|
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, you made
clear that you have no horse in that battle, but you mangled my position.
I will leave it at that.
As for the general point, I repeat that the antennae on this
thread go bezerk when this president acts on his religious positions in the
political square. I fear that many have no idea how much poorer we would
be if our predecessors had not done the same (of course, recognizing that there
have been grave mistakes as well).
----- Original Message -----
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 Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 of" in the context of this story has to be Kerry
taking
communion in violation of Church norms.
I'm afraid the
above fails to observe an elementary distinction between a 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 President's
constitutional prerogative to consult with the Pope, but simultaneously
embrace the proposition that guys I want to be president not engage in such
conduct. Similarly, it might be constitutionally permissible for a
President to invade Iraq, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't vote against
a President who does so if my conception of what's right should counsel me to
do so. The ideas of the right and the good are not exhausted by what is
constitutionally permissible.
While I always welcome
"aid[s] [to my] understanding," let me reiterate: what is
religiously proper concerning who should and who should not take communion is
entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the President's conduct in
consulting the Pope is constitutionally permissible. I do not see that
the distinction between the religious question and the constitutional
question is in any way novel, but it is important to adhere to it
nonetheless.
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Widener University
School of Law
Delaware
_______________________________________________
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
