Rendering Unto Caeser

COMMENTARY: Jesus Was Original Proponent Of Church/State Separation
“There is no such thing as a "Christian politics." If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here" (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program. This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, "Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him" (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state.” (New York Times, “Christ Among the Partisans,” 04-09-06)

---------------------------------------------

Mr. Wills makes some interesting points in his commentary. But this isn’t a question of church/state separation. It’s a matter of political philosophy.

A personal decision to go down and volunteer in the storefront soup kitchen down on Skid Row because it’s what Jesus would do is just as valid as if the decision were based on Rousseau’s notion of the social contract or if it’s a nice day and there’s nothing on teevee, so why not? The underlying value which motivates the charitable act is a personal decision everyone has and should have the right to come to by whatever route they see fit. That’s one of the underlying foundations of the First Amendment’s protection of both religion and expression.

That’s the reason both protections sit on top of each other in the Constitution. There is what you value, one’s personal religion, so to speak; it can metaphysics or simple personal charity. There is also the consequent political expression which comes out if it. It can’t and shouldn’t be separated. How and what basis one reaches decisions regarding social and political behavior is a deeply personal matter, and must be respected in a free, democratic society. The Constitution does just that.

The issue is purely where, how and when the government should act for the common good in response to individual and collective expressions of values. The best guideline comes from Revolutionary War propagandist Thomas Paine, who held that your freedom to swing your arms ends at the tip of his nose. The government has the right and duty to step in and protect his nose but no further. Everything must be measured against this guideline. Is the act under question a matter of “arm swinging” or “nose defense?”

Now, proponents of various restrictions, including some feminists who hate girly mags, build ridiculous links between a specific act and social harm. The Socialist Right has us all clusterloving squirrels in the public square on Wednesday if gays are allowed to marry on Tuesday. The answer is just to rebut such silliness with sound argument. But that is the proper guideline to use.

Democracy is essentially an agreement to disagree without killing anyone over the disagreement. Americans have been remarkably tolerant politically over the life of the nation (yeah, we’ve had a couple of Red Scares and all but the overall record is pretty good compared to the rest of what was once called the First World) and I think that a lot of it has to do with the religious freedom provided by the First Amendment. When you agree to disagree on God and the nature of reality, disagreeing on who should serve in the state legislature and whether the road should go this way or that is a lot easier to handle.

I don’t dis the Socialist Right for bringing religion into the discussion. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, did that and quite well. And we liberals right properly consider him a hero. I dis them because they’re ideological hypocrites regarding the role of the state and because they don’t see that they’re just being duped by Republican and conservative forces in a massive play to distract the public from what’s really at stake. Most of their ideas are silly too, but I can handle that as long as they aren’t allowed to implement any of them.

So, in the ongoing war over whether or not God and Jesus belong in the public square, I say that that’s not the question. They question is how far we let them swing their arms after they get there.