Analysis: The Parable Of The Prodigal Son

The parable of the Prodigal Son is a parable, which most of society is familiar with regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. This parable is about a family of a father and two sons; one son is younger than the other and asks for his inheritance from his father because he didn’t want to wait for his father’s death. The younger son, then proceeds to squander every part of his inheritance, which left him with nothing more than the clothes on his back. The son decides to set out for home, but when he is still quite a distance away his father “ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him”, telling his servants to acquire the best of what they have in celebration of his sons return. Society translates the parable in ways that suggest what the father did was inadequate and misleading, while David Brooks reflects on how the father was correct in his actions because it allowed the son to become a “productive member of society”. I defend David Brooks in his

Although society needs “more accountability, not less”, the accountability they need is not rising to be hypocrites. While others believe that the accountability needed is in receiving zero forgiveness for any mistake, society needs to not turn their heads and ignore those who have done wrong. Society needs to open the door of forgiveness instead of being hypocrites who draw on scornful responses to mistakes they have done before like they eventually did with Malcolm X who reaccumulated into society. Those who hated Malcolm were hypocrites who couldn’t look past the color of his skin. Hypocrisy is found in society and is the root of the problems regarding hateful actions to forgiving situations. A hateful response will shut off someone’s heart, but a forgiving response opens their eyes to new views, thus accountability in hypocrisy opens new peaceful views instead of hateful