Render Unto Caesar

This is not a political blog, and intentionally so. My purpose here is to witness to the perennial truths of the Gospel, not to advocate one policy over another or one politician over another, though I could and, in certain circumstances, should. However, Senator Barack Obama's abuse of Scripture, both Hebrew and Christian, in support of a fundamentally flawed and self-contradictory view of religious pluralism, impels me to speak out.

There are two things that distinguished the Roman Empire, which in many ways provides an ancient model for our American "empire": 1) supreme religious plurality and tolerance and 2) emperor worship. Among the many and varied cults that crowded the temples of the Eternal City, the worship of the emperor as the bringer of national prosperity and security was, as they say, an institution. Chesterton warned, "abolish the God and the government becomes the God" (Christendom in Dublin). While Rome did not exactly abolish God, it did the next worse thing, exalting in a national pantheon every deity who ever claimed dominion over the fates of men, which unfortunately included the likes of Nero and Domitian.

Thus it is imperative to remember that the first-century Christians were not persecuted for their tolerance of the Hebrew god, but for their intolerance of every other god, including the mighty Caesar. They were persecuted for their insistence that such titles as "son of God" were the sole property of the Son of Man, and rigidly refused to make the small concession of lending them to the emperor. Saint John speaks of this bitter trial in his Apocalypse:

Fascinated, the whole world followed after the beast [the Emperor]. They worshipped the dragon [Satan] because it gave its authority to the beast; they also worshipped the beast and said, "Who can compare with the beast or who can fight against it?" (13:3, 4)

Senator Obama erroneously suggests that democracy requires that believers "translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values", even as he chides secularists for their lack of religious vocabulary in a clever, but ultimately transparent attempt at moderation. What to make of such a proposal? Why cannot Senator Obama and his fellow progressives see that morality divorced from religion is wholly subjective and arbitrary, totally dependent upon the whims of the individual or the mob? When Lincoln boldly declared that our nation was "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal", he was really making two mutually dependent theological assertions, that men are created and that they are equal. The proposition that all men are created by God, therefore no man is God, and therefore no man may rule another is the only sure foundation of democracy. It was the Creed that cut the chains of a race enslaved.

The Roman martyrs would not leave their religious language at the door of the Forum, and so were left to the the lion's mouth in the Colosseum. The lesson here: religious pluralism is no guarantee of religious freedom and can (paradoxically) usurp that fundamental right. Let us not be deceived by false prophets who cry "peace, peace," or even "hope, hope".