Belmont Abbey Sues Federal Government Over Obamacare Contraception Mandate

Due to medical bills from all my health issues and my finances taking a huge hit due my inability to work my husband and I had to change internet service providers to meet our needs so until Friday when my internet access is hooked up I will have limited access to blogging.  Friday I will visit all your great blogs. 

I don't usually copy and paste entire articles but since I'm under time constraint here is a good article.

McDonald's & teachers' unions get exemptions but Catholic and all religious colleges do not



"A monk at Belmont Abbey may preach on Sunday that pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortions are immoral, but on Monday, the government would force the same monk to pay for students to receive the very drugs and procedures he denounces," said Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "This is much worse than an un-funded mandate; it is a monk-funded mandate."


WASHINGTON,DC (Becket Fund for Religious Liberty) - On November 10, 2011, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of Belmont Abbey College over the "Affordable Care Act" (aka "Obamacare"), that forces the College to violate its deeply-held religious beliefs or pay a severe fine.


The heart of the lawsuit involves the recently issued Health and Human Services' mandate that requires thousands of religious organizations to provide, against their conscience, contraceptives they consider to be abortifacients-namely Plan B and Ella-and sterilization.


Although the government has already provided thousands of waivers for a variety of special interest groups including McDonald's and teachers' unions, often for reasons of commercial convenience, it refused to accommodate religious organizations. Instead, the government permitted a religious exemption so narrowly defined that it prompted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to note that even Jesus' ministry would not qualify.


"A monk at Belmont Abbey may preach on Sunday that pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortions are immoral, but on Monday, the government would force the same monk to pay for students to receive the very drugs and procedures he denounces," said Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "This is much worse than an un-funded mandate; it is a monk-funded mandate."


The current exemption from the mandate excludes only certain religious employers whose purpose is to instill religious values and that employ and serve only individuals of their same faith. Accordingly, many religious colleges and universities will not qualify for the exemption.


Belmont Abbey, as a small Catholic liberal arts college, teaches that contraception, sterilization, and abortion are all against God's law. The government mandate forces Belmont Abbey and others to make the Hobson's choice of either violating their deeply-held religious beliefs or paying a heavy fine and terminating their health insurance plans for employees and students.


"The mandate is nothing other than a deliberate attack by the government on the religious beliefs of millions of Americans," added Hannah Smith. "In the end, the government is forcing religious orders and believers to pay for services they find immoral or pay a stiff fine."
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. The Becket Fund has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute that protects the free expression of all faiths.

Bishop Lori Defends Religious Liberty In Front Of House Judiciary Committee

Here is Bishop Lori's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. 

 Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, allow me to 

thank you for the invitation and opportunity to be with you today to offer testimony 

on religious liberty.  Let me also express my appreciation to you for calling this 

hearing on a topic of fundamental importance to our Church and to our Nation.

I am here today representing the United States Conference of Catholic 

Bishops (USCCB).  I serve as Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport, and as the 

newly appointed Chair of the USCCB’s Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. 

I will summarize my remarks and ask that my full written testimony be entered into 

the record.

I hope to address three topics today.  First, I would like to offer a few brief 

reflections on the Catholic vision of religious freedom for all, as rooted in the 

inherent dignity of every human person, and this vision’s deep resonance with the 

American experiment.  Second, I would like to identify certain threats to religious 

liberty that have emerged with particular urgency in America today.  And third, I 

would urge you to action in support of particular legislative measures that would 

secure religious liberty against these threats.

I.

Religious liberty is not merely one right among others, but enjoys a certain 

primacy.  As the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI recently explained: “It is indeed 

the first of human rights, not only because it was historically the first to be recognized 

but also because it touches the constitutive dimension of man, his relation with his 

Creator.”   (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Diplomatic Corps, 10 Jan. 2011.)   The 

late Pope John Paul II taught that “the most fundamental human freedom [is] that 

of practicing one’s faith openly, which for human beings is their reason for living.”  

(Pope John Paul II, Address to Diplomatic Corps, 13 Jan. 1996, No. 9.)   Not 

coincidentally, religious liberty is first on the list in the Bill of Rights, the charter of 

our Nation’s most cherished and fundamental freedoms.   The First Amendment 

begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 

prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”   It is commonly, and with justice, called our 

“First Freedom.”

Religious liberty is also prior to the state itself.  It is not merely a privilege 

that the government grants us and so may take away at will.  Instead, religious 

liberty is inherent in our very humanity, hard-wired into each and every one of us by 

our Creator.  Thus government has a perennial obligation to acknowledge and 

protect religious liberty as fundamental, no matter the moral and political trends of 

the moment.   This insight as well is reflected in the laws and traditions of our

country from its very inception.  The Declaration of Independence boldly 

proclaimed as a self-evident truth that our inalienable rights are “endowed by our 

Creator”—not by the State.

Religious freedom is most commonly understood as an individual right, and it 

certainly is that.  Religious freedom proceeds from the dignity of each person, and 

so protects each person individually.   “[T]he exercise of religion, of its very nature, 

consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the 

course of his life directly toward God” (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis 

Humanae, No. 3).   Therefore individuals are “not to be forced to act in manner 

contrary to [their] conscience,” nor “restrained from acting in accordance with [their] 

conscience.”   (Ibid.)   Congress has shown special vigilance in protecting these 

individual rights of conscience, for example, in the form of the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act (RFRA), which forbids the federal government from imposing any 

“substantial burdens” on religious exercise absent the most compelling reasons.

But religious freedom also belongs to churches and other religious 

institutions, comprised of citizens who are believers and who seek, not to create a 

theocracy, but rather to influence their culture from within.  The distinction 

between Church and State, between God and Caesar, remains “fundamental to 

Christianity” (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est, No. 28).  We look to the State 

not to impose religion but to guarantee religious freedom, and to promote harmony 

among followers of different religions.  The Church has “a proper independence 

and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community the State must recognize”

(Ibid.).   An indispensable element of this independence is the right of churches

“not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part 

of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own 

ministers” (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, No. 4).  We are grateful 

that federal courts in the United States—at least to date—have uniformly 

recognized this core protection under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

Finally, the Church teaches that these rights of religious freedom—prior to all 

other rights and even to the State, and protecting both individuals and 

institutions—are held not just by Catholics, but by all people, by virtue of their 

common humanity.   Government has the duty “to assume the safeguard of the 

religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other 

appropriate means” (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, No. 6 (emphasis 

added)).  Even in societies where one particular religion predominates, it is 

“imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious 

freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice” (Ibid.).   The United

States stands strongly for the principle that these rights of freedom are also rights of 

equality—that government should not impose any special civil disadvantages or 

otherwise discriminate against its citizens based on religion.  And although it may 

not have always lived up to this or other religious freedom principles in practice, our 

country’s unique capacity for self-correction has always provided avenues to repair 

to these principles that have made it a great nation.

II.

Regrettably, now is the time for such self-correction and repair.  In the 

recent past, the Bishops of the United States have watched with increasing alarm as 

this great national legacy of religious liberty, so profoundly in harmony with our 

own teachings, has been subject to ever more frequent assault and ever more rapid 

erosion.

As I mentioned previously, I am the Chair of the USCCB’s new Ad Hoc 

Committee for Religious Liberty, which was instituted precisely to help resist these 

assaults and reverse this erosion.  The Bishops of the United States decided in 

principle to institute a committee like this in June of this year, based on 

developments over the months and years preceding that date.   That I am already 

appointed as Chair represents action at near light-speed in Church time, and attests 

to the urgency of the matter from the Bishops’ perspective.

Although the Bishops’ decision was based on facts arising before June, I am 

here today to call to your attention grave threats to religious liberty that have 

emerged even since June—grim validations of the Bishops’ recognition of the need 

for urgent and concerted action in this area.   I focus on these because most of them 

arise under federal law, and so may well be the subject of corrective action by 

Congress.

· In August, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued 

regulations to mandate the coverage of contraception (including 

abortifacients) and sterilization as “preventive services” in almost all private 

health insurance plans.  There is an exception for certain religious 

employers; but to borrow from Sr. Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health 

Association, it is so incredibly narrow that it would cover only the “parish 

housekeeper.”  And the exception does nothing to protect insurers or 

individuals with religious or moral objections to the mandate.   The 

“preventive services” mandate is but the first instance of conscience 

problems arising from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

enacted in March 2010 – an act whose goal of greater access to health care the 

Bishops have long supported, but that we had persistently warned during the 

legislative process did not include sufficient protections for rights of 

conscience.

· In May, HHS added a new requirement to its cooperative agreements and 

government contracts for services to victims of human trafficking and to 

refugees who are unaccompanied minors, so that otherwise highly qualified 

service providers, such as USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services (MRS), 

will be barred from participation in the program because they cannot in 

conscience provide the “full range” of reproductive services—namely, 

abortion and contraception.   This requirement is exactly what the American 

Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has urged HHS to adopt in a lawsuit 

challenging the constitutionality of MRS’s longstanding contract with HHS

to serve victims of human trafficking.  Ironically, ACLU has attacked the 

Church’s exemplary service to these victims as a violation of religious 

liberty.   Already, HHS has taken its major program for serving trafficking 

victims away from MRS and transferred it to several smaller organizations 

that frankly may not be equipped to assume this burden.

· The State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) is increasingly requiring contractors, such as Catholic Relief 

Services (CRS), to provide comprehensive HIV prevention activities 

(including condom distribution), as well as full integration of its programs 

with reproductive health activities (including provision of artificial 

contraception) in a range of international relief and development programs.  

Under this new requirement, of course, some of the most effective providers 

helping to prevent and treat AIDS in Africa and other developing nations will 

be excluded.

· The federal Department of Justice (DoJ) has ratcheted up its attack on the 

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by mischaracterizing it as an act of 

bigotry.  As you may know, in March, DoJ stopped defending DOMA 

against constitutional challenges, and the Conference spoke out against that 

decision.  But in July, the Department started filing briefs actively attacking 

DOMA’s constitutionality, claiming that supporters of the law could only 

have been motivated by bias and prejudice.  If the label of “bigot” sticks to 

our Church and many other churches—especially in court, under the 

Constitution—because of their teaching on marriage, the result will be 

church-state conflicts for many years to come.

· DoJ has also undermined religious liberty in the critically important 

“ministerial exception” case now pending before the Supreme Court, 

Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC.   DoJ could have taken the position that the 

“ministerial exception,” though generally providing strong protection for the 

right of religious groups to choose their ministers without government 

interference, didn’t apply in the case before the court.   This would be 

consistent with the uniform judgment of the federal Courts of Appeals for 

decades, as well the DoJ itself until now.   Instead, DoJ needlessly attacked 

the very existence of the exception, in opposition to a vast coalition of 

religious groups urging its preservation through their amicus curiae briefs.

· At the state level, religious liberty protections associated with the redefinition 

of marriage have fallen far short of what is necessary.  In New York, county 

clerks face legal action for refusing to participate in same-sex unions, and gay 

rights advocates boast how little religious freedom protection individuals and 

groups will enjoy under the new law.   In Illinois, Catholic Charities has been 

driven out of the adoption and foster care business, because it recognizes the 

unique value of man-woman marriage for the well-being of children.

III.

These are serious threats to religious liberty, and as I noted previously they 

represent only the most recent instances in a broader trend of erosion of religious 

liberty in the United States.   The ultimate root causes of these threats are profound, 

and lie beyond the scope of this hearing or even this august body to fix—they are 

fundamentally philosophical and cultural problems that the bishops, and other 

participants in civil society, must address apart from government action.  But we 

can—and must—also treat the symptoms immediately, lest the disease spread so 

quickly that the patient is overcome before the ultimate cure can be formulated and 

delivered.

As to the “preventive services” mandate, and related problems under the 

health care reform law, there are three important bipartisan bills currently in the 

Congress:  the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act 

(H.R. 361), and the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179).  All three go 

a long way toward guaranteeing religious liberty and freedom of conscience for 

religious employers, health insurers, and health care providers.   United with my 

brother bishops, and in the name of religious liberty, I urge these three bills be 

swiftly passed by Congress so they may be signed into law.   We welcome the fact 

that H.R. 358 was recently approved by the House in a bipartisan vote, and that the 6

text of H.R. 361 has been included in the House subcommittee draft of the 

Labor/HHS appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2012.

As to the illegal conditions that HHS and USAID are placing on religious 

providers of human services, this may call for a Congressional hearing or other form 

of investigation to ensure compliance with the applicable conscience laws, as well as 

to identify how these new requirements came to be imposed.  Additional statutes 

may be appropriate, possibly to create new conscience protections, but more likely 

to create private rights of action for those whose rights under the existing protections 

have been violated.  Unfortunately, the authority to enforce the applicable 

conscience protections now lies principally with the very federal agencies that may 

be violating the protections.

As to the attack on DOMA, this body should resist legislative efforts to repeal 

the law, including the Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 1116).  We also applaud the 

decision of the House to take up the defense of DOMA in court after DoJ abandoned 

it, and we urge you to sustain that effort for as long as necessary to obtain definitive 

confirmation of its constitutionality.  Moreover, DoJ’s decisions to abandon both 

DOMA and the “ministerial exception” seem to warrant congressional inquiry.

The religious freedom threats to marriage at the state level may fall beyond 

the scope of authority of Congress to control—except to the extent that state 

adoption and foster care services are federally funded.  We believe this avenue for

protecting the religious liberty of faith-based service providers should be explored 

more fully.

Thank you for your attention, and again, for your willingness to give religious 

freedom the priority it is due.  

The Christian Roots of The American Experience

I don't usually post entire articles but this article by Archbishop Chaput is brilliantly written.   The article is called Subject to the governor of the universe: The American experience and global religious liberty.  Archbishop Chaput pulled the first part of the title - "Subject to the governor of the universe" - of his post from one of our Founding Fathers.

“Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society he must be considered as a subject to the governor of the universe.”
  — James Madison

Subject to the governor of the Universe: The American experience and global religious liberty: 

A friend once said – I think shrewdly -- that if people want to understand the United States, they need to read two documents.  Neither one is the Declaration of Independence.  Neither one is the Constitution.  In fact, neither one has anything obviously to do with politics.  The first document is John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress.  The second is Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Celestial Railroad. 

Bunyan’s book is one of history’s great religious allegories.  It’s also deeply Christian.  It embodies the Puritan, Protestant hunger for God that drove America’s first colonists and shaped the roots of our country. 

Hawthorne’s short story, of course, is a very different piece.  It’s one of the great satires of American literature.  A descendant of Puritans himself, Hawthorne takes Bunyan’s allegory – man’s difficult journey toward heaven – and retells it through the lens of American hypocrisy: our appetite for comfort, easy answers, quick fixes, material success and phony religious piety.

Bunyan and Hawthorne lived on different continents 200 years apart.  But the two men did share one thing.  Both men – the believer and the skeptic -- lived in a world profoundly shaped by Christian thought, faith and language; the same moral space that incubated the United States.  And that has implications for our discussion today.

In his World Day of Peace message earlier this year, Pope Benedict XVI voiced his concern over the worldwide prevalence of “persecution, discrimination, terrible acts of violence and religious intolerance.”ⁱ   In reality, we now face a global crisis in religious liberty. As a Catholic bishop, I have a natural concern that Christian minorities in Africa and Asia bear the brunt of today’s religious discrimination and violence.  Benedict noted this same fact in his own remarks.

But Christians are not the only victims. Data from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life are sobering.   Nearly 70 percent of the world’s people now live in nations — regrettably, many of them Muslim-majority countries, as well as China and North Korea — where religious freedom is gravely restricted.ⁱⁱ

Principles that Americans find self-evident — the dignity of the human person, the sanctity of conscience, the separation of political and sacred authority, the distinction between secular and religious law, the idea of a civil society pre-existing and distinct from the state  — are not widely shared elsewhere. In fact, as Leszek Kolakowski once said, what seemed self-evident to the American Founders “would appear either patently false or meaningless and superstitious to most of the great men that keep shaping our political imagination.”ⁱⁱⁱ   We need to ask ourselves why this is the case.

We also need to ask ourselves why we Americans seem to be so complacent about our own freedoms. In fact, nothing guarantees that America’s experiment in religious freedom, as we traditionally know it, will survive here in the United States, let alone serve as a model for other countries in the future.  The Constitution is a great achievement in ordered liberty.  But it’s just another elegant scrap of paper unless people keep it alive with their convictions and lived witness.

Yet in government, media, academia, in the business community and in the wider culture, many of our leaders no longer seem to regard religious faith as a healthy or a positive social factor.  We can sense this in the current administration’s ambivalence toward the widespread violations of religious liberty across the globe. We can see it in the inadequacy or disinterest of many of our news media in reporting on religious freedom issues. And we can see it especially in the indifference of many ordinary American citizens.

In that light, I have four points that I’d like to share with you today.  They’re more in the nature of personal thoughts than conclusive arguments.  But they emerge from my years as a Commissioner with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), and I believe they’re true and need to be said. The first three deal with the American experience.  The last one deals with whether and how the American experience can apply internationally.

Here’s my first point: The American model of religious liberty is rooted in the thought-world and idea-architecture of the Christian humanist tradition. We cannot understand the framework of American institutions — or the values that these institutions are meant to promote and defend — if we don’t acknowledge that they grow out of a predominantly Christian worldview.

Obviously our laws and public institutions also reflect Jewish scripture, Roman republican thought and practice, and the Enlightenment’s rationalist traditions.  But as Crane Brinton once observed with some irony, even “the Enlightenment [itself] is a child of Christianity – which may explain for our Freudian times why the Enlightenment was so hostile to Christianity.”^iv

Whatever it becomes in the future, America was born Protestant.  And foreign observers often seem to understand that better than we do.  As many of you know, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German Lutheran scholar and pastor murdered by the Third Reich, taught for a time in New York City in the 1930s. He came away struck by the differences between the American and French revolutionary traditions, and the Christian character of American ideals.

“American democracy,” Bonhoeffer said, “is not founded upon the emancipated man but, quite on the contrary, upon the kingdom of God and the limitation of all earthly powers by the sovereignty of God.”^v 

As Bonhoeffer saw it, the American system of checks and balances, which emphasizes personal responsibility and limited government, reflects fundamental biblical truths about original sin, the appetite for power and human weakness.

Jacques Maritain, the French Catholic scholar who helped draft the U.N.’s charter on human rights, said much the same.  He called our Declaration of Independence “an outstanding lay Christian document tinged with the philosophy of the day.” ^vi 

He also said: “The [American] Founding Fathers were neither metaphysicians nor theologians, but their philosophy of life, and their political philosophy, their notion of natural law and human rights, were permeated by concepts worked out by Christian reason and backed up by an unshakeable religious feeling.”^vii

That’s my point. At the heart of the American model of public life is a Christian vision of man, government and God.

Now, I want to be clear about what I’m saying here -- and also what I’m not saying.

I’m not saying that America is a “Christian nation.”  Nearly 80 percent of our people self-describe as Christians.  And many millions of them actively practice their faith.  But we never have been and never will be a Christian confessional state.

I’m also not saying that our Protestant heritage is uniformly good.  Some of the results clearly are good: America’s culture of personal opportunity; respect for the individual; a tradition of religious liberty and freedom of speech; and a reverence for the law. Other effects of Reformation theology have been less happy: radical individualism; revivalist politics; a Calvinist hunger for material success as proof of salvation; an ugly nativist and anti-Catholic streak; a tendency toward intellectual shallowness and disinterest in matters of creed; and a nearly religious, and sometimes dangerous, sense of national destiny and redemptive mission.

None of these sins however – and yes, some of our nation’s sins have led to very bitter suffering both here and abroad -- takes away from the genius of the American model. This model has given us a free, open and non-sectarian society marked by an astonishing variety of cultural and religious expressions. But our system’s success does not result from the procedural mechanisms our Founders put in place. Our system works precisely because of the moral assumptions that undergird it.  And those moral assumptions have areligious grounding.

That brings me to my second point: At the heart of the American model of religious liberty is a Christian vision of the sanctity and destiny of the human person.

The great Jesuit scholar, Father John Courtney Murray, stressed that: “The American Bill of Rights is not a piece of 18th-century rationalist theory; it is far more the product of Christian history. Behind it one can see, not the philosophy of the Enlightenment, but the older philosophy that had been the matrix of the common law. The ‘man’ whose rights are guaranteed in the face of law and government is, whether he knows it or not, the Christian man, who had learned to know his own dignity in the school of Christian faith.”^viii

I believe that’s true.  It’s a crucial insight.  And it’s confirmed by other scholarship, including Harold Berman’s outstanding work in the history of Western law, and his study of religious liberty and America’s founding.^ix   My point here is that the institutions and laws in what we call the “Western world” presume a Christian anthropology; a Christian definition of the meaning of life.  In the American model, the human person is not a product of nature or evolution. He is not a creature of the state or the economy.  Nor, for that matter, is he the slave of an impersonal heaven.  Man is first and fundamentally a religious being with intrinsic worth, a free will and inalienable rights. He is created in the image of God, by God and for God. Because we are born for God, we belong to God. And any claims that Caesar may make on us, while important, are secondary.

In the vision of America’s Founders, God endows each of us with spiritual freedom and inherent rights so that we can fulfill our duties toward him and each other. Our rights come from God, not from the state.  Government is justified only insofar as it secures those natural rights, promotes them and defends them.

And this is not just the curious view of some religious shaman. Nearly all the men who drew up our founding documents held this same belief. Note what James Madison said in his “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” in 1785:

“[Man’s duty of honoring God] is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation to the claims of civil society. Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the universe.”

That is why religious freedom is humanity’s first and most important freedom. Our first governor is God, our Creator, the Governor of the universe. We are created for a religious purpose.  We have a religious destiny. Our right to pursue this destiny precedes the state. Any attempt to suppress our right to worship, preach, teach, practice, organize and peacefully engage society because of our belief in God is an attack not only on the cornerstone of human dignity, but also on the identity of the American experiment.

I want to add one more thing here: The men who bequeathed us the American system, including the many Christians among them, had a legion of blind spots.  Some of those flaws were brutally ugly – slavery, exploitation of the Native peoples, greed, and ethnic and religious bigotry, including a crude anti-Catholicism that remains the most vivid religious prejudice this country has ever indulged.

But the American logic of a society based on God’s sovereignty and the sanctity of the human person has also proven itself remarkably capable of self-criticism, repentance, reform and renewal.

This brings me to my third point: In the American model, religion is more than a private affair between the individual believer and God. Religion is essential to the virtues needed for a free people. Religious groups are expected to make vital contributions to the nation’s social fabric.

For all their differences, America’s Founders agreed that a free people cannot remain free and self-governing without religious faith and the virtues that it fosters. John Adams’ famous words to the Massachusetts militia in 1789 were typical: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” 

When the Founders talked about religion, they meant something much more demanding and vigorous than the vague “spirituality” in vogue today.  Harold Berman showed that the Founders understood religion in a frankly Christian-informed sense. Religion meant “both belief in God and belief in an after-life of reward for virtue, and punishment for sin.”^x  In other words, religion mattered – personally and socially.  It was more than a private preference.  It made people live differently.  People’s faith was assumed to have broad implications, including the political kind.

From the beginning, believers – alone and in communities – have shaped American history simply by trying to live their faith in the world.  As Nathaniel Hawthorne saw so well, too many of us do it badly, with ignorance and hypocrisy.  But enough believers in every generation have done it well enough, long enough, to keep the animating spirit of our country’s experiment in ordered liberty alive. 

Or to put it another way, the American experience of personal freedom and civil peace is inconceivable without a religious grounding, and a specifically Christian inspiration.  What we believe about God shapes what we believe about man.  And what we believe about man shapes what we believe about the purpose and proper structure of human society. 

The differences among Christian, atheist, Hindu, Jewish and Muslim thought are not “insurmountable.”  But they are also not “incidental.”  Faith, sincerely believed or sincerely refused, has consequences.  As a result, theology and anthropology have serious, long term, social and political implications.  And papering those differences over with a veneer of secular pieties does not ensure civil peace.  It ensures conflict -- because religious faith touches on the most fundamental elements of human identity and destiny, and its expression demands a public space.

This brings me to my fourth and final point:  I believe that the American model does work and that its principles can and should be adapted by other countries. But with this caveat. The Christian roots of our ideals have implications. It's  impossible to talk honestly about the American model of religious freedom without acknowledging that it is, to a significant degree, the product of Christian-influenced thought. Dropping this model on non-Christian cultures – as our country learned from bitter experience in Iraq – becomes a very dangerous exercise.  One of the gravest mistakes of American policy in Iraq was to overestimate the appeal of Washington-style secularity, and to underestimate the power of religious faith in shaping culture and politics.

Nonetheless, I do believe that the values enshrined in the American model touch the human heart universally. We see that in the democracy movements now sweeping the Middle East and North Africa.  The desires for freedom and human dignity live in all human beings. These yearnings are not culturally conditioned, or the result of imposed American or Western ideals.  They're inherent to all of us.

The modern world's system of international law is founded on this assumption of universal values shared by people of all cultures, ethnicities and religions. The Spanish Dominican priest, Francisco de Vitoria, in the 16th century envisioned something like the United Nations. An international rule of law is possible, he said, because there is a “natural law” inscribed in the heart of every person, a set of values that are universal, objective, and do not change. John Courtney Murray argued in the same way.  The natural law tradition presumes that men and women are religious by nature. It presumes that we are born with an innate desire for transcendence and truth.

These assumptions are at the core of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many of the people who worked on that Declaration, like Jacques Maritain, believed that this charter of international liberty reflected the American experience.

Article 18 of the Declaration famously says that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief; and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

In a sense, then, the American model has already been applied. What we see today is a repudiation of that model by atheist regimes and secular ideologies, and also unfortunately by militant versions of some non-Christian religions.  The global situation is made worse by the inaction of our own national leadership in promoting to the world one of America's greatest qualities: religious freedom.

This is regrettable because we urgently need an honest discussion on the relationship between Islam and the assumptions of the modern democratic state.  In diplomacy and in interreligious dialogue we need to encourage an Islamic public theology that is both faithful to Muslim traditions and also open to liberal norms.  Shari'a law is not a solution.  Christians living under shari'a uniformly experience it as offensive, discriminatory and a grave violation of their human dignity.

A healthy distinction between the sacred and the secular, between religious law and civil law, is foundational to free societies.  Christians, and especially Catholics, have learned the hard way that the marriage of Church and state rarely works.  For one thing, religion usually ends up the loser, an ornament or house chaplain for Caesar.  For another, all theocracies are utopian – and every utopia ends up persecuting or murdering the dissenters who can't or won't pay allegiance to its claims of universal bliss. 

I began this talk with John Bunyan for a reason.  To this day his major work -- The Pilgrim's Progress -- is the second most widely read book in the Western world, next only to the Bible.   But the same Puritan spirit that created such beauty and genius in Bunyan also led to Oliver Cromwell, the Salem witch trials and the theocratic repression of other Protestants and, of course, Catholics.

Americans have learned from their own past.  The genius of the American founding documents is the balance they achieved in creating a civic life that is non-sectarian and open to all; but also dependent for its survival on the mutual respect of secular and sacred authority.  The system works.  We should take pride in it as one of the historic contributions this country has made to the moral development of people worldwide.  We need to insist that religious freedom – a person’s right to freely worship, preach, teach and practice what he or she believes, including the right to freely change or end one’s religious beliefs under the protection of the law – is a foundation stone of human dignity.  No one, whether acting in the name of God or in the name of some political agenda or ideology, has the authority to interfere with that basic human right.

This is the promise of the American model.  The Founders of this country, most of them Christian, sought no privileges for their kind. They would not force others to believe what they believed.  Heretics would not be punished. They knew that the freedom to believe must include the freedom to change one’s beliefs or to stop believing altogether. Our Founders did not lack conviction.  Just the opposite. They had enormous confidence in the power of their own reason -- but also in the sovereignty of God and God's care for the destiny of every soul.

America was born, in James Madison’s words, to be “an asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every nation and religion.”^xi  Right now in America, we’re not acting like we revere that legacy, or want to share it, or even really understand it. 

And I think we may awake one day to see that as a tragedy for ourselves, and too many others to count.