Equal protection works for all.

Relations between Christians and Jews have seldom been better than they currently are. This statement may strike many as peculiar, given the persistence of anti-Semitic vandalism in Europe, anti-Israeli demonstrations, and the current tug-of-war over Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ, which some fear may set off a new cycle of charges that Jews killed Jesus. The truth of the matter is that an acceptance of religious diversity has begun to take root in the modern world. The claims of religious hegemonists, not altogether lacking worldwide, ring more and more hollow as religious diversity becomes the fact in any society with an airport and instruments of mass communication. What is on the decline, although not entirely lacking even today, is the notion that any one religion can claim the fullness of truth or mastery of morality over against any other religion or society. Even more, the attempts of a dominant religious faction to rule a society is increasingly suspect around the world. Whatever signaled this decline needs to be carefully observed and nurtured lest religion itself be relegated to the trash pile of history as dangerous and destructive.

No danger of that, I expect, since the widespread quest for human understanding continues to engage religions' various symbol systems to supply meaning, order, and motivation for human endeavors. Religion, long utilized to hold groups together (or keep them apart), can continue to do just that but at the same time shed its claim to political hegemony. Brian Barry, a Columbia University Professor of Philosophy and Political Science, aptly observes that "I have made a good deal of the role of religion in inciting people to conflict, some of it of enormous magnitude, it is therefore important, for the sake of balance, to add that there is nothing inherent in the phenomenon of religion as such that inevitably leads to conflict between adherents of different deities, cults or sects" (CULTURE AND EQUALITY, Harvard University Press [2001], p. 24). Barry goes on to explain:

   What causes conflict among adherents of different religious
   faiths is their leading to incompatible demands. Thus, the
   belief in a divinely sponsored mission to convert others, if
   necessary by force, is an obvious recipe for conflict. So is a
   claim made by the adherents of some religions to possess a
   particular holy place when this claim is contested by others....
   Finally, where members of different religious faiths
   have incompatible ideas about the way in which a polity
   and a society should be organized, and at least one group
   seeks to impose its ideas on a territory containing other
   groups, that is bound to result in conflict. Given that these
   are the conditions for conflict, it is scarcely surprising that
   the two proselytizing monotheistic religions, Christianity
   and Islam, have been implicated in so much of it [24-25].

What matters most in religious conflict is the belief that one's religion should determine public polity in accordance with a particular religious faith demand. Opposing this, Barry notes: "A common charge is that the liberal proposal assumes the unimportance of religion in people's lives. [O]n the contrary, it can be replied, it is precisely because liberals recognize the important role that religion plays in many people's lives that they emphasize the importance of neutralizing it as a political force" (25). The answer is not for society to abandon religion but for the state to recognize it as private and to neutralize it as a political force.

Modernity, the product of the Enlightenment, has afforded all religionists a better sense of how religions can peacefully coexist without imposing their particular beliefs in an attempt to govern others with their faith-based perceptions and practices. A product largely of British Enlightenment political philosophy, the United States Constitution embodies the tenets of neutrality in religion and equal protection of all its citizens. While individuals can and do still harbor prejudices of various sorts, including ones based in religion, the state is positioned not to support these prejudices. The result has been and continues to develop in the direction of no longer presuming a Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) foundation for civil law. The notable case in which the Ten Commandments were removed from an Alabama courthouse exemplifies how even well-intentioned judges--in that case, the chief justice of the state supreme court--can and do find it difficult at times to filter out the unconstitutional intrusion of religion into public institutions. Where this occurs, and it continues in the matter of same-sex marriages, those who render faith-commitment to the controlling religion may well forcefully argue against the "intrusion" of the courts into public affairs. In fact, the courts are established to uphold the U.S. Constitution even when the outcome meets with widespread displeasure. A constitutional amendment supporting the faith-based position even of a majority of the population would result in a rending of the integrity needed for inter-religious harmony. Religious faith, not equal protection, would become the basis for civil policy. Rather, constitutional law needs to be free from such compelling interests for the good of all, including the passionate religionists.

Articles in the current issue of BTB explore elements of the biblical canon that serve as foundational for a broadly construed religious tradition, which itself is notably diverse and fragmented. Critical methodologies that emerged from Enlightenment values go a long way in shaping present-day biblical theology in ways that can be taken as particularly felicitous for modern religionists (I am put in mind of the oft-cited phrase, "Know the law and the law will set you free"). Critical methodology has provided biblical scholars and theologians from a variety of otherwise diverging religious traditions with a common ground for analyzing the multiple biblical texts. The scholars' doctrinal underpinnings can be bracketed and later assessed when critical methods of examining biblical texts are shared across denominational and inter-religious lines.

The first article, A Jewish Perspective of Jesus, by Steven H. Golden, serves as a case in point. The author attests to his sense of critical freedom: "We do well to remember how fortunate we are to be living in a time and place that allow scholarship to breathe. Once upon a time, encounters between faiths, and even between sects and denominations, were fraught with tension." The second article, Israel as Son of God in Torah, by John Schmitt, applying historical and literary criticism, sets right what may have come into the interpretative tradition as a conflation, leading interpreters to ignore primary biblical data and thus skewing biblical theology. Comfort for Jerusalem: The Second Isaiah as Counselor to Refugees, by William S. Morrow employs the sensibilities of social psychology in reading the literature of those returning from exile in Babylon. The "learned helplessness" that Morrow cites may be taken as a guiding factor when interpreting this and similar biblical texts; it may also enlighten interpreters of the texts for their applicability in periods of societal crisis. Finally, Richard B. Cook casts a critical eye upon THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ST. PAUL (2003) in his study, Paul Takes a First at Cambridge. Readers of this imposing volume can be well alerted to a variety of issues that cross over denominational lines and rest firmly in the sphere of critical scholarship.

We may next seek to find common ground in working with Muslim scholars. The oft-repeated challenge that Islam needs a Reformation may better be stated that Enlightenment values can well enable critical scholars to address topics of common concern and share methods for shared inquiry. Only a society in which politics are set aside and critical methods are applied without prejudice can produce and support this free inquiry. In the short term, we can all gladly respect the advances made in the modern quest for understanding within an open society in which equal protection is the norm. It's good for religion and even better for society.