Re: The President and the Pope

[Paul Finkelman]

There is some irony in this, since the Republican Party has never nominated a Catholic for the presidency and in two campaigns many Republicans attacked the Catholicism of the candidate (Al Smith and John F. Kennedy) as being a tool of the Pope.  I remember  Republicans arguing that if elected Kennedy would have a "hot line" to the Vatican.  I rememebr many people shaking their head in wonder, asking how anyone could support a "Catholic" for the Presidency. Protestant, Catholic, it was all the same to this Jewish kid!  But, the Republicans have a long history of religous bigotry and opposition to foreigners, going back to the immigration quotas of the 1920s and indeed to some of the Party's anti-Catholic roots in the 1850s.   Now we have the ironic reversal, the Republicans *want* a hot line to the Pope so he can campaign for them.  

Paul Finkelman

Volokh, Eugene wrote:

    It's always hard to argue with people's imaginations, but I would assume that at least many of Bush's supporters would simply say that the Catholic bishops have it wrong on the merits -- they're entitled to express their religious views, but voters should disagree with those views.

 

    As to "picking and choosing which Catholic doctrine he likes," that's hardly a matter of just Bush's doing it.  Most American Catholics do it, in deciding how to act, both personally and politically.  Many American Catholic politicians likewise do the same.

 

    Nor is there anything wrong with Bush's doing it:  Whenever someone asks someone of a different religious group or political group to make common cause on issue A, they aren't necessarily insisting on the same as to issue B.  If the ACLU asks the NRA to join them on an anti-BCRA brief, there's nothing terribly fascinating in seeing the ACLU pick and choose which NRA beliefs they like:  It's enough that they agree on the First Amendment issue, even if they don't agree on the Second Amendment.

 

    To tie this to the law of government and religion:  The question, as I understand it, is whether there's any constitutional problem (whether or not justiciable) with the President seeking political help from religious groups in pushing some aspects of his agenda, whether it's a pro-civil-rights agenda, anti-abortion-rights agenda, pro-environmentalist agenda, anti-poverty agenda, or whatever else.  I think the answer is definitely "no," even when people who dislike the President might imagine that the President's side would make Establishment Clause objections had the tables been turned (an objection that would be just as unsound as the objection to the President's current actions), and even when the President is stressing one aspect of the religious group's views and not another aspect.

 

    Eugene

 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 6:11 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: The President and the Pope

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]

-- 
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