Imagine if Jesus were alive today. How might he react to the plight of an impoverished Mexican worker living just miles from America whose wife and two children are beginning to display signs of malnourishment because the worker’s wages are so paltry? If only the worker could make it across the border, he could earn twice as much money. He realizes the risks, as entering America without documentation is illegal and dangerous. But to this father, immigration restrictions pale in comparison to the survival of his offspring. So he crosses the border, hoping to send home wages that will sufficiently feed his family. Would Jesus condemn such a man, and report him to the authorities? Or would Jesus offer him food, shelter, and counsel?

The clearest answer to this question comes from the story of the good Samaritan. In response to a follower asking who exactly Christ is referring to when he says “love thy neighbor,” Jesus presents the story of a Samaritan who aids an injured Jew. Jesus’ praise of the compassionate foreigner leaves little question that Christ would exhort his followers to help a man in need, regardless of citizenship.

The immigration bill which passed the House of Representatives last December, and was introduced in the Senate by self-proclaimed Christian and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, criminalizes exactly what Jesus asks of his followers–aiding illegal immigrants. And of all people, it was Democratic Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton who had the courage to point out the hypocrisy of many Republicans who claim to espouse Christian values but attempt to criminalize Jesus’ teachings.

“It is hard to believe that a Republican leadership that is constantly talking about values and about faith would put forward such a mean-spirited piece of legislation,” exclaimed Clinton. “It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself.”

As a Christian who feels the same way, I cannot help but praise Clinton’s audacity to point out the hypocrisy of her Republican counterparts. Yet some critics, most notably President George W. Bush, have criticized Clinton for her remarks. But does that mean Clinton and other Democrats hoping to make arguments in the name of religion should be silenced?

Quite simply, no. To the contrary, Democrats with strong religious and moral convictions should be encouraged to speak out on account of their faith. For too long, Republicans have enjoyed a monopoly on the public dialogue about religion. They have invoked Christian arguments to voice opposition to selected issues like abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research. Yet simultaneously they advocate social policies, such as this draconian immigration bill, that are antithetical to the beliefs of many Christians. In fact, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Protestant-led Sojourners Magazine have both called upon their followers to oppose the bill. And this spat over immigration is occuring less than three months after Congressional Republicans ignored the pleas of 150 religious leaders who staged a nonviolent protest against a budget bill that proposed cutting $40 billion from education, health care, and child support for low-income families while giving tax cuts to the rich.

For too long Democrats have allowed Republican Christians, who claim to support “life” while advocating capital punishment, to seize the sole authority to dictate what Christians believe. Democrats such as Clinton must not be afraid to speak for the thousands of Christian Americans who vehemently oppose the Republican agenda.

Some may worry that encouraging Democrats to cite religion will turn America into a theocracy. But religion is already a force in American politics as evidenced by a poll that found that 90 percent of Americans say they want a President who believes in God. Having a multitude of religious opinions in a healthy public dialogue will not turn America into a theocracy but instead help create a consensus about our country’s shared values. Such a debate would be preferable to the monopolization of religion in the public sphere by the single version of Christianity promoted by the religious right.

The alternative would be to silence both sides; that is, forbid Democrats and Republicans from bringing any sort of religious argument into the public debate which, at best, would compromise their freedom of speech, and at worst, would force politicians to make up phony reasons for why they feel a certain way about certain issues. As many religious politicians point out, it is difficult if not impossible for them to separate their most deeply held convictions into “religious” and “non-religious” components.

Still, the media and common Hillary-haters could not help but characterize her statements as anything but a naked election-grabbing ploy. But it seems unfair to question the sincerity of a former Sunday school teacher who attends church more regularly than President Bush. Rather, Clinton should be applauded for adding a compassionate Christian voice to a debate dominated by the religious right’s divisive agenda.



Loui Itoh ’07 is a government and comparative study of religion concentrator in Quincy House.