Hail Mary, Heil Hitler

Many – if not all – of those who see this title will find it offensive. And it is. It is the appositioning of opposites. The former is an appeal to an immaculate symbol – an appeal to one who would help the petitioner in a quest for virtue. The latter is a denial of virtue, a pledge of loyalty to evil – the promise to support a fatally flawed individual despite those flaws, and possibly because the “supplicant” shares them.

Numerous individuals follow now, or followed once, one or both of these philosophies, but I am not one of them. I am neither a Christian nor a Nazi. Nonetheless, the two phrases weigh heavily, as I consider the role of belief and concern in the formation of the ideas of an individual and the ideals of a society.

Yes, the title is offensive, but it serves to illustrate some points that interest me. They deal with the relationship between religion and the secular world. The roots of Christianity extend more than two millennia into the past – the length of those roots depending on whether you see Christianity as an Abrahamic religion, inextricably linked to Judaism, or if you date it from the events depicted in the Gospels. In either case, however, it's old. Nazism's roots are also long, a heritage of patriotism – which has long served as a rallying cry for populists – and anti-semitism which is almost as old as Christianity. 

However that link, age, is not the focus of today's essay. Different as their current philosophies and goals, however, there is a plausible connection between the two which illustrates a feature of religions in general, and it is this feature that interests me today.

The Gospel of Matthew records the following as Jesus replied to an inquiry from some of his followers about paying taxes to the emperor,

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. [Matthew 21:22]

Jesus drew a distinction between Rome and Judaism (which was his religion). They were two separate realms. It is a distinction which German citizens found perfectly acceptable – even desirable. Church and State were separate. They may have proselytized more forcefully at one time, but their religious decrees were no longer imposed on others. The era of theocracy had passed, and they could remain Christians while following the dictates of their Führer at the same time. There was no obvious conflict. Or at least, none on which most of the people acted.

The origin of the obligation to accept secular law is attributed in the Talmud (and later by Rashi) to Samuel, who lived in the eleventh century BCE, and it is still an accepted precept in Judaism. (In fact, a prayer for the secular government can be found in most prayer books.) While Jewish practice is to be followed if there is a conflict between religious and secular law, when there is no direct conflict we are obligated to follow the law of the State. I assume the same is true of Christianity, but the license to obey “Caesar” was well known, and it was appealing to the Germans.

Having noted the existing secular and religious legal systems, separate if not equal, in contrast to most western religions (and probably in the east as well, but I am not familiar with those creeds), the practices of Islam are striking.

Islam recognizes only a single legal system, Sharia, and adherents view it as applying to everyone – whether Muslim or not – and everywhere. Moreover, a major goal is the conversion of everyone to Islam and to its laws. There is no such thing as secular law. In any country where there are Muslims there is pressure to be ruled by Sharia, especially, but not exclusively, in lands where they are in the majority. As opposed to a separate secular legal system which is to be followed when there is no conflict with religious law, there is a desire to have clerical determination and administration of all regulations. There is also the desire that those regulations apply to all citizens including those who are not (yet) Muslim. And there is the determination as well to bring those non-Muslims into the fold – often by means that would not conform to secular law, or to the religious laws of most other groups.

Which brings us back to the issue of a balanced relationship between secular and religious constructs. There is certain to be oppression when there is unyielding religious law – law that demands blind obedience untempered by any system of secular justice. But, as the Holocaust showed us, an unyielding secular government, blindly followed by those who consider themselves religious but who don't apply their religious principles to unjust laws, and don't follow spiritual teachings and place them above those laws in order to obtain an honorable society, is also likely to place many at risk. Morality is more important than loyalty; tolerance than compulsion.

The answer then – at least in my view – is an acceptance of a dual system, but the placement of the religious, the humanist, practice in a position of dominance where they conflict. Virtue must always take precedence over evil.