Let's begin this discussion by setting up a fictitious
situation. Imagine you go on an expedition to a remote place. The weather turns
nasty and you get separated from the group. You huddle in a safe place and wait
for the weather to improve. When it does, you see someone in the distance who
is also alone, and you walk to him.
He may or may not have been a member of your group but you
do not concern yourself with that question. You're just happy that you met
someone with whom you can plan a strategy for the return to “civilization.” He
assures you he has a superior ability to sense direction, and promises he'll
get you back with your group in no time at all. You believe him and place your
fate in his hands.
You follow him as you set yourselves on a journey to exit
the wilderness and return to the company of your fellow human beings. But as
time passes and you see no sign that you're getting closer to where you need to
be, you question the man's ability to get you there.
He says he is absolutely certain he is on the right path,
and that he'll get you to where you want to be. You follow him a little while
longer, and soon discover that you've been going in circles because you're
right back to where you were huddled alone.
Now my friend, you must have guessed this is a metaphor for
what's coming next, and you are correct. In fact, what comes next is a response
to the article that came under the title: “Gratuitous Hatred Is Destroying
Republicans – Just as It Did the Ancient Israelites,” written by Dennis Prager
and published on March 1, 2016 in National Review Online.
As the title indicates, Prager is addressing the subject of
hate, which is what members of the Republican Party in America are displaying toward each
other, he says. He calls it gratuitous hate, and warns that unless it is
stopped, it will destroy the party the way that hate of the same sort has
destroyed the Jews in times past.
The problem with that presentation – as I see it – is that
after a long dissertation in which the author lays out his views as to why
hatred must be contained, he says the following near the end of the discussion:
“The hatred of evil, for example, is actually the only moral response to evil.”
But nowhere does he define “evil” in a way that can be universally recognized
and accepted, which is a necessary condition to succeed at doing conflict
resolution.
The harsh reality is that in every conflict, what is moral
to one side is evil to the opponent … and the sentiment is reciprocated when
the situation is looked at from the opponent's point of view. Thus, Dennis
Prager has contributed nothing towards the formulation of a method by which a
conflict can be resolved peacefully when each side believes it is pursuing a
moral course whereas the opponent is pursuing an evil course.
That is a reality Prager should have discerned from the
situation he is describing. Not only does he see himself in conflict with
people who used to be loyal listeners of his radio talk-show, he now sees
himself embroiled in a complex web that is made of several parties, all of whom
used to form a loving family but no more. Now, each party hates a number of the
others while being hated by several of the other parties – according to his
analysis.
And yet, in this tangled web of reciprocal hateful
relationships, Dennis Prager does not even attempt to identify who may be moral
and who may be evil. However, he seems to hint that he alone is pursuing a
moral course whereas those who used to love him but now hate him, are pursuing
an evil course. And this is the attitude that kills his argument effectively.
That outcome makes of Dennis Prager the morally bankrupt
individual who promised his listeners he'll take them on a correct moral path
and lead them to where they'll find the salvation they sought all their lives.
They believed him, placed their fate in his hands and remained there till the
time they discovered they were going nowhere as he was taking them in circles
on an endless journey from one wild patch to another wild patch.