|
Vince Koven
writes:
I suppose that depends on how you define
"anti-Catholic," but the proponents of this legislation (all Catholics, so far
as I can tell) are adopting the *political* stance of supporting the lay
Catholics who have been critical of church-closing decisions. More votes in the
pews than in the pulpits, I guess.
I think this raises a very interesting question going
well beyond the specific example. Many people who have studied abortion
note that women are basically split on the issue, which makes it problematic to
argue that those of us who support reproductive choice (as I do) are "pro-women"
and those against are "anti." Similarly, one of the things that
Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly have taught us is that African-Americans do
not necessarily support affirmative action and, indeed, are willing to argue
that it is functionally anti-Black to support it. I don't agree, but
I'm not sure that I'm any longer willing to say that opponents of affirmative
action are "anti-African American." If one accepts Catholic theology,
then I suppose that the "pro-Catholic" position is indeed the pulpit (and
ultimately the Papacy) rather than what the laity happen to profess, but that is
obviously a tendentious argument (for most of us). With regard to almost
all Protestant denominations (or Judaism), there would certainly be no reason at
all to reject the laity in favor of ministers or
rabbis.
sandy
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
