By Ekklesia

New Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been challenged on the constitutional changes he is proposing by Scottish Roman Catholic Cardinal Keith O'Brien - because he has not included mention of the repeal of the Act of Settlement, which ensures that only a Protestant can take the British throne.

"I am deeply disappointed at the statement from Gordon Brown", the Cardinal, a controversial figure for his interventions on abortion and other issues, declared earlier this week.

He continued: "I remain deeply concerned that the 'Act of Settlement' will continue to exist and believe it constitutes state-sponsored sectarianism."

The Cardinal said that "I have been happy to note the recent remarks by Scotland's new First Minister, Alex Salmond that the Act of Settlement should be removed."

The Catholic Church, traditionally a bastion of Labour support, has enjoyed a surprising renewal of relations with the Scottish Nationalists (SNP), and Mr Salmond has been supportive of church schools which others - both religious and non-religious - criticise.

Cardinal O'Brien declared: "I wrote to Gordon Brown in April 2006 following comments he made on the role of the Prime Minister in the selection of Church of England bishops to say that the terms of the Act of Settlement were anachronistic and that it was 'an outstanding example of bigotry and sectarianism in the United Kingdom'. I urged him to consider these views but did not receive a reply."

When the Cardinal first wrote to Mr Brown, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is traditional for the chancellor to stay out of constitutional debates.

Then PM Tony Blair, who is very sympathetic to the Catholic cause, and who is frequently reported in the media to be on the verge of converting to the Roman church, is known to be sympathetic to ending the Act of Settlement.

But his advisors were strongly of the opinion that opening up fresh constitutional questions would be unwise because he was due to leave office.

His successor, Gordon Brown, is, like Blair, a member of the Christian Socialist Movement (CSM). Brown, however, is a Presbyterian, and his father was a minister of the Church of Scotland. Neither is keen to use the word 'socialist'.

Mr Brown is known to have ecumenical sympathies, and in addition to many advisors who do not hold religious beliefs, he has been willing to listen to Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs, and progressive US evangelical social activist Jim Wallis.

The Act of Settlement ensured the succession to the throne by the heirs of the Protestant Electress Sophia of Hanover, a granddaughter of James I. It excludes Roman Catholics, Muslims and other non-Protestants (including humanists and non-believers) from succeeding to the throne.

From the perspective of Britain's largely unwritten constitutional arrangements, the etablished Church of England is seen as Protestant, though many of its members and theologians describe it as "both Catholic and Reformed".

The Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) has official recognition from the monarch north of the border, though it is not a formal state church.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 England & Wales License. Although the views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Ekklesia, the article may reflect Ekklesia's values

Click here to return to homepage

By Saji Thomas

Church leaders and others in Madhya Pradesh state believe a "political witch hunt" is going on as attacks on Christians continue unabated.

The government wants to polarize voters on the basis of religion as a state assembly election approach, alleges Father Anand Muttungal, spokesperson of the Catholic Church in Madhya Pradesh.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP, Indian people's party) formed the current government in the central state in December 2003, with a five-year term. The party is seen as the political arm of right-wing Hindu groups that want to create a theocratic state in India.

Father Muttungal cited two recent anti-Christian incidents as part of a "political witch hunt," a view shared by Naresh Saraf, a member of the main opposition Congress party.

Most recently, suspected Hindu militants harassed a Protestant pastor in July.

In the other incident, on June 30, some BJP activists staged a sit-in before the office of the collector of Bhopal district, demanding action against a Catholic school for allegedly denigrating an ancient mystic poet.

Bhopal, some 745 kilometers south of New Delhi, is the state capital.

Pastor Amos Singh of the Evangelical Church of India narrated to UCA News on July 5 his experience with Hindu radicals. The 50-year-old pastor said they asked him the previous day to vacate his house, a tin shed that he uses also for prayer services, in Balaghat, 350 kilometers southeast of Bhopal.

Earlier, on July 2, other Hindu militants attacked him at Rewa, 450 kilometers north of Balaghat, where he had gone to guide a two-day retreat for 150 people. Five people forced their way into the room in a church compound where he was sleeping. They threw him on the floor and shouted, "Beat him!" and "Set him on fire!"

When the pastor's wife tried to intervene, the intruders held her at knifepoint. "They then began to beat me up with iron rods and lathi (batons)," the pastor added. The assailants also attacked other people, and one woman suffered head injuries.

Pastor Singh said the attackers belong to some Hindu groups that oppose Christians. Militants had tried to stop the retreat on July 1, the first day, but the Christians conducted it with police help.

"I am happy to suffer in the name of Christ," the pastor said, adding that the attacks served to indicate the Church's revival in the state.

In the June incident, the protesting BJP workers asked the collector to de-recognize St. Thomas Senior Secondary School in Bhopal.

They complained that the school magazine had published on March 1 a joke about Kabir Das (1398-1518), a prominent personality in the history of Indian mysticism. The local media portrayed the action as dishonoring the poet, who is revered in India for teaching loving devotion to the divine and an egalitarian society.

Principal Father Thomas Mancharuvil told UCA News his school apologized for the incident and removed the teacher who was in charge of the magazine soon after the reports appeared. The school had printed 960 copies of the magazine. It managed to recover 930 of them and removed the page containing the joke.

The school sent a note of regret to the state school education board and also published it in the local press. "The issue was closed there," Father Mancharuvil maintained.

The priest described the continuing agitation as "very unfortunate" and blamed parents of some failed students. The parents had pressed the school to issue transfer certificates falsely stating that the children had passed their exam, but the school refused.

Condemning these incidents, Saraf told UCA News the state government supported the anti-Christian groups as part of its "vote-bank politics."

Saurabh, a Jain businessman, agreed the attacks are aimed at creating a Hindu vote bank. He warned such moves would spread hatred among various religious communities.

Pastor Anil Martin, also of the Evangelical Church of India, predicted Madhya Pradesh would witness more such incidents as the election approaches. He said Church workers should take "maximum care" while carrying out their duties.

UCAN
Click here to return to homepage

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the city of Slidell, Louisiana on Tuesday for displaying a painting of Jesus in its courthouse lobby.

The ACLU sued after the Slidell City Court refused to voluntarily remove the picture and a message below it that reads: "To Know Peace, Obey These Laws." The ACLU says the portrait — an image of Jesus presenting the New Testament — is a religious icon of the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity, reported The Associated Press. It claims the portrait violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The suit was filed on behalf of an unidentified person who complained to the ACLU about the picture. The defendants in the suit are the city of Slidell, City Judge James Lamz and St. Tammany Parish, which partially funds the court, said the ACLU.


On Saturday, Lamz said he didn't believe the portrait violates the Constitution and the picture would stay up unless a federal judge ordered it removed, reported the AP.

Michael Johnson of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian civil rights group representing the city and parish, noted that the painting has been on display at the courthouse for nearly a decade.

Johnson noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that similar displays in public places are constitutional.


CNA
Click here to return to homepage

Some Hindus joined a Christian rally rally to protest a recent attack on five Catholics, including a priest, while other Hindus organized a rally to justify the attack.

Both rallies were held on July 2 but at different places in Karnataka state. The Christian rally was held in Mangalore, a port town 2,290 kilometers south of New Delhi. The Hindu rally was at Kundapura, some 80 kilometers north of Mangalore, where Carmelite Father Sylvester Pereira and the four others were attacked on June 25.

Condemning the attack, Yogesh Bhat, a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP, Indian people's party), told the Mangalore rally he would "ensure justice for Christians."

The Hindu leader blamed criminals for the attack and said his party, widely seen as the political organ of Hindu nationalists, was not involved. He said he has visited Kundapura's Infant Jesus Shrine, which Father Pereira manages. "I know the noble services rendered by the Christians," he asserted.

The protesters accused the police of negligence and bias in handling the case.

Suspected Bajrang Dal (party of the strong and stout) activists attacked Father Pereira, 36, two seminarians, their cook and a neighbor inside a hospital in Kundapura.

The attackers forcibly took the Catholics to the local police station and filed a case against them for "forcible conversion." The police then detained the Christians in the station for three hours.

M.G. Hegde, a Hindu social worker who attended the Mangalore rally, said nobody has "a right to attack Christians and call it an act of protecting Hinduism." According to him, "99 percent of people" of all religions "do not propagate violence and they condemn the attack on the priest." He urged the administration to view the attackers as mere criminals and punish them.

Hegde regretted the country now lacks leaders who can speak on national integrity. What it has instead are party leaders who propagate violence, hatred and issues for their survival, he said.

The Hindu rally in Kundapura reportedly justified the attack on Catholics, with speakers describing such actions as necessary to protect Hinduism from conversion-minded Christians. Some urged Hindus to follow Dara Singh as a role model in punishing missioners.

Dara Singh was convicted in 2003 and sentenced to death as the leader of a mob that burned to death Australian missioner Graham Stuart Staines and his two minor sons in Orissa, eastern India, in 1999. In 2005 the Orissa High Court commuted his death sentence to life in prison.

Krishnaprasad Adyantaya, one of the speakers, reportedly said Kundapura has several Dara Singhs ready to foil all attempts to convert Hindus. Adyantaya is a managing trustee of a local temple. He alleged that Christian social services and institutions are means of mass conversion. He commended Ramanna Shetty, a Bajrang Dal activist identified as one of Father Pereira's attackers.

The Hindu groups' call for a strike in Kundapura town reportedly produced a poor response.

The Christian rally made no anti-Hindu remarks but stressed communal harmony and national integration. "It was more an interreligious celebration rather than a protest rally," remarked Neri Wilfred Pinto, a Catholic layman at the Mangalore program.

Roshan Castelino, president of Konkani Yuva Awaz (voice of the Konkani youth), a Catholic youth movement that organized the Mangalore program, said leaders they invited from the BJP and other Hindu groups responded "positively."

The rally also prepared a memorandum to present to the state chief minister demanding a separate law to deal with atrocities against religious minorities. The memorandum also complained that the police resorted to "delay tactics" in handling the Kundapura case and showed a "soft" spot for the attackers.

Source: UCA News
Click here to return to homepage

By William Donahue

Last week, the Buffalo City Council passed a resolution criticizing the decision by the Diocese of Buffalo to close some schools and churches. When local officials accused the diocese of "ethnic cleansing," they were roundly criticized by Buffalo Bishop Edward Kmiec, the Catholic League, the Buffalo News and many others.

Sober heads among the Buffalo City Council are now arguing that the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" needs to be dropped from the resolution. Type your summary here

That is the bare minimum that needs to be done. A better way to handle this mess is to withdraw the resolution altogether and appoint a task force to sit down with diocesan officials to discuss their concerns.

Among the participants should not be Councilman David A. Franczyk: he disgraced himself initially when he invoked the invidious language and he further disgraced himself by refusing to apologize.

If the leader of any religious body in Buffalo were to bash the city council for not providing sufficient funding for local schools, he would be blasted for using intemperate language and for crossing church and state lines. The same rules should apply in reverse, and that is why the resolution should be withdrawn.


Click here to return to homepage

By Anto Akkara

Two months after being brutally assaulted by Hindu fundamentalists in the presence of television crews, Pastor Walter Masih says he is determined to continue his ministry.

Although he still needs a walking stick to move around, this did not deter the pastor from travelling more than 300 kilometres from Jaipur, the capital of Rajasthan state, to New Delhi, where he took part in a rally on 29 May to protest about a spate of attacks on Christians in recent months. Masih also attended a national convention in Bangalore in late June of Christians who say they have been persecuted.


"I am not scared. I will continue the work I have been doing for the last 17 years," 47-year-old Pentecostal pastor Masih told Ecumenical News International.

Indian television news channels broadcast the 29 April assault on the pastor after the assailants took film crews to the scene before the attack began. The assailants were shown putting on masks before they assaulted the pastor. Afterwards, images of his profusely bleeding face were screened.

"Two young men came to me after the Sunday service and asked me to speak about Jesus. As I was speaking the 'Good News', one of then said, 'Shall we start?'" recalled Masih.

The two men then began punching the pastor in the face. Four others joined in using wooden sticks to beat the pastor from head to foot. Meanwhile television cameras captured the attack, which took place in front of the pastor's wife and 7-year-old daughter, and the images were shown across India.

About ten families, most of them of Hindu background, are regular members at the church run by Pastor Masih from his rented house in the Geejghar Vihar suburb of Jaipur. Following the attack, some of the newer families have stopped attending, saying they are too scared to take part in the services.

"But I will never quit this Good News ministry," said Masih. He added that he hoped his determination to carry on his work of evangelism would bring more Hindus to his church.

There are fewer than 100 000 Christians among the 57 million people of Rajasthan.

The pastor told ENI that he also had moments of joy after the attack, when several Hindus visited him. He said they told him, "This is very bad and it is not Hinduism."

Critics say the police seldom take action against those accused of attacks on Christians, especially in states ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party, whose opponents accuse it of following a Hindu nationalist agenda.

However, after the attack on Masih, and following angry protests by Christians and civil rights groups, Rajasthan police arrested five people.

Source: ENI
Click here to return to homepage

By William Donahue

The Buffalo City Council passed a resolution yesterday that accused the Diocese of Buffalo of "ethnic cleansing."

The diocese has decided to close some city churches and schools, and it was this decision that led Council President David A. Franczyk to charge that some neighborhoods were being abandoned, giving off "the whiff of ethnic cleansing."

He also said that if the Catholic Church is having financial problems, it should consider selling the Vatican.

What happened yesterday will go down in history as one of the most egregious examples of Catholic bashing ever to be voiced by a government entity in the U.S.

Even if the language were not inflammatory and patently bigoted - which it undeniably is - there is still a church and state problem: The Buffalo City Council has no business sticking its nose into the internal affairs of the Catholic Church.

If Buffalo Bishop Edward U. Kmiec were to pass judgment on the affairs of the City of Buffalo (which he wouldn't), he'd be labeled a tyrant. That's what Franczyk and his colleagues are - tyrants.

Dioceses all over the nation look at the changing demographics and make tough decisions regarding church and school closings, as well as openings. They don't need any lectures from government bureaucrats on what to do. And they certainly don't need to hear the kind of hate speech they heard yesterday.

The same city council that wouldn't dream of giving Catholic parents a dime to support school vouchers - which would help to keep the schools open - has the audacity to bash the bishop over something it has no legal or moral ground to stand on. It is a disgrace.

We have contacted lawyers about the possibility of filing a lawsuit against the Buffalo City Council. We have lots of members there - getting standing is not a problem - and the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan may have an interest in doing the litigation. Together, we sued the City of San Francisco last year over a similar issue.



Contact Franczyk at dfranczyk@city-buffalo.com


Click here to return to homepage

By William Donahue

Yesterday, New York City Council Member Tony Avella introduced his Department of Education Holiday Display Resolution (Reso. 930/2007). Avella's bill calls for a nativity scene to appear alongside the menorah and crescent and star in New York City schools.

Currently, the schools allow only a Christmas tree, a secular symbol of the Christian holiday, to stand in its winter holiday displays. On Sunday, Avella held a press conference on the steps of City Hall to discuss this resolution. He was joined by Catholic League president Bill Donohue, Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Center, representatives from the Ladies Ancient Order of Hibernians, the Knights of Columbus and Andrea Skoros, the plaintiff who first brought this injustice to the courts. They were flanked by a big crowd of supporters.

Though a federal appeals court upheld the legality of excluding a crèche, the court disagreed with the city's claim that the menorah and the star and crescent are secular symbols and added, "We do not here decide whether the City could, consistent with the Constitution, include a crèche in its holiday displays." Accordingly, it is up to the Department of Education to decide whether to treat Christian students with the same respect it shows students of other faiths.

Councilman Avella's bill calls on the Department of Education to practice inclusion and end discrimination against students adhering to the Christian faith. Councilman Jimmy Oddo has agreed to be a co-sponsor of the bill, which was submitted to the Education Committee. Avella is currently seeking additional co-sponsors.

We salute Tony Avella and Jimmy Oddo for their efforts, and we are eager to see how all the other councilmen will react to this resolution.



Write to Councilman Robert Jackson, chair of the Education Committee, by visiting http://www.nyccouncil.info/constituent/email_form.cfm?con_id=76.


Click here to return to homepage

By William Donahue

According to today's New York Sun, Harvard professor Jessica Stern told a New York audience yesterday that criticism of Muslim clerics for not condemning Muslim violence was unwarranted.

"I've heard a lot of bashing of Muslim clerics for not stepping up to the plate and condemning extremist violence," she said. "But Catholic priests are not stepping up to condemn those who kill abortion doctors...[and] rabbis are not condemning the violent settlers' movement."

Forced moral equivalency is immoral, and that is exactly what Jessica Stern is promoting.

The silence of Muslim clerics in the face of Muslim violence is well- known. But when it comes to killing abortionists, the Catholic clergy have an impeccable record. It should be noted, too, that as the New York Sun pointed out today, rabbis everywhere condemned Yigal Amir's 1995 assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin-the very incident that Stern cited as an example of Jewish silence.

To begin with, there has not been a single abortionist killed in the U.S. since 1998. When there were killings in the mid-1990s, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, chairman of the Pro-Life Activities of the bishops' conference, said that such shootings make 'a mockery of everything we stand for.' When there were two killings at Massachusetts abortion clinics, Cardinal Bernard Law not only denounced them, he ordered a moratorium on sidewalk protest vigils outside abortion clinics in Boston. Cardinal John O'Connor's response in New York was profound: 'If anyone has an urge to kill an abortionist, kill me instead.'

Just this week, a report of Muslim violence against Iraqi Christians was released. The study, Incipient Genocide, describes in detail 'the deaths of Christian children--including babies-- laypeople, priests and nuns who were burned, beaten or blown up in car bombs throughout the past few years.' Moreover, Christian girls are being raped and having nitric acid thrown in their faces for not wearing veils. And the Muslim silence is deafening.

Click here to return to homepage

The Myth of American Church-State Relations

by Matthew M. Anger

Craycraft’s argument... places him far afield of mainstream American Catholic thought. Radical as it is... his book is in many ways a rather scholarly, serious, and cogently argued exposition. It expresses an outlook that has rarely been heard in America but was once widely trumpeted in Europe, and not all that long ago. - Jeremy Rabkin, Policy Review (August & September 1999)

Though it has been in print for a few years now, Kenneth Craycraft’s American Myth of Religious Freedom (Spence Publishing, 1999) is worth another look as a remarkable study on the subject of American Church-State separation. Not only is the American Myth a long overdue Catholic appraisal, it also represents a paradigm shift among conservative thinkers outside those traditionalist circles that have hitherto been most vocal on the subject. Craycraft was the first to break ranks and enunciate a thorough and appropriately merciless, critique of the whole notion of "religious liberty." The concluding remarks of the book leave little room for second-guessing:

There is no such thing as religious freedom, and the reason that such an assertion sounds so shocking is that we have been completely formed by the American myth.

This position was arrived at by Craycraft as part of a reassessment, in the 1980s and early ‘90s, of the writings of John Courtney Murray, S.J. Best known for his treatise, We Hold These Truths, Fr. Murray was the prime architect of the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae). Given the now "mainstream" status of indifferentism in church-state relations it is not surprising that Craycraft’s forthright discussion provoked heated controversy within the neo-conservative Catholic camp. This group comprises men like George Weigel, Michael Novak and Richard John Neuhaus. Their passionate reaction to Craycraft merely proves how wedded the dominant Catholic bloc is to an ideology which seeks to reconcile the irreconcilables of Americanist dogma and Church doctrine.

Synopsis of the Work

The American Myth presents a closely reasoned treatise of under 200 pages, which negates decades of sentimental cant about a supposedly Christian understanding of the "religious liberty" precept of the First Amendment. Craycraft’s analysis runs the gamut of recent political studies, precedent setting court decisions, and the question of the Founders’ intent, and includes discussion of Jefferson, Madison and the formative ideas of English secularist philosopher, John Locke.

The sections of the book that stand out most for their clarity and vigor are those directly treating the problem of secular American politics and ideology. Ironically, the sections which prove difficult are those which attempt an orthodox interpretation of the current Vatican response to religious liberty. Given the intellectual power of the work and its potentially pivotal role in genuine conservative thought, one almost hesitates to criticize The American Myth, yet the difficulties of the book cannot be conveniently shuffled aside. Nevertheless, the murky ambiguities of Vatican II are far from the most interesting or momentous aspects of Craycraft's book.

Secularization in Practice

Craycraft has a keen sense of what priorities will most impress the reader. He starts with important court decisions and well-publicized controversies over issues of traditional religion and the doctrine of "tolerance." The author notes the baneful fruits of religious liberty. Then, having made clear the overwhelming juridical and mainstream ethical bias against orthodox belief, he traces these fruits to the source which begat them.

Among the many court cases under consideration, the most striking is the Alabama school prayer case of Wallace v. Jaffre (1985). Justice John Paul Stevens made explicit the otherwise implicit opposition of the secularist state to revealed religion. It is worth citing at length, since Craycraft deems it of tremendous importance:

The individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. The Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of a free and voluntary choice of the faithful [author's emphasis].

Craycraft says this is the key to deciphering the myth of religious liberty. Only "voluntary" creeds are "worthy." It is the underlying raison d'être of Americanist religious thinking.

Adapting the terminology of Michael Sandel, who has studied national judicial activity in some detail, Craycraft explains that according to the Americanist concept of religious pluralism, individual rights stand paramount to any religious system. Liberalism not only rejects, but cannot even begin to contemplate, the idea that a person receives his religious and moral convictions from some outside agency (which, of course, would include God's direct action by means of supernatural grace). Thus liberalism speaks of people in a free society as "unencumbered selves." In order for a religious experience to be "authentic" it must completely free and subjective. By contrast, "encumbered" selves (orthodox believers) can have no proper standing under the law, both as originally conceived in the First Amendment and as enacted in everyday court decisions. That is because the Catholic, for example, takes his moral guidance from a transcendent authority—a source which the secularist state does not acknowledge.

If the state does grant concessions (which it does), these are only exceptions to the rule. They are pragmatic means of avoiding tension and maintaining the peace, and nothing else. One example is the exceptional ruling in favor of an Amish farmer in Wisconsin who violated that state’s law on mandatory schooling for children up to the age of fifteen (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972). The sensible deduction from this case, and others like it, is that the state can permit exemptions to an essentially non-threatening sect like the Amish which does not challenge the federal policy of religious neutralization. As the late Allan Bloom observed, the majority of Americans who practice a form of nominal Protestantism have essentially "ceased to be Christian." Bloom believes, with good reason, that "most Americans who think that they are Christians truly are something else, intensely religious but devout in the American Religion."

In truth, Americans practice a religion that has little resemblance to historical Christianity and instead embodies Gnosticism, radical personal autonomy, and salvation unmediated by the Church. The result is that the majority pose no significant threat to the doctrine of the "unencumbered self," while traditional religious groups, both Catholic and non-Catholic, are marginalized. Though Craycraft does not say so, this marginalization of native Catholicism is presently carried out through neo-modernist clerics and lay leaders who have effectively turned the faith into a "voluntary creed," though the faith being what it is, tensions are not completely eradicated, nor will they ever be. Hence, Craycraft notes the furor which erupted over Cardinal O’Connor’s 1990 declaration in favor of excommunicating public figures who supported abortion. The media, representing the broad political consensus, charged that the Church was meddling in politics by pressuring Catholic politicians to adopt a stance in line with its teaching. Hence O’Connor was placing the Church above the democratic process and thereby acting in an unAmerican manner. These charges are no different in essence from the violent anti-Catholic Know-Nothingism of the 19th century. It is further proof of Craycraft’s thesis. Revealed doctrine cannot be reconciled to a liberal theory which, on the one hand, claims religious freedom yet sets the standards for which religions are deserving of that freedom. Absolute and universal tolerance does not exist.

The Meaning of Myth

Perhaps no greater service can be done today than to warn Catholics against adopting the cultural constructs and language of their opponents. Sadly, it is something they have done for many generations, and most especially since the 1960s. Such intellectual compromise is a surer means of defeat than the most violent assault by external enemies. Craycraft is merely echoing the admonition of Dr. John Rao’s brilliant essay "Why Catholics Cannot Defend Themselves." According to both men, conservatives are doomed to defeat when they try to "out-liberal" the liberals. The real coup takes place when the secularist forces his enemy to embrace the superficial definition of a word such as "tolerance," which has different definitions according to the object towards which it is applied. Conservatives feel compelled to be lenient towards liberal error even as liberals suppress traditional beliefs. The former accept pluralism at face value, as if it were really possible to achieve a sublime mediocrity in which everyone practices different creeds yet agrees on some set of "common values" which allows them to live in peace. Of course, the inherent contradictions of such a middle-of-the road position are obvious. One can no more take a stand on a vague secular ethical consensus than one can take a stand in mid air.

Despite the manifold evidence such as Craycraft provides, people will claim that daily hostility to organized religion on the part of judicial and legislative officials is actuall a betrayal of the Founders’ original intention. They say that "separation of Church and State" means "liberty for religion," not "from religion." It is, supposedly, the true genius of the pluralistic philosophy. Before proceeding to demonstrate that active secularization was the foundational intent, Craycraft discusses the point which is really at the heart of the decades-long debate over church-state relations—the pluralist myth which makes misperception on the part of conservatives possible.

A myth, says Craycraft, can be understood in two ways. First, as the ancient idea of mythos which is a set of rites, symbols and institutions that sustain a particular community. These things may not be absolutely true in themselves but do point to some greater underlying truth about a society. The other definition of myth is something false and deliberately deceptive. For Craycraft the American experiment in religious liberty is a myth in both senses.

It is a myth insofar as, despite its claims, the liberal idea of religious liberty as canalized in the First Amendment is a particular and exclusive understanding of religion, a particular story of what we Americans think—or ought to think—about religion and society. And it is a myth in the more popular sense that, insofar as it claims to protect religious freedom in its full and authentic sense, it is simply not true. Rather than protect authentic freedom of religious thought and practice... the American myth has given rise to a set of symbols, rites, and institutions which always subject religion to itself, and often positively hinder religious practice.... The American attempt to overcome political religious myth-making has not succeeded because it cannot succeed.

Based on this conclusion, the author categorically denies each of the following propositions: 1) the founding of the United States was essentially religious, and guided by Christian principles; 2) that even if strongly secular, the state affords an equal degree of security to religious and non-religious people alike; 3) that religious liberty is an obtainable arrangement in any society; and 4) that religious believers are best off in a regime which propagates religious indifference, or that such a regime is itself merely an enlightened product of Christianity. On the contrary:

The only definition of religious liberty in American political discourse is one that marginalizes, if not eradicates as a significant presence, orthodox religious belief. The American story is not interested in explicitly persecuting Christianity. Toleration is a much more effective means, especially if the liberal regime is successful in enlisting the support of Christians.

Founders' Intent

Craycraft tells us that the drive to invalidate orthodox faith ("encumbered self") and the gradual co-option and neutralization of religion are not new developments. The two men credited for creating and nurturing this doctrine in its American context are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Their mentor was the English rationalist philosopher, John Locke.

Madison's role, though consequential, is not as well known. As for Jefferson, it astonishing how any conservative can contend that the man was "religious" (in the Christian understanding of the word). Devout Protestants of the day cursed the Unitarian statesman as an "atheist." Jefferson reciprocated by damning all forms of revealed religion as obscurantism. Of the Catholic Church in particular he spoke of meddling priests and "monkish ignorance." Suffice it to say, the lasting accomplishment of the Virginia Deist in American politics, and the one he most wished to be remembered for, was the Virginia Statute on Religious Liberty. This law was the prototype for the First Amendment.

James Madison's influence was at least as decisive as Jefferson's. He not only supported the secularist ethos which underlies religious liberty but, more importantly, he used his mastery of the language to foist religious neutralization on a people which, Craycraft believes, still regarded themselves as essentially Christian. Madison advanced the secularist position in his famous Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785 (which opposed Patrick Henry's proposal of tax-funded religious institutions) and in the columns of the influential Federalist Papers. In 1819 he wrote that civil government "functions with complete success... by the total separation of the Church from the State."

Craycraft notes Madison's deliberate irony on religious matters. In this he was following the lead of John Locke (whose notions of widespread "religious tolerance" included no clemency for the suffering English Catholics of his time). The making of the Americanist myth is fully at work in Madison’s career. He knew that the proposition must not be too bluntly stated lest it rouse the latent opposition of the mass of practicing and nominal Protestants. Therefore he phrased the idea in such a way that it would settle comfortably in his listeners’ ears while still achieving his ultimate aim. In the end, explains Craycraft, Madison's delicacy and patience won out over the short-lived opposition of his more religious-minded compatriots.

Some have stubbornly maintained that what Madison and others were aiming at was not a negation of Christianity but simply "articles of peace" which would provide religious neutrality and avoid the sort of bloody conflicts which had so long ravaged Europe. Yet, as regards the Virginia politician's intent, there can be no doubt. If his well-known writings are not clear enough, we have access to his unpublished "Detached Memoranda" (made public in 1946). According to Craycraft, these "betray Madison's explicit hostility to institutional Christianity, and further reveal the theological and religious presuppositions behind his public documents." In his private writings he admits that he does not simply wish to "disestablish religion," but to actively curb and monitor it by taxing religious bodies so as to limit property-ownership to a bare minimum. By such means liberalism would truly equalize religious opinions, physically as well as legally. For all of the fine distinctions between American and French liberals, it was a scheme worthy of Robespierre.

Not Liberty But Neutralization

Madison’s ideas dovetailed nicely with Jefferson's belief that the ideal moral framework is one in which there is a vast proliferation of inconsequential denominations and independent churches, each competing with the next. "Freedom," Madison said, "arises from a multiplicity of sects." That is because no one body can attempt to impose orthodoxy upon another. Jefferson similarly opined that the best way "to silence religious disputes is to take no notice of them." It is further proof that the First Amendment achieves the gentle but certain neutralization of serious religious activity. Attentive study of the Founders' actions and beliefs makes clear that "freedom of religion" did indeed mean "freedom from religion," since the predominant views of the eighteenth century held that the only moral system entitled to respect was one entirely "rational" and voluntary. Revealed religion does not make the mark.

As for the Christian influence of men like Charles Carroll, the Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, it may well be that Carroll sincerely viewed the First Amendment as "terms of peace," alleviating decades-long oppression of his co-religionists and permitting the faith to develop unhindered by political considerations. This, Craycraft points out, was the perception of many ordinary Americans, but not that of key figures who shaped and implemented national policy. The actual course of American history, of which the current phase of obscene neo-paganism is an inextricable part, is indebted to the original plan to transform America into a deistic state. At best, sincere Christians have fought a rear-guard action in a battle they were meant to lose.

Locke and the Doctrine of Toleration

It is important to say something about the originator of the "religious liberty" within the English-speaking world, if only because some feel that there was an indirect orthodox influence on the Constitution via John Locke. The rather maddening claim is that the liberal philosopher perpetuated the traditional natural law tradition, albeit under a non-Catholic and rationalistic guise. This is a clear misreading of Locke, since his idea of "natural law" is merely a reiteration of the Hobbesian "law of nature." This latter holds that man, in a "state of nature," is inherently alienated and individualistic. Civil society (and by extension, religious association) are artificial constructs developed to maintain peace and foster social utility. Locke's idea involves a categorical denial of the classical theory of morality and politics as handed down by Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. So much for the crypto-Scholasticism of John Locke.

The clear basis for the Jefferson-Madison neutralization of Christianity resides in Locke’s Letter Concerning Religious Toleration (1685). Cutting through the baroque idiom of the period, Craycraft offers a summary:

...Locke understood that orthodox Christianity (especially Roman Catholicism) is a natural enemy of the liberal regime. But since it was not possible to eliminate the political effects of such religion by force, Locke set out to do it by reason—by reducing "authentic" religion to a set of opinions whose adherents need not (indeed, must not) consider to be exclusively true. The exclusive truth that members of this regime must hold is that no religion possesses exclusive truth, or, perhaps, any truth at all. Any person or church which rejects this "truth" is a menace to the regime, and cannot reasonably expect unqualified toleration.

That is why Locke’s public opposition to freedom of worship for Catholics in 1667 is not a contradiction of, but totally in keeping with, the liberal dogma of religious liberty. Because "papists" were intolerant (they practiced an exclusive creed) they could not be tolerated. They advanced a belief, contrary to liberal-Whig position, of "encumbered selves" who would have an ethical commitment prior to the state.

Noting the impossibility of unqualified tolerance in any society, Craycraft goes on to assert that liberalism and Catholicism are actually alike in one key respect—both make claims to absolute truth. Unfortunately many believers today feel uncomfortable with such contentions, partly out of ignorance and partly out of indifference. It is nicer to maintain that the two creeds can affect a modus vivendi, even if one condemns the increasingly "elitist" and "intolerant" stance of politically correct secularism. One likes to deny that the Church itself has always been "elitist" and "intolerant." Such terms, of course, stick in one's craw. That is because liberals provide double-think definitions to serve their own agenda, in which "anti-elitism" really means totalitarian control and "free speech" equals social and economic censorship of undesirable views. Indicative of the real intentions of liberal doctrine, Craycraft cites two recent exponents of Lockean "tolerance"—Francis Fukiyama (The End of History and the Last Man, 1992) and Stephen Carter (The Culture of Disbelief, 1993). Both men envision a humanist republic in which "religion" plays an active role, but only so long as it is subsumed under the monistic order in which traditional beliefs, particularly orthodox Roman Catholicism, are eliminated (Fukiyama says so openly, while Carter broadly hints at it in his condemnations of Pat Buchanan).

The Murray Dilemma

For all the concentrated force of Craycraft's study, its impact is lessened by a protracted deflection into the neo-modernism of John Courtney Murray. To his credit, Craycraft’s approval of Murray is far from unqualified. He criticizes the liberal priest’s reading of the First Amendment as "articles of peace." It is not, says Craycraft, that Murray believed the Founders intended it to act as such, but the cleric felt that Catholics could nevertheless appropriate the language to their own ends and make use of religious freedom as if it did mean exactly that. According to The American Myth, such an optimistic theory must be held dubious at best. Unaccountably, Craycraft maintains that Murray's reasoning was essentially sound, even though the brief remainder of the priest's career (he died in 1967) reveals an increasing radicalization of his teaching which ended in proposing dialogue with Marxists and asserting that civil society, not the Church, was ultimate arbiter of contemporary ethical norms.

It is true that preliminary to the Council, Fr. Murray advanced orthodox arguments in favor of the Church's prior claim to religious liberty ("freedom for the Church") and the obligation of individuals to respond to its call to conservation and salvation. But that merely clouds the issue. He makes assertions that, if not in open contradiction to, nevertheless tend towards a liberal humanist rendering of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. It is the kernel of the modernist falsehood—a theory containing both truth and error, and thus advancing error in a more subtle and unimpeded manner than would blatant heresy. To say that Murray was "conservative" relative to the liberation theologians of the 1970s is meaningless.

As noted above, Craycraft tells us that the First Amendment cannot be treated as a fundamental dictate with reference only to itself. It must be judged by an unchanging and objective standard as established by true religion. Unfortunately, Craycraft appears guilty of the very mindset he condemns when he adopts a rationale towards Murray's writing and the Council as if these things were primary sources of authority, carrying with them doctrinal status. One would have preferred that he had drawn the logical comparison between Dignitatis Humanae and the writings of Madison, in which radical ends are advanced in moderate and vague terminology.

Opportunism Rebounds

The crux of the Murrayite thesis (as contained in We Hold These Truths) can be summed up not so much as a formal rejection of the Church as repository of truth but as a pragmatic or utilitarian compromise in the face of the reality of the pluralist society. Religious freedom "is not a per se good for Murray; it is an exigent one."

It would have made Craycraft's job far easier, and his analysis less tangential, had he simply placed Murray within the greater context of the Americanist error. Other questions, such as prudential implementation of Church policy, non-coercion (in matters of religious conversion), and natural law considerations, are extremely interesting and Craycraft does a good job handling them. Nevertheless, they are secondary to the main point of the magisterial view on church-state relations.

Prior to Vatican II, the proper role of these relations had been explicitly enunciated in the ex cathedra statements of Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos), followed by Pius IX (Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors). These pronouncements, quite unlike the tortuous language of the Council, were entirely consistent with themselves and with Catholic teaching as a whole. They commanded without exception that the state has the duty to recognize and protect true religion. Further, no society can say that man has an inherent right to be indifferent to the Church's claims. But the problem in this country was not one of theory but implementation. So, rather than implement it, however gradually, the theory was ignored.

The American hierarchy, which had made concessions to the First Amendment from the outset, largely committed itself to a "neutralist" position. In other words, they advanced Murray's expedient of pragmatism long before Murray. Compromise was a matter of convenience. This tactic sought to put off, if not completely obviate, the unavoidable conflict between pluralism and the Catholic faith. Thus, by the time Fr. Murray deliberated upon the matter in the 1950s, there was an underlying tension which had never been resolved and had never gone away.

Murray was honest enough to see that it could not be suppressed indefinitely and demanded a clear settlement. The old tactic of sublime apathy could not endure. The logical answer was that American thought had to be brought in line with the Magisterium. Yet Murray ingenuously sought a "third option," neither ignoring nor conforming to Catholic doctrine. He went about restating the Magisterium in a manner that appeared to justify Americanism and religious liberty. Only in this way can we begin to understand what went on, first in Murray's mind, and then in the minds of the leading modernists at the Council.

On a superficial level the clerical progressives, including Murray, said they acknowledged the legitimacy of the confessional state. Yet whether advancing the confessional state or the indifferentist one, the criterion of value offered was that of historical conditions, not a moral absolute. In other words, if a Catholic state already exists, that is fine, but if a non-Catholic state exists, that is also acceptable. No longer would the Vatican encourage every nation to become a Catholic state. It is, of course, merely a type of relativism which says, as Murray did indeed say, that while certain principles may be true in principle they cannot be realized in fact. Look where Murray's "pragmatism" has lead us.

All so-called practical approaches ultimately serve some ideal, even if that ideal is purely shallow and materialistic. Murray's pragmatism does serve some principal. But it is a principal other than that of the Church, which is to "Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). Murrayism is the handmaid of pluralism, not evangelization.

Relevancy Made Irrelevant

The almost instantaneous fall-out from the Vatican's outward abandonment of the magisterial teaching on the duties of state to religion hardly needs elaboration. Under the aegis of Dignitatis Humanae the majority of bishops have handed the initiative to the prevailing naturalist regime and washed their hands of Catholic social teaching. Many pundits, from George Neumayr to Pat Buchanan, have observed that "relevancy" renders Catholicism completely irrelevant in the eyes of the world. The sad reality has been noted not only by traditionalists, but a growing number of conservative Catholic writers like James Fitzpatrick of Catholic Exchange.

It is interesting that Craycraft's acceptance of Dignitatis Humanae is diffident. There is an unacknowledged disharmony between an integral understanding of religious liberty, which he so fearlessly articulates, and the "official" contemporary stance of the Church. The upshot is a pessimistic notion of church-state relations that verges on a form of quietism, in which the Church must abandon its political involvement and concern itself solely with influencing society through spiritual means. Craycraft asserts that the alternative—official recognition of our religion by the state, starting with the supposedly ill-fated sanction of Christianity by Constantine in 313 A.D.—must entail widespread corruption and diminution of the Church’s role of spreading the faith. Such a view seems born more of reactive, if understandable, cynicism than sober historical consideration.

Even if the perfect church-state relationship is never to be obtained, at least the effort to do so achieved a very high standard in centuries past. After all, the Spanish Catholic monarchy of the 16th century set about colonizing the New World with conversion of souls as its stated primary intention. Whatever baser motives might have been in the minds of some Conquistadors, the fact is that millions of indigenous peoples were baptized just at the very moment when much of northern Europe was apostatizing (and, by the way, overthrowing the social and political authority of Catholicism). Today, in compliance with the new pragmatist dictate, which accepts the pluralist state as the norm, those areas won to the Church at such great cost are falling away completely.

Final Assessment

The answers to the Conciliar dilemma, and its unique non-dogmatic status, have been ably dealt with by writers like Michael Davies and Romano Amerio and need not be detailed here. Nevertheless, one feels that that Mr. Craycraft could have spared himself a great deal of grief if, instead of relying on John Courtney Murray as an authority on American religious liberty, he had turned to that unsung hero of anti-modernism, Msgr. Joseph Fenton.

Fr. Fenton was a determined opponent of the Murrayite view, who engaged in a running debate with the liberals in the years leading up to the Council. In a last ditch attempt to forestall the Americanist triumph, Fr. Fenton insisted that Church teaching

bears not the slightest resemblance to the explanation in We Hold These Truths [by Murray]. It is not a matter of Catholic politic or of Catholic tactic, but a matter of Christian doctrine, that in itself and objectively the state or civil society is obligated to give public and corporate worship to God, to pay to God the debt of acknowledgement due to Him because of His supreme excellence and because of our complete dependence upon Him. Under certain circumstances the payment of this debt may be impossible, but in any event it is definitely not a good or desirable thing to have any state withhold from God the payment of the debt of religion which is due to God.

The flaws noted in this review by no means negate the power of Craycraft's groundbreaking work. It is the most honest assessment of the church-state issue to be published, outside of traditional circles, since the articles of Msgr. Fenton. The mere fact it has seen the light of day establishes an important and precedent-setting step. Such a step, once made, cannot easily be retracted.

Despite its ambiguity on the question of Murray and the Council, The American Myth inclines more to the orthodox viewpoint than the prevailing neo-modernist one, while the chapters discussing American political and cultural concerns are irreproachable. One is inclined to agree with the critic from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute who said that the upshot of his analysis must necessarily be "a return to the old pre-Conciliar view."


Matthew Anger is a freelance Catholic journalist who writes on historical and literary subjects. He lives with his wife and seven children in the Richmond, Virginia area.

Originally published at Seattle Catholic.

SOURCES:
1 Craycraft, Kenneth R. Jr., The American Myth of Religious Freedom. Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 1999.
2 D'Elia, Donald J., The Spirits of '76, A Catholic Inquiry. Christendom Publications, 1983.
3 Fenton, Msgr. Joseph, "Doctrine and Tactic in Catholic Pronouncements on Church and State," American Ecclesiastical Review, October 1961.
4 Murray, John Courtney, "Religious Freedom," Freedom and Man. New York: P. J. Kennedy and Sons, 1965.
5 Murray, John Courtney, We Hold These Truths, Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1960.
6 Rao, Dr. John C., Americanism and the Collapse of the Church in the United States and "Why Catholics Cannot Defend Themselves". William Marra, 1995.

By Anto Akkara

Bangalore, India (ENI). Christian groups in Pakistan are again demanding the scrapping of a draconian blasphemy law after a number of blasphemy cases were imposed on Christians in recent days.

"The religious extremists are furthering their agenda by abusing the blasphemy laws while the government constantly refuses to discuss the issue on any proper forum," lamented the National Justice and Peace Commission of the Roman Catholic church in a statement. Type your summary here

Younis Masih, a 29-year-old Christian from Lahore, had been sentenced to death on 30 May for allegedly making derogatory remarks about Muhammad on 9 September 2005. On that day, a neighbour of Masih demanded that Christians gathering in their town observe Muslim and not Christian rituals. This precipitated an argument that resulted in the charges and the death sentence being meted out to Masih.

Then, four Christian students and two teachers of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences in Rawalpindi on 1 June were charged with blasphemy when they were accused of crossing out a Quranic verse on a notice board. The suspended staff included the Christian principal, Stella Nazir, who says she was on leave on the day of the alleged desecration.

"A true democracy would remain impossible while the discriminatory laws such as section 295 B and C of the Pakistan Penal Code [blasphemy law] were part of the statutes," stated the Catholic commission, reiterating demands for the scrapping of the law.

"Blasphemy cases are increasing daily. This is really worrying," Peter Jacob, executive secretary of the commission, told Ecumenical News International.

The Catholic commission has noted that at least 25 persons have had to face blasphemy allegations in 2007 with 16 of those charged being Christians, which includes nine women. The blasphemy law, he lamented, "has become very handy for those who want to harass us [Christians]".

Click here to return to homepage

In December Rep. Virgil Goode (R.-Va.) sent a letter to constituents following the election of the first Muslim member of Congress. Mr. Goode made several anti-Muslim statements. In late January an interfaith group of concerned citizens visited Rep. Goode to discuss his letter and present him with a petition asking he retract his published remarks. The following reflection of that visit was written by Vince Isner, director, FaithfulAmerica [www.faithfulamerica.org].

A "Goode" Day for New Beginnings

Washington, D.C., January 30, 2007 - High on the wall of Congressman Virgil Goode's DC office, just as he had noted in his now famous letter to constituents, was a framed poster stating "In God We Trust." High on the opposite wall a television played Fox News, most of it centered around the war in Iraq.

Below, as our small delegation of religious leaders took their seats, I recalled the statement from Goode's letter in response to newly elected Muslim representative Keith Ellison's decision to use a Qur'an for his unofficial swearing-in. "When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Quran in any way." Speaking on the subject of immigration, Goode added, "...if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran."

I introduced the delegation: With me were the Rev. Greg Anderson, a Baptist Minister from Virginia's 5th District, the Rev. Brenda Girton-Mitchell from the National Council of Churches, Michael Kelly from the Islamic Society of Central VA, Mohamed Elsanousi of the Islamic Society of North America, and Dr. Sayyid Syeed, the Islamic Society's National Director.

We got right down to business. "We come bearing gifts," I began as I handed Mr. Goode the binder containing a petition with 8,000 signatures from concerned persons across the nation. "It is a gift, because these signatures represent people who believe in the power of your words hurt or to heal. We have come to share what we believe is an opportunity for you to help lead the way in promoting a season of understanding around this issue."

Mr. Goode listened as each member of the delegation spoke their minds and hearts. Their points were compelling, from stating how disparaging remarks from an elected official fuels anti-American propaganda abroad, to reminding the Congressman that his words and actions must extend beyond his personal religious views. At one point I was struck by the irony of the moment when I could hardly hear Dr. Syeed, a wise and seasoned man of peace, because of a hair-loss commercial blasting out of the television overhead.

I also wondered if Congressman Goode could hear.

I soon got my answer. When we had finished, Congressman Goode leaned across his desk, thanked us for our remarks, and told us unequivocally that he stands by his earlier statement. "I didn't say anything that was untrue."

Indeed, technically speaking, we were all in agreement. What he said could be factually supportable, and each is entitled to his or her own rights under our constitution. It was what was implied in the statements that raised such national concern - though apparently not uniformly throughout Goode's district, where letters of support outweigh letters of rebuke.

Congressman Goode then remarked that America is a nation where religious freedom abounds, "but if this nation had a majority of Muslims," he said, "I'm not sure it would be the case." Then gesturing to Dr. Syeed, he added, "Of course, if they were all more like you, I don't think there'd be a problem."

I held by breath. Privately I thought, "People used to say that about races of men and women...You're not like the rest of them. If more of them could be like you, we wouldn't have to worry. Why, you're a credit to your race."

Yes, it could have gone badly. But it didn't. Instead, it became both a kind gesture and Holy moment, because Mr. Goode was sincere in his compliment, and, in Dr. Syeed's wisdom, he - indeed all of us - understood that this is how seeds of understanding are planted. Despite years of Mr. Goode's apparent preconceptions, misconceptions, misunderstandings, or whatever it is that causes barriers where bridges might otherwise be... despite these and even a blaring television overhead, they were no match for a chance to sit eyeball to eyeball with deep and loving people whose lives are a genuine expression of what they believe.

Perhaps this was one of the first times Congressman Goode has met a peace-loving, broad-minded Muslim who is far more like him than unlike him (though I hear he has had some friendly exchanges with Rep. Ellison) and we hope it won't be his last.

I closed our visit by sharing with the group about my friend Zufar, a Muslim from Pakistan who is now a citizen of the U.S. and lives in Virginia with his American-born wife - who happens to be Catholic. She is dying of ALS. (Mr. Goode immediately asked how she was doing - not feigned, but from a genuine sense of concern.) "Not well," I replied. What keeps her alive after five years battling the disease and what inspires me is the way in which Zufar cares for her day after day, year after year, with little respite. His abiding Muslim faith is one reason for his devotion to his wife, and yet he takes great joy when her Catholic friends come to visit, pray for her, hold her hand, and sing Christian songs. I told Mr. Goode, "When I am stressed and feel like being less than my best as a person, it is my Muslim friend who helps me to be a better Christian."

And so he does.

Perhaps the most hopeful outcome of our visit was that Mr. Goode said he would accept an invitation to attend a Muslim service or gathering. I suspect he will take some heat in his district back home for that, but imagine all of those faces he will meet - peace loving, broad-minded Muslims, like those in our little group, who love their country and wish the best for all Americans. Imagine that day when a leader on the world stage is confronted with the faces of all of those men, women, and children who understand that with hands open - and not clenched fists - we can nourish one another in wonderful ways.

That should be a very good day indeed.

(CNA)- Administrators at Robert Napier School, who told a 13-year-old student last week she could not wear her necklace and crucifix for health and safety reasons, have changed their mind and said she could wear it as long as it remains hidden.

They also agreed to review the school policy on jewelry at the Jan.24th meeting of school governors.

These recent decisions were made after the parents of the Catholic girl, Samantha Devine, met with head teacher Fiona Miller on Monday.

According to Kent News, the girl’s mother, Rosemary Devine, said: “The school originally told us Sam was not allowed to wear the cross because it was a health and safety issue, but they have changed their mind and allowed her to wear it if it is kept hidden."

“I don’t want the school to completely change its rules, just amend them so everyone can wear a discreet religious symbol,” she said.

Last week, Samantha’s form teacher ordered her to remove the cross and necklace for health and safety reasons. She had been warned that if she continued to wear the jewelry she could face suspension or even expulsion from school.