One risk of religious rhetoric

In the history of reflection on the relationship of politics and Christianity, one of the questions that often comes up is whether or not Jesus’ ethical teaching, like that of the Sermon on the Mount, is politically applicable and, if applicable, practicable. On the horns of that dilemma Reinhold Niehbur developed the Christian realist position – effectively arguing that it was neither. Niehbur, if you recall, is Barack Obama’s favourite author, a fact that I recalled when pictures emerged of the President and his staff watching the attack on Osama bin Laden’s compound.
It’s always surprising, therefore, when politicians appeal to the Golden Rule. Admittedly, when they do it seems to hold a bland quality – and they usually follow it up with the assertion that it’s a sentiment that people of all faiths and none can share. While that’s true in one sense, it’s worth recalling that in its Matthean setting (Matt. 7.12) the Golden Rule comes as part of one of the most demanding passages of ethical teaching in history. Jesus intensifies the Jewish law, removing interpretive loopholes and making it so exacting that many highly regarded theologians have described it as un-keepable on an individual, never mind a societal, level. What would it mean in terms of defence? Or criminal justice?
Read the rest here