Suppose President
Bush bribes a few legislators in order to get the last votes necessary to pass a
constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Could
he defend his actions by pointing out that Seward may have used briberty to
procure the last crucial votes necessary
:25 AM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
The
dilemma for the American bishops is not whether Kerry should be taking
communion. He should not. The dilemma is whether the Church should
withhold communion in light of his refusal to abide
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 11:32 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The President and the Pope
A question: Say that in the 1960s, the President told a group of white
Protestant leaders that they needed to tell their congregations to take
seriously
Hmm -- I haven't gotten the same sense; might I ask which
particular presidential initiative (as opposed to broad policy goals
related to abortion, gay marriage, etc.) the President was asking the
Pope to support?
More broadly, would there be a *constitutionally significant
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 5:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: The President and the Pope
So
let me state a more general principle: A president should ask a
religious leader for support on a political issue only if the issue is
not partisan or the president firmly believes
the President confers with the Pope, representative
of the entire nation is the appropriate hat. Urging the Pope to fight
terrorism is not problemmatic, because that is a non-partisan issue in
the United States. Urging the Pope to speak out more clear against gay
marriage or capital punishment is more
rhetoric would have been inappropriate at Reagan's funeral.
Strikes me that when the President confers with the Pope,
representative
of the entire nation is the appropriate hat. Urging the Pope to
fight
terrorism is not problemmatic, because that is a non-partisan issue
in
the United States. Urging
in line),rather
than publicly calling on church leaders to join in some public campaign?
Marc Stern
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:21
PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The President
to bear on an important political, moral, or
social debate. Likewise, it seems to me, here.
Eugene
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of marc sternSent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:24
AMTo: 'Law Religion issues for Law
Academics'Su
Title: Message
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I
wonder how this would have played out in other contexts. For instance, the
abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, and various anti-war and other
movements have involved political-religious alliances on controversial public
OTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of marc sternSent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004
10:24 AMTo: 'Law Religion issues for Law
Academics'Subject: RE: The President and the
Pope
I agree with
Eugenes
implicit suggestion that there is
matter.
David
- Original Message -
From:
Mark Tushnet
To: Law Religion issues for Law
Academics
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 1:07
PM
Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
I wonder. If (an important qualification) there's
something constitutionally sensitive
Title: Message
Eugene offered:
Sorry to sound like a broken
record, but I wonder how this would have played out in other contexts. For
instance, the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, and various
anti-war and other movements have involved political-religious alliances on
In a message dated 6/15/2004 3:43:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since Christian
ministers differed on each of these issues (in the old South Christian
ministers maintained Bibilical support for slavery; in the South of 1963
Chritian ministers continued to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 6:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The President and the Pope
Might this be a relevant constitutional point, though not a
point of constitutional law
Assuming that the news reports of the President's
plea to the Vatican are accurate, see, e.g., http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_06_13.php#003064(President
allegedly asked for the Vatican's
help in encouraging the U.S. bishops to be more outspoken"on the cultural
front"),
or a theory of what "is appropriate for a President who took his
constitutional obligations seriously"? Or both?
How would Marty's examples
differ from the President asking the Pope to ask religious leaders around the
world to denounce terrorism?Or suppose the President opposed awar in
Iraq
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
In a message dated 6/14/2004 8:45:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I'm asking whether such conduct would be appropriate for a
Presiden
n the constitutional
appropriateness of a President urgingthe Pope to instruct his bishops to
act in one way or another.
BobbyRobert Justin LipkinWidener University School
of LawDelaware
___
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubsc
But that is the dliemma discussed by the President and the Pope, so it has
everything to do with the peculiar question discussed on this listserv.
The position advocated by some on this listserv that the President cannot
communicate with (co-)religionists about matters of faith and morals, speak
I am perplexed. In what sense has the President asked the Pope to
pressure the Bishops to embrace some moral norm? As I understand it, the
United States Catholic Conference, with one voice, rejects the moral propriety
of killing unborn children (abortion). Are there known dissenters from
In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:53:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In what
sense has the President asked the Pope to pressure the Bishops to embrace some
moral norm?
Although Jim does not
say that I asserted this, just for the record, I never did. My post
In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:50:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But that
is the dliemma discussed by the President and the Pope, so it
haseverything to do with the peculiar question discussed on this
listserv.
My understanding of Marty's
question
A question: Say that in the 1960s, the President told a group of white Protestant
leaders that they needed to tell their congregations to take seriously Christ's
teachings of human dignity, and to renounce racism and support civil rights. Or say
that in 2004 in an alternate universe,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 7:03 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
In a message dated 6/14/2004 8:45:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm asking whether
I did not force you to discuss the denial of communion aspect of the story.
You did that yourself when you said:
This does not mean that I would hesitate to vote against a president who
asked the Pope to instruct American bishops to denounce action I approve
of.
The action that I approve
constitutional issue
and a political or policy issue. I might believe that nothing in the
Constitution prohibits a President from asking the Pope to urge his Bishops to
act in a certain manner while at the same time believing that for political
reasons it is a bad idea. Thus, I might defend a Preside
ecognizing that there
have been grave mistakes as well).
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 12:27
PM
Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
In a message dated 6/14/2004 11:49:23 AM Eastern Sta
t: Monday, June 14, 2004 12:38
PM
Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
I have understood the distinction from the beginning of this
thread. I was just surprised that you "approved of" Kerry violating his
own Church's norms by receiving communion. Later in the thread,
has
been uncomfortable with this (religious) President. Googling can unearth
that fact.
- Original Message -
From: Marty Lederman
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: The President and the Pope
I don't wish to become entangled
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
On Monday, June 14, 2004, at 02:04 PM, Will Linden wrote:
Or if in 1967, the excommunication of Leander Perez has been preceded by a presidential colloquy seeking papal support for civil rights campaigns. (Sorry, but for years I have been driven up the wall by increasingly incoherent
I remember John Kennedy assuring the public during his presidential campaign
that he would not take orders from the Pope if he ever had to choose between
the Constitution and Roman Catholic doctrine. I find a candidate/official's
views on the interrelationship between religious institutions and
Subject: Re: The President and the
Pope
I don't wish to become entangled in this increasingly ad
hominem debate; andI 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 wort
I do NOT find it persuasive, however, when someone
proclaims TheChurch/TheChurches should stay out of politics,
and fails to explain why issues he differs with are politics
and those he espouses are not politics. I can only feel that
the wall of separation is differentially permeable. (The last
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
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
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
.
- 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
cademicsSubject:
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
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
votershould support a man who 1) vigorously endorses the death penalty,
whcih thechurch opposes, and as
On 6/14/04 8:11 PM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
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.
You're absolutely right. Picking and choosing Catholic doctrines one likes
is
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Now I don't want to constrain Paul's imagination, fascinat[ion], or
sense of irony -- all three of which are fine things to have, and give
ourselves a lot of pleasure. But as best I can tell, Paul's posts are
largely ways to express his contempt
I was trying to make the same point as David, but with a little levity.
(The point was: this stuff cuts both ways, so let's move on).
You guys are wound up a little too tight for me. So much for the stereotype
of laid back Californians. :-)
Frank
On 6/14/04 10:48 PM, David Cruz [EMAIL
s 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 P
Frank, I think your point misses the issue. It is not about whether particular
Catholics follow one rule or the next -- whether they use birth control in
their lives, or support choice, or support the death penalty, or think toruture
is a good public policy. My point is not about what the
Title: Re: The President and the Pope
Point taken.
Frank
On 6/15/04 12:02 AM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank, I think your point misses the issue. It is not about whether particular Catholics follow one rule or the next -- whether they use birth control in their lives
47 matches
Mail list logo
