« Keeping the faith… | Home | Quote of the Day »
Jesus, Toleration, and the Contemporary Left
By sage of monticello | July 31, 2007
Yesterday, Michelle Malkin asked “Which is a crime?” to satirize the charging of a Pace University student with a hate crime for placing a Koran in a toilet. This is while other religiously objectionable, although apparently tolerable, acts, such as putting a crucifix in a jar of urine went without so severe a punishment.
The charging of the student with a hate crime in light of his actions seems worrisome to me when placed against the interrelated backdrops of our constitution and our commitment to equality.
It would seem that against the backdrop of our constitution this would constitute a form (no matter how perverse) of religious speech and thus protected under Amendment I. And when placed against the backdrop of the principal of equality, the question I have is: why should anti-Christian speech go unpunished, while the consequences for anti-Islamic speech (arguably) harsh retribution?
It would seem that this is hardly constitutional, tolerable, or equitable (as the prevailing interpretation of the Court today is to treat similarly situated person similarly, as well as for the government to be “religion blind” and thus treat no religion less favorably than another). So where’s the outrage? Where’s the “he’s shredding the constitution” rhetoric that is daily pointed at Pres. Bush?
I know where it is - it’s in the minds of conservatives and liberals just don’t get it.
They think it’s toleration to tolerate the intolerant acts of some against Christianity (and in this regard they are right - it is a form of free speech), but where the Left goes wrong is by branding Christians as intolerant for engaging in similar activities of Muslims.
Essentially, to the Left religiously perverse anti-Christian actions are protected as free speech, while religiously perverse anti-Muslim actions are not. If equality is treating similarly situated person similarly than how can similar acts both committed with the intent to degrade religion be treated differently based on the content of the message?
And what is ironic about all of this is that liberals, under the banner of toleration, tolerate anti-Christian actions when it was Jesus Christ and his teaching that paved the way for such a truly revolutionary political proposition to be offered by John Locke in 1689 in his Letter Concerning Toleration.
To understand how, one has to keep in mind that in the Roman state there was no distinction between the obligations one owed to Caesar and the ones one owed to God - the duties a person owed the King and the duties a person owed God were collapsed into one indistinguishable social paradigm. To be a pious Roman was also to be a good Roman citizen and vice versa.
However, Jesus came along and said:
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:13-17)
What Jesus seems to suggest is that one can fulfill his obligations to God in any political regime. One can be a good Christian in a democratic society, but also in a totalitarian one. To be sure, it’s harder to practice one’s faith in the latter, but one can fulfill the law or the greatest commands, which Jesus identifies as the obligation to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Christians are commanded also to love their enemies.
In the world Jesus was born into, to love one’s enemy was an act of treason. One was an enemy of the Romans precisely because one did not worship the Roman gods. In short, because love lies at the heart of Christianity, a Christian can fulfill his religious obligations in almost any political regime.
Accordingly, Christ does not demand that his followers establish a specific form of government, or even that they rule politically, and the New Testament contains no legal code for political governance.
Jesus instead teaches men to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and that God’s kingdom is not of this world. By distinguishing divine law from human law, Jesus makes possible the separation of church and state, without necessarily demanding it.
So, within the context of this historical/constitutional/legal analysis it becomes a political inconsistency for the Left to simultaneously accept Jesus’ teaching which paved the way for religious toleration, but not extend the benefits of the fruits of his teachings to his followers.
Topics: political dialogue, constitutional issues, religion, toleration, equality |
