I would be happy with any of the below. Religion is a fact. No amount of handwringing or tsk-tsking will change that. Speaking to religious believers qua religious believers is a good thing and I am thankful that few presidents have chosen to circumscribe their speech as some here would have them do.
BTW, why is it wrong for Bush to ask the Pope to help him get re-elected? They share a common goal--the end of the taking of innocent, unborn life. The Pope intervened to end communism (or so some say). Why should he not intervene here? ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Jamar To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 1:06 PM Subject: Re: The President and the Pope Hmm. I wonder if the visceral response of various list members would be the same if: 1. Bush were requesting a Saudi imam to so speak out 2. Or an Iranian Ayatollah 3. Or the Dalai Lama 4. Or the religious leader of a pro-Israeli-settlements sect 5. Or Pat Robertson 6. Or Rev. Sinkford (head of the Unitarian Universalist Association) 7. Or the Archibishop of Cantebury 8. Or a Hindu brahmin priest 9. Or the head of the Wiccans 10. Or [fill in the blank religious leader] It seems to me that the response has largely been not to Marty's question, but rather an illustration of the principle of the gored ox. FWIW, I don't see anything justiciable about such an action; I don't see anything unconstitutional about it; I do see it as a bit tacky and I am uncomfortable with such mingling of church and state; and in my more cynical moments I see it as a ploy to try to sway anti-abortion Catholics to vote for Bush by use of the papacy. (Does anyone doubt that Karl Rove would think this way about this?) Steve On Monday, June 14, 2004, at 12:52 PM, Marty Lederman wrote: I don't wish to become entangled in this increasingly ad hominem debate; and I suppose I regret starting the thread, seeing as how the question appears to have been willfully misconstrued and turned to other ends. But for what it's worth, I think it should be quite obvious from my prior posts and elsewhere that my "antennae" go neither berzerk nor "bezerk" whenever public officials "act[] on [their] religious positions in the political square." This case (as described in press reports, anyway -- I make no claim about their accuracy) obviously involves something quite beyond a public official acting in accord with his religious beliefs, no matter what one thinks of the propriety or constitutionality of the President's conduct. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "The modern trouble is in a low capacity to believe in precepts which restrict and restrain private interests and desires." Walter Lippmann _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
