Hate is not the most attractive of human emotions. It is, however, at or near the top of the list of our most utilized emotions. I suspect that everything in creation has been hated. If the color purple and the promised end of a drought that proves to be false can be hated, anything can be hated. Overuse of the word to emphasize a mild displeasure may be obnoxious, nevertheless true hatefulness is ugly and evidence that our better selves have left the building. It’s also evidence that humans think hate is effective – if not in changing something hated, then at least in giving a way for humans to vent pent up frustrations.

An essay of a favorite author of mine suggests that we cease believing in the effectiveness of hate. She says “I am losing faith in such a simple thing as despising an enemy with unequivocal righteousness.” Rather than changing what we despise, hate begets hate in the same way that the ophthalmologist’s puff of air on the eyeball begets a blink of the eyelid. Besides, the loved ones of those we hate beam with the same pride for them as we beam with pride for our own loved ones. What difference is there between the terrorist flying a highjacked airliner into a skyscraper and a militarist sending drone-launched bombs to destroy and kill buildings, families, and neighbors? Thus far dividing the world into good and evil has not gotten us any closer to peaceful co-existence. There must be a better way!

If truth be told, hate of other human beings never brings anything constructive. It is impossible for hate to bring justice. Historically, toddlers and old white-haired men (and all others in between) routinely swing out at perceived encroachments – yet only more hate results. The Greek myth of Jason and the Argonauts taught this 3,000 years ago but we failed to listen: the dragon was slain, but the dragon’s teeth germinated creating many new enemy dragons. Why do we still live by the principle of retributive hate to get us what we want? “An eye for an eye” is a solution for violence that causes a pregnant woman to miscarry, not a universal truth!

We need to find ways to turn hate against itself so that hate devours hate. It would not take many who forsake hate and embrace suffering-though-innocent to prove the point. Instead of striking out at perceived injustice, they would accept the suffering. Calm down, now! I hear your gasps of disbelief at such a weird thought. We have been raised and weaned on the principle of tit-for-tat, eye for an eye, and treat others as they treat you. I have my own misgivings. I am not sure if I could stand at the front of the line to take on innocent suffering. There is surely a heavy price to pay to forsake an old way assumed to be cemented in human DNA. We can nod that the protocol of hate might be an ineffective old way of doing justice which produces retribution only, and not necessarily justice. Hate may bring more hate and demand a bloody price, but civilizations have been built on it!

However, maybe the protocol of hate is not immutable. It has been questioned but seldom tested. On the other hand, Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. helped us see an example of this principle in non-violent protests of the last century. Besides, innocent suffering would be a bargain compared to the bloodshed spawned by unending retributive hate.

Furthermore, perhaps we can abide the suffering if we can become a community enough to join hands and bear the pain and loss together. The only thing we have to lose is continued bloodshed.