Craycraft, Kenneth R., Jr. 1962-

views updated

CRAYCRAFT, Kenneth R., Jr. 1962-

PERSONAL: Born November 11, 1962, in OH; married; children: five. Education: Malone College, B.A., 1985; Cincinnati Bible Seminary, M.A. and M.Div., 1988; University of Cincinnati, M.A., 1988; Boston College, Ph.D. (with distinction), 1993; Duke University, J.D., 2001.

ADDRESSES: Offıce—Squire, Sanders and Dempsey LLP, 312 Walnut St., Suite 3500, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4036. E-mail—[email protected].

CAREER: Educator, lawyer, and writer. St. Mary's University, San Antonio, TX, associate professor of theology; Squire, Sanders and Dempsey (law firm), Cincinnati, OH, associate, 2001—.

WRITINGS:

The American Myth of Religious Freedom, Spence Publishers (Dallas, TX), 1999.

Contributor to First Things, Review of Politics, Chronicles, Theology Today, Crisis, Journal of Religion, and other journals. Executive editor, Law and Contemporary Problems.

SIDELIGHTS: Kenneth R. Craycraft's 1999 book, The American Myth of Religious Freedom, stirred controversy in the debate over First Amendment provisions and the rights of church institutions. A former associate professor of theology at San Antonio's St. Mary's University who retrained as a lawyer, Craycraft reworked his doctoral dissertation for his controversial book. In the work, he presents a revisionist view of the church-state provision.

The American Myth of Religious Freedom posits two major myths, according to James Paul Old in the Review of Politics: "It is a myth in that it is part of a cultural ethos that defines a people; it is also a myth in that it is simply not true." As Vincent Phillip Munoz commented in Perspectives on Political Science, Craycraft's "fist myth is that the foundations of religious freedom are neutral toward all religions," and his second myth states "that religious believers are best off in a regime like America." As Craycraft describes it in his book, religious freedom as stipulated in the Bill of Right's First Amendment—and as acted upon in decisions by the Supreme Court—is actually a recipe for the state to curtail the freedom of churches to take active participation in the nation's political life. "Instead of religious freedom, Craycraft would prefer a regime that practices a more limited form of religious tolerance," as Old further explained. A model for such tolerance is to be found in the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom, Cray-craft stipulates in his book.

Such arguments about church rights versus state rights have increased since controversial Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s regarding school prayer, and Craycraft's analysis is therefore "both timely and provocative," Old wrote. Other reviewers, however, took issue with the author's interpretations. Munoz, for example, thought that Craycraft "simply misinterprets the American Founders," and noted that his book's "most significant shortcoming . . . is its striking political naivete." Joseph Baldacchino, writing in Humanitas, also disagreed with Craycraft's interpretation of the thoughts of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, observing that his book "provides a good example of the distortion of reality, not to mention mind-torturing confusion."

Still other reviewers found more to like in the study. David Lewis Stokes, Jr., writing in the Providence Journal, called the author "as brave as he is intelligent to de-mythologize the First Amendment." And George Westerlund, reviewing the title in Library Journal, summed up the middle ground: "A careful reading of this work will aid in understanding the debate, but it will not resolve the tension arising from this conflict of belief."