Sometimes we view humanity through our myopic scope of religion. By way of the Bible or what we’ve learned in church, we have a habit of applying the rule of religion to how we treat each other.
Reinhold Niebuhr wrote in The Nature of Destiny of Man that “the worst form of intolerance is religious intolerance, in which the particular interests of the contestants hide behind religious absolutes. The worst form of self-assertion is religious self-assertion, in which under the guise of contrition before God, He is claimed as the exclusive ally of our contingent self.”
As Westerners, we usually believe that we’re on the right side of being right. Let God’s will be done as long as his will aligns with my personal doctrine. That type of absolutism is dangerous and only understands, as Niebuhr wrote, that God is an “exclusive ally of our contingent self.”
The United States Supreme Court
It’s why some scream and shout against abortion and gay marriage because they are absolutely sure that the strength and egregious nature of the sin fixes God to their side. The Bible speaks ill of killing and homosexuality, so religion must be used as a tool of intolerance to create a pathway to clarity.
On the surface, that sounds vexing. Cultivating negatives to ensure a pathway to freedom isn’t usually how enlightenment is found. But we can be fairly stubborn when attempting to carry out God’s will.
At the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday, an issue of humility was present and loud. The death penalty and lethal injection were discussed and some of the justices were firmly grounded in their positions.
The case presented to them was about the constitutionality of some of the drugs used to execute inmates by lethal injection. Because three executions went bad last year, the drug combinations used are under review.
In essence, because of the executions gone wrong, some fear that one of the drugs administered will subject those on death row to an inhumane amount of pain.
Because of this, some states have experimented with different drugs. As a result, and an example, Alabama passed new legislation to legally use other forms of fatal penalty to carry out executions like the electric chair.
But the division over capital punishment was alive. Those justices who traditionally shade to the left seemed to seek refuge in the notion of the drugs potential unreliability. If we do not know for sure that the new drug will cause pain, isn’t that cruel and unusual?
On the contrary for those on the right as Justice Samuel Alito said that there was “a guerrilla war against the death penalty” because some are pressing drug manufactures not to allow access to the drugs to carry out executions.
If that is the case; if those who are against the very notion of capital punishment based solely on the idea of its inhumanity, may we use the same rhetoric and logic towards abortion?
In Florida this past week, there was a bill passed that will force a 24-hour waiting period for all women wanting to have abortions.
Texas lawmakers are considering a bill that would “hold doctors or counselors criminally liable if they were found to have coerced a woman into ending a pregnancy.”
Is that considered a form of guerrilla warfare against the legality of abortion?
If we were to construct a national scale of morality, which issue would tip the scales more? The life of an unborn child or the grizzled being of a spiritually void killer?
Seemingly both have importance, so where does our humanity enter and where does it exit?
It is, again, the danger of being absolute. Knowing for sure that we’re right because of how an issue aligns with self.
We malign abortion because it kills but esteem the death penalty because it rights the wrong of a death. In attempting to define our humanity, at least politically, we should find that we aren’t responsible or capable enough to take on the pressure of being God.
If you’re one who believes in the mystery of spirituality, then you have the belief that we have an internal governor that guides us through a jungle filled with pitfalls of wrong. Sin is the the ultimate death, so listening to God through our conscience should allow for us to avoid being sacrificed to our own vices.
At least we hope that it happens that way.
It’s when we become so wrapped up in ourselves that we often times lose our original intention.
To kill is wrong, and because sin has no scale of severity, abortion and the death penalty are in the same parking space.
If so, we’ve created an illusion about life so fallible that we’ve deceived ourselves into believing our own self-righteousness.
It’s in that spirit that we’ve defined our humanity. Whether it’s race, class, or gender, our intolerance to certain things are firmly grounded in a pile of sand.
When it comes to politics, we’ll all receive a readjustment come election season. As candidates pile varied amounts of mail into your mailbox, some come knocking on your door, and others bombard you with phone calls, your own self-assertion will be on full display.
Religious rule and law will pilot many to work against a candidate or issue based on the sin severity of both subjects. That also fully removes personal autonomy and gives freewill away to the actions of the devil.
Are we grounded enough to enjoy personal freedom without being accosted by evil?
Either way, it seems that we have a seriously misguided view of humanity, humility, and what’s right and wrong.
Not sure if we’ll ever figure it out, but when it comes to politics, that definition will always come without nuance.
-JH
If you want more politics, well, because who doesn’t, click the links below.
No bastions of glory for Freddie Gray
Florida House hightails it home, leaving state budget in limbo
Greater Orlando Cares hosts Jazz in the Hills International Jazz Day this Thursday
photo credit: Escape by Death via photopin (license)
The post In politics, how do we define humanity? appeared first on Jason Henry Project.