One can also pray for peace between warring factions. There are problems with this also. If one is a member of one of the factions (and usually these people are the most "frequent prayers") the kind of peace one conceptualizes and prays for is without fail disadvantageous for the adversary faction. So, one man's "peace" can be an abomination for the other. Simply praying for this kind of peace just won't cut it.

I have been of the opinion for many years that what mankind as a whole needs is less preaching of "love thy neighbor" and, instead, more of the ethical effort to respect your neighbor. This respect can be defined simply as due regard for the other person's natural rights in every sense. I think that willingness to be respectful in this way is one of the greatest virtues. One should respect all of God's creation - the individuals who share one's life, mankind as a whole, all living things, and also the inanimate parts of creation. As with all the other virtues, cultivation of this one takes some effort, and often demands control of one's antipathy towards an individual or an entire people who must, nevertheless, be given "grudging respect".

There is one source that I am aware of which takes a serious look at the potential for damaging consequences when "love" is applied with a broad brush and as a cure-all concept. It is found in "The Open Society and Its Enemies", Vol.2 - Hegel and Marx; Chapter 24, Section III; by Karl R. Popper (1962). What follow are some significant passages from this work:

The division of mankind into friend and foe is a most obvious emotional division; and this division is even recognized in the Christian commandment, 'Love thy enemies!' Even the best Christian who really lives up to this commandment (there are not many, as is shown by the attitude of the average good Christian towards 'materialists' and 'atheists'), even he cannot feel equal love for all men. We cannot really love 'in the abstract'; we can love only those whom we know. Thus the appeal even to our best emotions, love and compassion, can only tend to divide mankind into different categories. ... Our 'natural' reaction will be to divide mankind into friend and foe; into those who belong to our tribe, to our emotional community, and those who stand outside it; into believers and unbelievers; into compatriots and aliens; into class comrades and class enemies; and into leaders and led. ... Once we have done this, political equalitarianism becomes practically impossible.

... he who teaches that not reason but love should rule opens the way for those who rule by hate. ... Those who do not see this connection at once, who believe in a direct rule of emotional love, should consider that love as such certainly does not promote impartiality. And it cannot do away with conflict either. ... no emotion, not even love, can replace the rule of institutions controlled by reason.

Loving a person means wishing to make him happy. (This, by the way, was Thomas Aquinas' definition of love.) But of all political ideals, that of making the people happy is perhaps the most dangerous one. It leads inevitably to the attempt to impose our scale of 'higher' values upon others, in order to make them realize what seems to us of greatest importance for their happiness; in order, as it were, to save their souls. It leads to Utopianism and Romanticism. ... Thus we might say: help your enemies; assist those in distress, even if they hate you; but love only your friends.

A direct emotional attitude towards the abstract whole of mankind seems to me hardly possible. We can love mankind only in certain concrete individuals. But by the use of thought and imagination, we may become ready to help all who need our help.

The thoughts of Karl Popper quoted above concern mainly the over-all social and political sphere, and not necessarily relationships between individuals. However, it seems to me that there exists a similar misapprehension of love as the primary, infallible ingredient in cementing of personal relationships.

Recently I and a nephew on my wife's side were visiting an old friend of mine. The nephew, in his mid-thirties, has been married only a few years; his wife, a very good and patient woman, is raising three sons, the youngest one not yet a year old. This old friend also has lived his life with a good wife and mother, now for close to half a century. My nephew asked him if there had been any rough spots in his marriage. My old friend replied that yes, of course there had been many bumps in the road. The nephew then conjectured that perhaps theirs was a successful marriage because they surely must have continued to love each other very much even at moments of their most serious disagreements. My old friend replied that love has nothing to do with it. It is respect for one's partner, and respect alone, that preserves a marriage through all the storms.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear testimony from an "average guy" that the success of the intimate relationship of marriage also rests primarily on mutual respect and not on that over-sold and over-used panacea we bandy about so indiscriminately - love.