Both Oars In Hate Hate

Jul 23, 2010

It would seem with all the heated political verbiage flying around that a primer on hatred and its evils may be in order. Passion is part of our nature. Loyalty is a virtue. But, unchecked by wisdom, both can be blinding, especially in economically difficult and politically divisive times.

Hate lurks in the margins waiting for these opportunities to pervert the hearts of otherwise good men and women. It often disguises itself as patriotism or moral righteousness, but it is neither. It’s cheap. It despises truth.  

We are welcome to hate 27 out of Baskin Robin’s 31 flavors of ice cream, the taste of fish, humidity or any of the many evils in the world. However, there is no just reason, basis, or cause for hating another human being, regardless of his or her actions, legal status, beliefs or political inclinations—period. Hopefully, we are already straight on the fact that we are not to hate others based on race.

What about a heinous murderer? Can we hate a serial killer? The answer is “no, not even the worst.”

We can deplore violence and we can hate each and every crime, but dehumanizing a person by reducing them to the sum of their actions, no matter how awful, is wrong. Incarceration is the proper response for a criminal, not hatred. The dictum “judge not, lest ye be judged” does not preclude a vigorous judicial system or a strict penal code, but it does require us to treat all others as humans from conception to natural death. The only kind of treatment a human deserves is human. Hatred is the first step down the slippery slope to inhumane treatment.

As a refresher on that, I suggest the book or movie Dead Man Walking. Pointing out that every murderer has a mother may be an overly simplistic way of explaining why revenge is wrong, but it does show clearly why its reputed sweetness requires that it be served in a stew of hate.   

What about a neighbor who exposes political views we find extremely offensive? The answer is still “no” -No matter what party they belong to.

We do not have to agree with each other’s personal choices or political views, but we do have to agree that, regardless of those views and choices, we are all human. Out of discipline, we must endeavor to cherish the person even if we do not relish the opinion he or she expresses. We are wrong to reduce the person across the street or even a national figure to a mere viewpoint. We are especially wrong when we use that viewpoint to make them a target of ridicule or appear less than human.

I remember how shocked I was at how easily I fell into the trap of doing this while watching the movie Crash. It was amazing how easy it was to demonize and canonize characters based on just a glimpse. Artfully, this movie reminds us that humans are far more complex than a single act can convey. I recommend Crash as an annual tonic to clear the mind.

How about people who hate us? Still “no,” not even those who hurt us.

It doesn’t take a genius or a saint to realize that a society will soon fall apart when hate is returned for hate. No matter how seemingly justified, reciprocal hate sets up an endless loop of societal degeneration. Shifts in power may allow victims to swap places with their victimizers, but as long as the hatred continues, there will never be a time without both. Rwanda provides the most recent stark display of this reality.

On the other hand, Mandela’s success in leading South Africa out of apartheid is a wonderful example of how simply refusing to hate can free a nation from the grip of historical prejudice. The movie Invictus, which is by no means an exhaustive study of Mandela’s fight to free South Africa, does a passable job of capturing how he encouraged a nation to move beyond hate and choose reconciliation over retribution, even if it did mangle the rugby scenes.

What we can hate, is hate!