A Catholic Perspective on Jewish Supremacism in Noahide Law: The Blasphemy of Striking a Jew and the Failure of Justice (Code Orange)

  See Home Page

SevenColorsMinistry@gmail.com

 This article is "Code Orange": Blasphemy

A Catholic Perspective on Jewish Supremacism in Noahide Law: The Blasphemy of Striking a Jew and the Failure of Justice

From a Catholic perspective, rooted in the teachings of the Church as articulated by the Council of Trent, the Roman Catechism (1566), and papal encyclicals such as Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (1891) and Pope John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor (1993), justice is a cardinal virtue that demands equal treatment for all persons, reflecting their inherent dignity as created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26–27; CCC 1807). The Noahide Laws, derived from Genesis 9:1–7 and codified in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 56a–b) and by Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9:1), are promoted by some Jews as a universal moral code for non-Jews, including prohibitions against blasphemy and the establishment of just courts. However, a passage from Michael E. Dallen’s The Rainbow Covenant asserts that striking a Jew is “especially blasphemous” due to their unique relationship with God, implying a special status that non-Jews must respect. This essay, incorporating Dallen’s full quote, argues that this rule reflects Jewish supremacism under Noahide Law, undermining the principle of equal justice. It raises critical questions about the rule’s implications, demonstrates that Catholic teachings on assault do not discriminate based on ethnicity or religion, and shows that this Noahide principle fails to uphold true justice.

---

Dallen’s Quote on Striking a Jew

The following quote from Michael E. Dallen’s The Rainbow Covenant highlights the special status of Jews under Noahide Law:

The Jewish people are eternally "betrothed" to Him to glorify His Name — sometimes in strange ways — among their fellow creatures. The world has an obligation to respect that. It is especially sinful, because it is especially blasphemous (all else being equal), to wrongly strike a Jew, for instance.
Source: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation, p. 244.

This passage suggests that Jews, due to their covenantal “betrothal” to God, hold a privileged position, making acts against them—such as striking—particularly blasphemous under Noahide Law. The implication is that non-Jews must accord Jews special respect, with violations carrying severe moral or legal consequences, potentially distinct from similar acts against non-Jews.

---

Jewish Supremacism in Noahide Law

Dallen’s assertion that striking a Jew is “especially blasphemous” reflects a form of Jewish supremacism, elevating Jews above non-Jews in moral and legal status under Noahide Law. This undermines the Noahide principle of just courts (Sanhedrin 56a), which should ensure equality, and raises critical questions about fairness and punishment.

1. Supremacist Ideology: By framing Jews as “eternally betrothed” to God, Dallen (The Rainbow Covenant, p. 244) implies a divine hierarchy where Jews are uniquely sacred, and non-Jews are obligated to honor this status. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 58b) supports this, stating that a non-Jew who strikes a Jew “deserves death,” as it is akin to striking God’s chosen. This contrasts with assaults on non-Jews, which lack similar theological weight (Encyclopaedia Judaica, “Blasphemy,” 1906, https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3242-blasphemy). Such a disparity prioritizes Jewish dignity over non-Jewish, embodying supremacism that contradicts the universal dignity affirmed by Catholic theology (CCC 1934–1935). Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson’s view that non-Jews exist to serve Jews (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 2) further reinforces this bias, tainting Noahide morality.
2. Questions of Fairness: The rule prompts critical questions: Why is it worse to strike a Jew than a non-Jew? Are punishments harsher for striking a Jew? Is the death penalty applied? Sanhedrin 58b suggests that striking a Jew incurs a death penalty for non-Jews, as it violates the Noahide prohibition against blasphemy (Sanhedrin 56a), though Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9:3) allows courts discretion. For striking a non-Jew, penalties are less severe, often fines or lesser punishments (Baba Kamma 86a–b), revealing unequal justice. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia (“Assault,” https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1958-assault) confirms that Jewish law treats offenses against Jews more gravely, undermining the Noahide court ideal. Catholic justice, rooted in Gaudium et Spes 29, rejects such discrimination, ensuring equal penalties for assault regardless of ethnicity.
3. Failure of Noahide Justice: The Noahide Law’s call for just courts (Sanhedrin 56a) is undermined by this rule, as it privileges Jews over non-Jews, violating the principle of impartiality (Leviticus 24:22). Dallen’s claim that striking a Jew is “especially blasphemous” (The Rainbow Covenant, p. 244) introduces a theological bias that distorts justice, as courts should judge actions, not the victim’s status. This mirrors other disparities, such as harsher penalties for non-Jews in feticide (The Rainbow Covenant, pp. 196–197) or indirect murder (Sanhedrin 77a). The Roman Catechism (Part III, on the Fifth Commandment) teaches that all assaults are sins, with justice applied uniformly, highlighting Noahide Law’s failure to uphold true fairness.

---

Catholic Justice: Non-Discriminatory and Merciful

Catholic moral theology offers a superior model of justice, rooted in the equal dignity of all persons (Genesis 1:26–27; CCC 1934). The Catechism (CCC 2302–2306) teaches that assault, as a violation of the Fifth Commandment, is a sin regardless of the victim’s ethnicity or religion. Canon law and Catholic legal tradition ensure equal penalties for assault, typically restitution or proportionate punishment (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1397), without privileging one group. Unlike Noahide Law’s death penalty for striking a Jew (Sanhedrin 58b), Catholic justice avoids capital punishment for most offenses, emphasizing mercy and rehabilitation (Catechism 2267, revised 2018). The Church’s social teaching (Rerum Novarum 37) promotes courts that uphold impartiality, rejecting supremacist biases that elevate one ethnicity (Gaudium et Spes 29).

Catholic justice contrasts with Noahide Law’s discriminatory framework. While Dallen (The Rainbow Covenant, p. 244) frames striking a Jew as blasphemous, Catholic teaching views all assaults as offenses against God’s image, ensuring equal accountability (Roman Catechism, Part III, on the Fifth Commandment). This universal ethic, rooted in Christ’s command to love all (John 13:34), fosters fairness, unlike Noahide courts’ ethnic disparities (Sanhedrin 58b). By prioritizing mercy (Evangelium Vitae 56), Catholic justice aligns with human dignity, surpassing Noahidism’s flawed system.

---

Conclusion: Catholic Resistance to Noahide Supremacism

Dallen’s assertion that striking a Jew is “especially blasphemous” (The Rainbow Covenant, p. 244) under Noahide Law reflects Jewish supremacism, elevating Jews’ status and imposing harsher penalties on non-Jews (Sanhedrin 58b). Questions—why is striking a Jew worse, are punishments harsher, is it death?—reveal unequal justice, undermining the Noahide ideal of just courts (Sanhedrin 56a). Catholic justice, rooted in universal dignity (Gaudium et Spes 29) and mercy (Catechism 2267), ensures equal treatment for assault, rejecting ethnic discrimination. Catholics must resist Noahide Law’s supremacist biases, proclaiming Christ’s universal salvation (Acts 4:12) and the Church’s mission to uphold justice (Matthew 28:19). Trusting in Our Lady, we defend the imago Dei against systems that discriminate, affirming the Gospel’s call to equality (Galatians 3:28).