If we begin with the notion that we are not knowledgeable enough or wise enough as a species to determine if there exists something that may represent the absolute good, or something that may represent the absolute evil—we’ll have acknowledged the reality of our current level of acumen.
The reality (which I cannot vouch is absolute) is that
even though we like to project the image of absolute certainty to the effect that
we hold the correct point of view, there remains at the back of our heads at
least a grain of doubt that we may be wrong.
We are reminded of this reality every time that a
controversy erupts at the local or global levels. What happens then, is that
two or more parties that hold different points of view, go after each other,
each arguing that they represent good thinking, whereas the other party or
parties represent evil thinking. We take the side of one or the other, and hope
we’ll someday prove to have been on the right side of history.
Two pieces illustrating that conundrum, were published
recently. Neither indicates what we need to do to move from a state of
uncertainty to one of absolute or even relative certainty, but they assure us
(or so I believe) that uncertainty is so much a part of our makeup, we would
not be human without it. And this is where we see why nature has been wise to
negate us the luxury of being endowed with absolute certainty. It is that the absolute
can exist only when everybody agrees on one and the same thing. But if this
happens, we kill our quest to seek new ideas and new approaches … that which is
the hallmark of our species, that which separates us from the others species.
Of the two pieces showing how those realities unfold in
real life, one is an article that came under the title: “Marjorie Taylor Greene
is not an antisemite,” and the subtitle: “To honor the
Holocaust is to recognize the first sprouts of government tyranny and stop them.”
It was written by Rabbi Jonathan Gross, and published on October 13, 2022 in
the Washington Times. The second piece was an editorial that came under
the title: “Biden’s Wrongheaded National Security Strategy,” published on
October 14, 2022 in National Review Online.
If you need proof that a viewpoint can be so unmoored to
the base from which it has originated, that of Rabbi Gross fits the bill. The
title alone of his article, is so shocking to both Jews and gentiles, many must
wonder if the man wearing the Jewish attire has fallen on his head. If you’re
not certain that a phenomenon like him can exist, see how the rabbi started his
article (shown here in condensed form,) and you’ll be convinced he is real –
sort of. Here is what he wrote:
“Marjorie
Taylor Greene is antisemitic, say the media, because she tweeted that Joe Biden
is Hitler, having attacked the MAGA Republicans. Apparently, criticizing Mr.
Biden, who is not Jewish, is anti-Jewish. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, whom The
Washington Post calls ‘the most famous Rabbi in America,’ explained that Mrs.
Greene’s tweet was antisemitic because it denigrates the Holocaust and
constitutes a form of Holocaust denial. Democrat Representative Brad Schneider,
who is Jewish, drafted a resolution to censure Mrs. Greene calling
on his colleagues to join in condemning her rather than amplify hate,
bigotry, and racism. In other words, Mrs. Greene is a Nazi for
calling Biden a Nazi, and if you fail to condemn her, you’re a Nazi too”.
So,
there you have it. Everyone appears to be an antisemitic Nazi in the eyes of
the other, says Rabbi Jonathan Gross, with absolute certainty. In addition, he
established new criteria by which antisemitism can be gauged. For one, if you
call a non-Jew a Nazi, you commit an anti-Jewish act, and expose yourself to being
antisemitic, he says. For another, if you call someone a Hitler, you denigrate
the Holocaust – which is a form of Holocaust denial – and this too makes you an
antisemite, he adds. Another criterion that sounds somewhat convoluted but
would identify you as an antisemitic Nazi in the eyes of Rabbi Gross, would be
to fail calling Nazi, individuals who oppose Marjorie Greene.
As
to the editorial that appeared in National Review Online (NRO,) it deals
literally with the subject of life and death, including the survival or
destruction of Planet Earth. The certainty or lack of it as to which stance is
more conducive to peaceful coexistence (as opposed to the state of perpetual
conflagrations that has been the human condition for thousands of years) is creating
sharp divisions among protagonists even within the same family. This is what’s taking
place in America at this time between those who view themselves as hawks and
those who view themselves as doves.
In fact, whereas the Biden security strategy for America
seems to favor taking the dovish approach, the editors of NRO do not hide their
hawkish stance. This is generating a contention between the two sides; one that
demonstrates the reality that while both are looking at the same thing, and
while they agree on what it is, they nevertheless assess the danger it
represents differently. Here are the passages in the editorial that bring out
that reality, presented here in condensed form:
“The Chinese Communist Party is a significant
threat to American primacy on the world stage. In addition, Russia is a
near-term threat that Washington must meet. The document calls the threat
from the Chinese regime ‘America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge’
and points out that the People’s Liberation Army is growing in strength and
reach globally. It also notes that Russia poses an immediate and ongoing threat
to the regional security order in Europe and it is a source of disruption and
instability globally. Then it undercuts its warnings about the CCP by
leaving the door open to cooperate with Beijing, as has been the
administration’s wont since the start, and by neglecting to endorse providing
sufficient resources to meet these threats”.
Neither Rabbi Jonathan Gross nor the editors
of NRO have shown convincingly how we can be certain which side of an ongoing
debate represents the good, and which represents evil while the points of view
are hotly contested.
And so, all that we can do is remain humble about the choice we make, and remain open to changing our mind.