When Political Disagreement Becomes Hate, Americans Must Ask: What Would Jesus Do?

By Lucretia Hughes

HARTWELL, Ga. — Alicia Russell asked a question that reaches far beyond one Facebook page or political argument: “What would Jesus do?”

Russell said she avoids most news media, follows only a small number of people and closes anything she disagrees with. What troubles her is not that other people hold different beliefs. It is the anger, hateful memes and personal attacks that continue appearing in her social media feed.

“I may dislike some people, but never hate,” Russell wrote. “I refuse to let hate take over the love.”

That distinction matters.

Disagreement is not hate. Criticizing a president, political party, government policy or public official is not automatically harassment. Americans must remain free to debate difficult issues, challenge authority and tell uncomfortable truths.

But following someone from page to page, posting threats, attacking family members, using racial or sexual insults and attempting to humiliate people is not meaningful political debate. It is abuse wearing a political costume.

Social media has made that behavior increasingly difficult to escape.

A 2024 Pew Research Center report found that approximately eight in 10 Facebook users considered harassment a problem on the platform. Among Facebook users who avoided posting about politics, 48% said one reason was that they did not want to be criticized or harassed. Pew found similar concerns across Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X.

An earlier Pew survey found that 41% of American adults had experienced some form of online harassment. One in five adults said they believed they had been targeted because of their political views, and social media was the most frequently reported location for the abuse. That survey distinguished offensive name-calling from more serious conduct such as threats, stalking and sustained harassment.

This is not exclusively a Republican problem, a Democratic problem or an American problem. Cruelty does not carry a voter registration card.

Conservatives receive hateful messages. Liberals receive hateful messages. Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and people of every race are attacked online. Some attacks come from Americans, while others come from users in countries far removed from the political issue being discussed.

The internet has no national border. Anyone can enter a public conversation from almost anywhere in the world. People outside the United States are free to express an opinion about American affairs, just as Americans frequently comment on events in other nations.

The problem is not where someone lives. The problem is how that person behaves.

Foreign or domestic, liberal or conservative, no one improves a debate by bringing threats, lies or dehumanizing language into it.

There is also nothing wrong with blocking an abusive account.

The First Amendment protects people against government restrictions on speech. It does not require a private citizen to host every insult, threat or vulgar comment on a personal social media page. The constitutional question becomes different when government officials or government pressure are involved, but an ordinary user generally may decide who participates on a privately managed page. Congress’ Constitution Annotated explains the government-action principles surrounding social-media moderation.

Blocking someone is not necessarily censorship. Sometimes it is simply closing the front door after a person refuses to behave respectfully inside your home.

Christians face an additional responsibility.

Jesus never instructed believers to surrender the truth, remain silent in the face of evil or pretend that every idea is equally righteous. He confronted hypocrisy, defended the vulnerable and spoke with authority.

He also commanded his followers to love their enemies and pray for those who persecuted them.

That does not mean approving of wrongdoing. It does not mean tolerating abuse or allowing dangerous people unrestricted access to our lives. Forgiveness and boundaries can exist together.

It means refusing to become what we say we oppose.

A Christian cannot spend Sunday morning singing about grace and then spend Monday afternoon wishing death, sickness or suffering upon a stranger because of an election. We cannot proclaim that every person is created in the image of God while treating political opponents as if they are less than human.

Political convictions are important. Elections have consequences. Government decisions affect families, jobs, constitutional rights and national security. Americans should debate those matters forcefully.

But hatred is not strength, and cruelty is not courage.

Before posting, ask whether the comment offers a fact, an argument or a legitimate question. Ask whether the same words would be spoken face to face. Ask whether the post corrects wrongdoing or simply seeks to wound another human being.

Then ask Russell’s question: What would Jesus do?

He would not abandon the truth. He would not bow to a political mob. But neither would he allow hatred to replace love.

We can disagree without dehumanizing. We can correct false information without humiliating the person who shared it. We can defend America without hating every person born somewhere else. We can stand firmly for our faith without pretending that cruelty is a spiritual gift.

When an account becomes abusive, document threats, report dangerous conduct and use the block button. Pray for the person if you can, but do not give hatred permanent access to your peace.

The goal should never be to win an argument while losing our character.

Tell the truth. Protect your boundaries. Refuse to hate. And remember that behind nearly every screen is a human being whose heart matters to God.