyone is entitled to his own opinion, no matter how uninformed or stupid. In fact, I wouldn't dream of trying to dissuade the newspaper from printing your opinions by maliciously calling them hate speech. On the other hand, LeBron's children might be the perfect kids, but they're not legally legitimate because they were born out of wedlock. That's all there it to it. I hope I cleared it up for you so that next time maybe you'll take a minute to think twice before getting all unnecessarily worked up for the wrong reasons.
Wishing someone would get married and saying so in public is NOT a "direct relative" of strapping a bomb on yourself and murdering as many people as possible in the name of Allah simply because they disagree with you. If you really think so, my good man, then surely you must tip-toe through each day in mortal fear! You have already made it abundantly clear that you can't distinguish love speech from hate speech. So lighten up, man! And thanks again for your comments. I wish you and your loved ones health, happiness, and enough good sense to consult a dictionary every now and then.