Religion and Politics

As a teacher of the Hebrew Bible and Jewish Studies, and as a member of a synagogue who attends services regularly, I would have to say that religion is very important to me.  I am writing a book that deals with how religious ideas have helped cultivate a sense of morality and justice in my life.  I still think there is strength in Kant's argument that a divine imperative is needed for objective morality.  As a result, I need to distinguish between the teachings and the practices of religions.

I once heard religion described as mysticism turned political.  It is the politics of religion that to me have caused problems.  The wars that have been fought in the name of religion have bloodied people's conceptions of religion.  I have read many articles about Islam and whether it is a religion that professes peace and brotherhood.  When I look at Iran and its proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, the Islamic State, and other fanatical Islamic groups, I wonder if they are truly interpreting the Quran, or are they just fanatics who use Islam as an excuse for their dream of world domination.

As a result of the wars fought in the name of God, I can understand why people think that organized religion is not a benefit to humanity.  Jesus condemned hypocrisy.  In a previous blog, I ask whether the actions of right wing Jews in Israel are hypocritical.  I can ask the same question about the history of Christianity.  Would Jesus have sanctioned forced conversions, burning people at the stake for heresy, and the battles of Catholics versus Protestants?  How can someone who professes to follow the teachings of Jesus act so violently and brutally?

And so I turn to politics in America.  In my book, I look at the question of abortion.  The rabbinical view of abortion is based on a very ambiguous law in Exodus.  Their view is that the fetus is an extension of the mother, and it can be aborted if it threatens her life.  As a result, if I follow the rulings of the rabbis, I need abortion to be legal.  Yet, many people are adamant that life begins at conception, and aborting a fetus is murder.  I am a stickler for definitions.  A fetus is alive, but is it a life?  Does it have the same rights as a viable life even though it is not viable until it is born?  Does it's dependence on it's mother make it an extension of her, as the rabbis thought?  

The rabbis thought they were interpreting the will of God based on their understanding of the Hebrew Bible.  Pro-life supporters make the same claim.  It is very problematic to me that people are so sure of the will of God without being able to prove the existence of God.  Would Jesus permit an abortion to save the life of the mother?  In my reading of the New Testament, I cannot determine if life in this world or in the world to come is more important?  If life in the world to come is more important, why bring Lazarus back to life?  

The Hebrew Bible is focused on life in this world.  That is the gift.  A long, healthy life is a reward for moral behavior.  As I pointed out yesterday, Maimonides is a rationalist.  We only know what is happening in our physical world.  What comes after is just speculation according to Maimonides.  We cannot know.  It is better to focus on our lives here in the physical world to make the best of it.  Morality to him is the key.  Intellect is the gateway to morality.  I can understand that many see abortion as immoral.  If that is the case, then they should not have abortions.  Other sees saving a life as the ultimate morality.  The rabbis teach that saving a life takes precedence over all the other laws except idolatry, murder, and illicit sexual relations.  For the rabbis, abortion is not murder.  To the pro-life, it is.

Claiming to follow the will of God in making this determination is impossible.  It is the same when it comes to homosexuality.  I can easy claim that homosexuality is forbidden based on the laws in the Hebrew Bible.  There are many ways to deal with it.  For some, the solution is to throw away the Bible.  It is an antiquated ruling that should have no bearing on life today.  For those who try to keep it relevant, there are various methods of reinterpreting it.  For example, Elliot Dorff, a Conservative rabbi interprets the verse to mean that a loving, homosexual relationship is not being described.  To him, it is an issue of male domination, or in other words, male rape that is being condemned.  

I am teaching a class later today on the Teleological Proof of Gods existence (a previous blog).  One of the issues that I will discussing is Intelligent Design.  There have been many attempts to place this argument in biology classes as an alternative to the theories of Evolution.  Even if I accept the argument as valid, it has no place in a science class.  It is not a scientific theory, but a philosophical concept.  Should it be taught in schools.  Yes, in a class on the history of ideas.  Since God is not scientifically proven, there is no place for God in science class.  Or in politics.