Unconditional Love – Religion and Politics

I have never met or even known of, another person with whom I agree on every point upon which they have expounded. I’m not at all surprised by this fact. To be honest, I consider it more or less a foregone conclusion that this will likely always be the case.

The reality is, if a person takes the time to think for him or her self, he or she is likely to come to certain conclusion and make decisions, that become strongly ensconced in his or her psyche.

If one then becomes aware of the definitive statements of others with which that one disagrees, the first and best course of action, is to honestly evaluate those words to decide whether one’s own perception is in some wise flawed.

As a person becomes older—most particularly if that person has spent a good deal of time in intentional consideration of his or her beliefs—that person will likely find less and less, that exposure to the ideas and beliefs of others, will sway how that individual thinks, and by extension acts.

There are certainly people with whose ideas I more readily associate than others. Names like, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Milton Friedman, Mark Levin, Alan West and Dennis Prager come to mind for me, when I think about those with whom I find myself regularly in accord.

That having been said, there are often times when one of the aforementioned will tackle a subject and come to conclusions with which I disagree.

Such was the case in a recent “fireside chat” recorded by Mr Prager. The chat itself was not to me particularly problematic, nor did it in an overall sense, present what I viewed as errant or problematic.

Even so, there was one element of what Mr Prager said with which I find myself in staunch disagreement, that being the essential idea that, “I don’t believe in, or support the ideal of unconditional love.”

You see, I do support such an idea, in fact, I find it to be an essential component of life.

Mr Prager, on the other hand, did not agree—and that is his right.

Having said that we differ on the idea of unconditional love, allow me now to present the reason for that disagreement.

Mr Prager maintains that, love is something that should be ”attached to” morality. Put another way, in his mind, he doesn’t want to have or display love for immorality.

This seems like a good thing, but allow me to make a distinction that shows why, in my view, it is not.

In my mind, the actions and beliefs of another, do not constitute the entirety of that person. This is an important realization.

Have you children? If so, and most particularly if they have attained any age, I’m sure it’s likely they have done things that made you less than proud. Further, and probably more importantly, I’m sure they may have done things that made you grieve for their state of being at the time they were done.

The things they did though, were not the person. Put simply, the fact that people do things they ought not does not mean the person will forever be affected or afflicted—thankfully—by those things. Neither that the things done will affect or afflict others forever and anon.

But just for a second, let’s assume one’s child adopts what that individual adopts as a “guiding principle.” Let’s further assume that the person in question continues in that supposed principle over a long period of time. Now let’s presume just one more thing. Let’s say that the thing they have aligned themselves with is bad—possibly horribly bad.

Even so, one should ask oneself a simple question, “Does that mean I can no longer love my child?” I would argue that the answer is pretty unequivocally, “No.”

One doesn’t cease to love an errant child, even when one’s heart aches for their condition and position.

Does this mean we support the idea, concept, or action the person is espousing or taking? I would argue that, where we might, in such a case, chances are we won’t.

For Christians and Jews, this is an especially important concept. You see, Christians believe, and I believe folks of Jewish belief must as well, that God loves His children regardless how far they go astray.

There is a section of the Bible (or for the Jew, the Torah and other sacred texts) that deals with this. In it, God promises to “forsake” essentially, His chosen people, the Jews if they separate themselves from Him and His precepts and laws. You may think this supports Mr Prager’s view, until you read the remainder of what is said.

Essentially, God says, if you turn back to Him, He will likewise, turn back you-ward.

I would like to posit a simple “guess” (I imagine it can be “proved,” but I will couch it as a guess nonetheless). That would be that even when God’s children go astray, He continues to love them.

The love of any man or woman towards his or her child can be said to be an image of this for all to see.

As a parent, I can tell you with certainty, that I cannot imagine my child doing something that would keep me from loving them. Does that mean I would support them in doing anything they chose if what they chose was not good? Not so much.

In fact, in my humble opinion, I would not truly love them if I did support them when they took actions that were harmful to themselves or others. Certainly, I would not tell any of my children that playing in busy streets was a good idea. You can be sure that doing so could have dire results.

The reason for my not being willing to support them in such circumstances, and yet, to continue to love them, can be summed up in two simple words, “unconditional love.”

Perhaps I misunderstood Mr Prager. Perhaps instead, this was one of the circumstances  about which he spoke in that same chat, where an editor would have been of aid. Whatever the case, in this case Mr Prager and I seem to disagree.

Okay, at the end of another piece. As such, allow me to thank you for reading, and wish you the best of times.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Prove you're human *