Every time liberals wish to find some sort of justification for their beliefs and actions, they either collect the support of popular people try to compare themselves to some higher moral authority. Among these comparisons is one that I think is the most ridiculous. It goes something like this: “Christians should accept homosexuals and their lifestyle, same sex marriage and abortion rights. You know, Jesus didn’t follow the mainstream thinking of the time. He was a radical. He challenged the laws of the day. He reached out to all people.” This type of comparison is simplistic and flawed.

While it is true that Jesus Christ was compassionate and taught compassion and acceptance of those on the fringes of society (the lepers, the crippled, the poor), Jesus cannot be deemed a radical in the context of the modern definition of the word. This Son of the Living God never tolerated or even expressed toleration for the violation of the laws of God. As an example, Jesus saw people selling animals and changing money in the holy temple – the house of God. He turned over their tables and went after some of them with a whip. Now we are being told today that if some anti-war protesters want to cause a scene using fake blood in the house of God on Easter Sunday, it is “unchristian” to show them out and not permit them to use the holy building for promoting political propaganda. In light of what Jesus did to those money changers, it would obvious that Christ would not have tolerated it.

Another fact that liberals who use this flawed comparison continually ignore is that Jesus did not defy the laws of the land. He defied the traditions and customary laws of his Jewish contemporaries.  Critical to the argument is Christ’s reason for his defiance. These customary laws which he spoke out against were contrary to God’s laws. This is the reason he fought them. Not because he was a radical “fighting against the man.” When questioned about paying taxes to Caesar, he taught to “...render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”  

Interestingly enough, most liberals I know use this argument as if it were written on a page out of the liberal handbook for arguing when you are uninformed. The reason I use the word uniformed is that 99% of the liberals who use this argument look upon Christianity with very low regard and/or believe that Christianity is merely a movement created to control the masses.

If liberals are looking to attack intolerant religion, why haven’t they gone after radical Islam? Women are subservient in this truly intolerant religion. Homosexuality is completely unacceptable in radical and moderate Islam. The Taliban executed women in public in the name of meting out religious justice. Are there no outcries against this? Radical Islamists believe in killing anyone who does not believe as they do and they believe they are justified by God for doing this.

Why don’t liberals protest that type of atrocity?  What would happen to protesters who went into a mosque in any predominantly Muslim country and pulled a stunt like those Easter Sunday protesters did in a Catholic church this year? What would happen if they broke up the daily prayer with a call for the equal treatment of women and homosexuals or ending their murdering of the innocent in the name of Jihad? I think the answer is obvious.

So was Jesus a radical?  My answer is an emphatic no. He was an enforcer of God’s laws. This does not by any stretch of the imagination equate him with the social demagogues of today who make a living at being fashionably against anything.  The question of what Jesus would have tolerated is still highly relevant as measuring stick of morality, but of equal importance is the obligation we have to take responsibility for sound decision making that addresses our contemporary issues, problems and needs and to make these decisions based on adequate education, experience and understanding – not on emotionalism or the increasingly popular sport going after Christians. That’s the newest Lowe point.