A New Theocracy in the United States

Before the 2004 election, President Bush told at least two religious leaders that he is guided by God in his decision-making. Theoretically this would be a great advantage to the Republic, but practically it makes normal debate very difficult if not impossible. If I were debating a particular policy with someone, I would be at an insuperable disadvantage if my opponent had a direct pipeline to God. As alarming as the President’s claim is, it pales in comparison with the Schiavo affair. Early in April of this year the Republican controlled Congress went into extraordinary emergency session to block the removal of life-support systems from a woman (Terri Schiavo) who had been in a vegetative state for 15 years. President Bush cut short a vacation and returned to Washington to sign the bill that mandated a referral yet again to a court.
The treatment of patients who are unable to express their wishes and who do not react to spoken words or signs is often governed by a power of attorney issued when they were in possession of all their faculties. This document is usually called a living will and in its absence, it is up to the “next of kin” to make the decisions once it has been established that there is no hope of recovery for the patient. In the case of Mrs. Schiavo, there was a disagreement between her husband and her parents. He maintained that he and his wife had discussed this kind of situation and that neither of them wanted to be kept alive by extraordinary means. Unfortunately, Mrs. Schiavo’s parents did not want their daughter to die, no matter what her condition.

Since the disagreement arguably involved Mrs. Schiavo’s constitutional rights, it was referred to the Federal District Court which has jurisdiction over constitutional issues. The District Court found for the husband and the case was appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals which upheld the District Court’s decision. The parents however continued to litigate to the extent that there were six different hearings on Mrs. Schiavo’s fate, all six having been decided in favour of discontinuing her vegetative state.

One would have thought that the six hearings by the courts which had a duty to protect Mrs. Schiavo’s interests would have ended the matter. Not so. A coalition of fundamental Christian groups brought political pressure to bear on the Congress of the United States to go into extraordinary session to override the courts. A bill to refer Mrs. Schiavo’s case once again to the courts was passed and signed by President Bush. Was this action by the Congress and the President constitutional and legal? Perhaps. In any event it did not seem to be a question which troubled the lawmakers. After Terri Schiavo was finally allowed to die a few days after the law in her regard was passed, a poll was taken indicating that 70% of those questioned thought that the intervention by the Congress and the President was inappropriate and meddlesome.

The Schiavo case raises not only important constitutional questions but theological ones as well. Did the coalition have the right to speak for all Christian Americans? Based on some theological reading, more than a passing acquaintance of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and having listened to approximately 1350 Sunday morning sermons, I conclude that the Christian religion as practised and preached in the U.S.A. and Canada, has two fundamental components, an ethical one and a Messianic one. The ethical side of Jesus’ life and teachings is remarkably straightforward: we are asked to be actively helpful and compassionate as was the Good Samaritan who came to the aid of a wounded stranger lying in the ditch of a highway (Luke X, 25). We should not be self-righteous as in the case of the ‘Woman Caught in Adultery.’ She was about to be stoned to death when Jesus saved her by asking any man who was without sin to throw the first stone. We are told that wealth is a hindrance to attaining eternal life and should be given to the poor (Matthew IXX, 16-23; Mark X, 17-23). We should be forgiving as Jesus forgave the dishonest tax collector Zacchaeus (Luke IXX, 1-10) and as he forgave his own torturers and executioners (Luke XXIII, 32-34). With these examples and without detailing healing encounters with psychotics, the blind and lepers who were then considered highly contagious, one can cite the following statement as a general approach to those on the margin of society: “Whenever you did this for the least of these my brothers, you did it for me” (Matthew XXV, 40). There have been many persons over the years who felt a kinship to Jesus’ ethical, compassionate side, but turned away from the Messianic elements.
Particularly during the Depression, there were many Protestant congregations who practised the “Social Gospel” in favour of the unemployed and poor, while they soft peddled Jesus’ role as the Son of God and redeemer of mankind. The Social Gospel movement was criticized, not without justification of being well meaning but not truly Christian in the full sense of the word. The current pressure groups have no problem with the Messianic side of the message. They believe that Jesus was indeed sent from a merciful God, lived on earth for a limited period and is now in heaven where he will welcome the faithful. The members of the Christian Right believe that the purpose of Jesus was not only to guide us but also to redeem humanity with his life.

This set of beliefs must be seen in light of the obvious non-perfectibility of human beings who turn their back on the “least” and engage in violent conflicts in which many are killed for no rational purpose. This unlovely tendency must also be seen together with the brutal exploitation and despoliation of our environment, which may very well make the planet unlivable for human beings in the not too distant future. However, the problem with these believers is that they have thrown in their lot with the “neo-cons” whose method of operation is diametrically opposed to the ethical teaching of Jesus. Their unashamed bias in favour of the rich and very rich is a case in point. But it does not stop there. Homelessness is of no interest to the neo-cons and they are comfortable with the fact that we, as a nation, are about last among developed countries in offering development aid to less developed ones.

Years ago a commitment was made to contribute .07 % of Gross Domestic Product to this cause and we have not even attained 0.2%. Child Poverty in America is also high during a period when the economy is in pretty good shape and this problem is also not on their agenda.

However, Conservative Christians, since they are faithful to the Messianic side of the Gospels have just as much right to be considered Christians as do the Social Gospelers. Space does not permit a discussion of their really “Hot Button” issue which is abortion. Interestingly, Andrew Sullivan, a Catholic, recently wrote an editorial on the back page of Time in which he suggested that millions of voters who are strongly pro-choice would embrace a reduction in the number of abortions based on better birth control and an increase in compassionate adoptions. To sum up: No pressure group should ever be allowed to steamroller the Congress into actions which are not properly debated and which a large majority of the citizens oppose. Religious freedom is a precious heritage, but as with freedom in other realms, it is messy. In all probability, there will never be any particular group that can speak with authority for all Buddhists, all Christians, all Jews, all Hindus and all believers in Islam in America.

May 2005