Re: The President and the Pope

[Paul Finkelman]

I wonder how Bush would respond if the Bishops all said that no Catholic voter should support a man who 1) vigorously endorses the death penalty, whcih the church opposes, and as a chief executive did not do everything in his power to oppose the death penalty and who did not use all his powers to pardon anyone who might be executed.  I imagine we would hear howls from the Bush people about separation of Chuch and state.  Similarly, what would happen if the Bishops attacked those executives who do not do enough to end world poverty and hunger.  It is fascinating to see Bush pick and choose which Catholic doctrine he likes;  I am sure, however, that His Holiness can see through all of this.

Paul Finkelman

Mark Tushnet wrote:

My intuition is that openness matters, in constraining what 
a politician will say.  But I agree that we're dealing with 
quite a marginal issue here.

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, June 14, 2004 5:51 pm
Subject: Re: The President and the Pope

  

Mark:
I would have thought that it was the other way around on 
    

the 
  

"problematic" score, no?  If Bush is looking for electoral 
    

support, 
  

wouldn't it be more advantageous to make a public 
    

statement about 
  

the matter, rather than making what looks like a rather 
    

innocuous 
  

comment to a Vatican official in private?  (About which, 
    

of course, 
  

he was perfectly accurate.)  Or is your suggestion that if 
    

he does 
  

so openly then at least we know what he's up to?  I 
    

suppose were 
  

Bush to make public a criticism of the Catholic bishops 
    

he might 
  

risk alienating Catholic voters?  (But we should all be 
    

aware that 
  

an attempt to influence Catholic voters in America by 
    

appealing to 
  

a Vatican official in private is essentially futile.)

This might be a mountain being made into a molehill.

Richard Dougherty


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Mark Tushnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date:  Mon, 14 Jun 
    

2004 15:43:05 -0400
  

I have the feeling that this thread may have played itself 
      

out, 
  

but one 
    

matter hasn't come up -- whether there's a difference 
      

between a 
  

public 
    

statement soliciting support from religious leaders, etc., 
      

and a 
  

private 
    

conversation in which such support is solicited (and 
      

whether, in a 
  

world 
    

of leaks, such a distinction is anything close to 
      

coherent).  I 
  

simply 
    

report my intuition that the public statements are lower 
      

on the 
  

"problematic" scale than the private conversation 
      

(which is not to 
  

say 
    

that either one is high on that scale).

      

______________________________________________
    

_
  

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

    
_______________________________________________
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
    

-- 
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK   74104-3189

918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_______________________________________________
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