We wondered what took so long for Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, to respond to the shellacking he has been receiving in Liberty. Though nothing personal was meant, he and/or his magazine have been mentioned (excoriated?) at least a dozen times in the past few years. What piqued Father Neuhaus enough, however, to plunk out acerbic replies–twice–were the Iambs and Pentameters section of March/April, 1998 and November/December, 1997.

As one of the movers-and-shakers in this politics-disguised-as-piety attempt to prove that Catholics and Protestants, because of their belief in Christ, are "one in Christ" (which is like saying that Jews and Muslims, because of their belief in Moses, are "one in Moses")–Mr. Neuhaus fumed over our questioning that dubious assertion, along with the even more dubious one that Catholics and Protestants preach the same gospel. After all, despite all the gushing pronouncements in both "Evangelicals and Catholics Together," and "The Gift of Salvation" about how unified both religions are on justification by faith alone–what does one do (for instance) with the statement by John Paul II (quoted in Christianity Today in its more "Protestant" phase), in which the "Holy Father" says: "It would therefore be foolish, as well as presumptuous. . . to claim forgiveness while doing without the sacrament of penance"? Of course it would be foolish . . . that is unless you believe in salvation by grace alone, as taught in the writings of Paul–which, obviously, the Pope doesn't, and thus how presumptuous of Mr. Neuhaus to imply that he (and Roman Catholics in general) do.

Though in our criticism Liberty made only a passing reference to Luther, Brother Neuhaus penned a twenty-or-so-line polemic saying that Seventh-day Adventists–who abstain from eating pork and drinking booze (two of Luther's favorite pastimes, especially the latter)–are somehow unqualified to pass a theological judgment upon those who are bowdlerizing the gospel for political expediency. The problem with that argument is that neither Adventists (much less Lutherans) hold Luther as the final authority on theology. We reserve that for the Bible alone, and on it's this basis–that of the Scriptures–we reject the myth, so crucial for Neuhaus' political vision, that Catholics and Protestants believe, preach, and teach the same gospel. Indeed, the Protestant reformers whom Rome burned at the stake didn't give their lives over what Charles Colson (the Protestant Rosencrantz to Neuhaus's Guildenstern) once had the gall to trivialize as "petty quarreling."

On a more personal note, Father Neuhaus took exception to our words and cartoon in which we questioned the inconsistency of man whose magazine, issue after issue, year after year, constantly and unabashedly and courageously affirms the right to life yet can't seem to find any words about attempts to restrict the promotion and sale of tobacco except to mock it. What it would take to get Father Neuhaus to speak out in favor of laws that might make teenage accessability to deadly poison a little more difficult? A first-trimester fetus smoking, perhaps?

"All I meant to say," Mr. Neuhaus wrote in his retort, "is what I believe, namely, that a world without cigars and pipes may be a world with a great deal less personal happiness." For whom? Certainly not the ones who are struggling with a habit that at worst will kill them or, at best, will lower the quality of their life (emphysema–what a way to enjoy "personal happiness"!). Certainly not for those who have lost their loved ones to smoking. Certainly not for the kids who get started on a habit that they can't stop.

Obviously someone as brilliant and thoughtful as Father Neuhaus has been able, somehow, to reconcile his crusade for life with his ambivalence regarding attempts to restrict tobacco trade. But why can't he–along with so many other pro-life, pro-God-and-family-and-apple pie conservatives–at least keep quiet rather than mock earnest and sincere efforts to preserve life? His attitude is enough to make a reasonable person ask, Is First Things (or any of its related institutions and foundations) receiving money, directly or indirectly, from the good folks who have given us everything from Joe Camel, 400,000 extra corpses a year, and second-hand smoke?

ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL

For years, anti-separationists have been trying to tear down their much hated wall-of-separation metaphor, which has been maligned and attacked by those who, apparently, think that centuries of European religious history (never burdened with this troublesome wall) should be the model for America. Now, though, a recent historical discovery shows that the wall might not only be "high and impregnable" (as Justice Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education) but even "eternal."

Jefferson used the wall-of-separation metaphor in his now famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, in which he wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole America people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

The original draft is in possession of Library of Congress, which asked the FBI to uncover the parts that Jefferson, for whatever reasons, had inked-out. FBI director Louis Freeh agreed and the FBI, using digital photography and computer analysis, recovered a few deletions, including one that deals with the wall metaphor. In the original, the phrase had been penned, . . . "thus building a wall of eternal separation between church and state."

Eternal separation? For some folks, the wall of separation itself is bad enough, but in Jefferson's mind the notion that it was a wall of "eternal separation" carried enough credence to make it into at least an early draft. Of course, the modifies was eventually excised, perhaps because Jefferson thought it was a bit hyperbolic. After all, America doesn't need a wall of eternal separation–just one that lasts as long as the Republic does.

High-Tech Hate

Though the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment was written to protect political discourse only, it has been expanded to cover just about everything, such as flag desecration, cybersex, and racist rhetoric (Child pornography isn't protected, despite the ACLU's best efforts). However much most Americans appreciate this protection, what's troubling is the rise in electronic hate speech on the Internet. According to the Anti-Defamation League, hate Web-sites have more than doubled from 1996 to 1997, a trend that has raised cries for censorship.

Good luck. If Bill Clinton (of all people) couldn't even get the Communications Decency Act–which would have limited the crudest pornography in cyberspace–to pass constitutional muster, fat chance of anyone pulling the plug on the Aryan Nation, the Ku Klux Klan, StormFront, and other Neanderthal ideologues who have crawled far enough out of their caves to at least be able to build a Web-site. The other problem is, Who determines what qualifies as "hate speech"? As columnist Charles Levendosky wrote: "Often one man's hate speech is another man's political statement. And political commentary has–and should have–the highest First Amendment protection."

This question isn't just speculative rhetoric. Recently, a company that makes a software filter called Cyber Patrol decided that among the sites it would block out for hate speech was, believe it or not, the PG-rated American Family Association Web-site of the Reverend Don Wildmon, because of AFA's stand against "gay rights." How ironic, considering that the American Family Association, in a well-meaning crusade against pornography, has pushed parents, schools, and libraries to use Internet filters–including Cyber Patrol.

THE TRIUMPH OF THE WEST

From a press release issued last summer by the Communist Party of the United States: "The Communist Party, USA today announced the transfer of its financial portfolio from Merrill-Lynch, effective immediately."