ShareThis Page
News Columnists

The coming church-state wars

| Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2011

Appearing the other night on the Catholic network EWTN, I was asked by Raymond Arroyo what should be done about Muslim students at Catholic University demanding that the school provide them with prayer rooms from which crucifixes and other Catholic symbols they found offensive had been removed.

I replied, "Kick 'em out!"

Let them go to George Washington, the university on the other side of town.

Indeed, had Muslim students shown so little loyalty to a school that welcomed them and of whose Catholicism they were aware when they entered, expulsion would have been justified.

But that was a rush to judgment. For it seems that not a single Muslim student at CUA had gone to the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights to file a complaint.

That complaint was the work of John Banzhaf, a professor at GW, perennial litigant and longtime contender for the title of National Pest.

Banzhaf claimed Muslim students had been offended by a suggestion that they meditate in campus chapels "and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus -- the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception."

It is Banzhaf who appears to have a problem with Jesus, the shrine and Catholicism, not the Muslim students whose numbers at CUA have doubled in five years. Moreover, Muslims, while disbelieving that Jesus is the Son of God, regard him as the greatest of the prophets before Muhammad, and they revere Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Banzhaf has also filed a complaint with the Office of Human Rights that Catholic University discriminates against women. How so• CUA President John Garvey had decided to put men and women students into separate dormitories.

What does this episode tell us• That there are anti-Catholic bigots whose stock in trade is exploiting civil rights laws to smear the church and her institutions, and drive wedges between Catholics and those of other faiths.

Second, the Office of Human rights has said its investigation of Banzhaf's complaints will require six months. If it must spend six months investigating these nonsensical charges, it ought to be abolished. Give taxpayers back the money these bureaucrats are wasting. Catholic University, after all, is a private religious institution that, under the First Amendment, is free to pick its students and set its rules.

The episode also reveals how the cause of civil rights has been trivialized and exploited. The 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawed segregation by restaurants and corporations. The 1965 Voting Rights Act struck down state impediments to black access to the ballot. The 1968 act forbade discrimination in the purchase and sale of housing.

While these laws restricted the freedom of state officials, restaurateurs, bar owners, hotel operators and homeowners, that was the price we as a people agreed to pay to end segregation. But civil rights and human rights laws are today being used to compel Christian institutions to conform to anti-Christian agendas that violate their basic principles.

In D.C., a new law ordering city contractors to recognize gay marriages impelled the archdiocese to terminate its 80-year foster-care program rather than let children be adopted by homosexuals. Nationally, the church is resisting an ObamaCare mandate that forces Catholic hospitals to provide patients with abortifacients.

Culture wars, rooted in irreconcilable conflicts about God and man, right and wrong, are disintegrating the moral community we once were — and will likely never be again.

Pat Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?"

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me