I finished my faith essay on an airplane, writing in the margins of magazine pages to capture my thoughts.

The article was due soon to the Washington Post’s editor for its “Acts of Faith” blog.

“She needs it now,” I was told. So I hurried to finish.

I love writing essays, and I love getting published by Internet sites with high traffic. With such writing, I can meet many people at once—all due to just a few hundred words.

So I pounded out my essay and submitted, agreeing to some tweaks by the editor.

Then there it was—an 800-word piece published for the world to see.

My best writing ever? Not by a long shot. Perfection is a high bar, in writing for sure, and a rushed piece has even more reasons to suffer flaws.

When I read the reader comments about my piece, however, I was stuck by one overwhelming element—their unkindness.

I’d written about my daughter’s experience as a Muslim convert who daily wears the hijab. She gets stares and glares, especially in airports and on planes.

Rather than suspect her, I wrote, let’s do the courageous thing—and love. Across faiths. Across race. Across divides that keep us suspecting and hating the “other.”

Not an original thesis. But it sought to be positive.

Then I read the comments.

Talk about hate. This was hate unleashed.

A spewing fire hose of putdowns, vitriol, ridicule, ire—I can’t list enough negative words—gushed forth without apology.

“This woman is an arrogant fool.” “They are both idiots.” “The woman is dumber than the daughter.” “You should have raised her better.”

I wasn’t hurt by such comments. I just wonder what kind of person feels justified unloading on another human being with no regard whatsoever for that person’s basic humanity.

Internet anger. That’s the term for the unkindness flung daily across the blogosphere. The weapons? Hateful words.

Explaining it, Edward Wasserman, Knight Professor in Journalism Ethics at Washington and Lee University, has cited the media for setting this tone.

“Unfortunately, mainstream media have made a fortune teaching people the wrong ways to talk to each other, offering up Jerry Springer, Crossfire, Bill O’Reilly. People understandably conclude rage is the political vernacular, that this is how public ideas are talked about,” Wasserman wrote in an article on his university’s website. “It isn’t.”

He’s right, of course, but there’s more.

Think of the raging, narrow heart that feels perfectly comfortable “throwing virtual chairs,” as Wasserman says, at Alana and me–not to dialogue, but to hurt.

That’s more than mean. That’s downright sad.

How much better to write words of affirmation to a stranger? Thanks for writing. I disagree, but thanks for writing anyway.

That would be bridging a divide with God’s love. Which the world needs. When? Now.

Patricia Raybon is an award-winning author of books and essays on mountain-moving faith. To travel along on her Faith Journey, please sign up HERE. Thank you!

photo credit: Partial recall via photopin (license)