reflections

The least of these

I am writing this under the Cageory "Understanding Politics." This is really my attempt to understand the politics that drives our state government, that shapes our community, that twists the meaning of words until yes means no, go means stop and traditional values describes a meanness of spirit. I guess that I do not understand politics.

The most recent example of this is the newly announced "Voter's Right to Protect Marriage" innitiative. This act ostensibly defends traditional values by stripping away the guarantees of the domestic partner legislation which has passed the California legislature. It is supported by a wide ranging internet organizing presences under the names of Campaigns for Children and Families, voteyesmarriage.com, and the the Traditional Values Coalition.

When I was young, I found it difficult to adhere to all of the structures of Biblical teachings. But one teaching made more sense to me than most, the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 25, Verse 40. "'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me." Here, in one verse, I found the concordance of biblical teaching and American liberal democracy. When Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." it was one of the first times that the basis of political philosophy and western Judeo-Christian teachings came together without having to rely on the authority of either an all powererful church or an all powererful state.

We have come a long way since the time of Jefferson, but it is clear that we have a long way to go to recognize the equality of all. For Martin Luter King it was still a dream that there would be a time when people would be judged by the "content of their character."

Twent-five years after Dr. King's speech, Francis Fukuyama, arguing that history can best be understood as a struggle for recognition (1) poses the question

In what way can we say that modern liberal democracy "recongizes" all human beings universally?
It does this by granting and protecting their rights. That is, any human child born on the territory of the United States or France or any of a nuymber of other liberal states is by that very act endowed with certain rights of citizenship.

The Traditional Values Coalition defines their name in strictily biblical terms as

A moral code and behavior based upon the Old and New Testaments. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that the Lord has given us a rule book to live by: The Bible. We are committed to living, as far as it is possible, by the moral precepts taught by Jesus Christ and by the whole counsel of God as revealed in the Bible.

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Randy Thomasson and other leaders of the supporting groups might take the time to read Matthew 25:40. When Jesus was talking about personal morality, he made it clear that the failure to act on behalf of others at their time of need was a failure to act is support of God and worthy of "everlasting punishment" (New King James Version. Matthew 25:46)

I want to know how their Traditional Values, ostensibly based on a biblical understandingm can be used to justify one person not being able to leave their estate unencumbered to another with whom they have shared their lives, how one life long partner can have no say in the end of life and medical care decisions of the other. I want to know how the Reverend Sheldon can call himself a follower of Jesus. Surely he does not follow Jesus's teachings. Just as surely, he is not willing to recognize all humans universally.

(1) Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. p. 202