|
I don't wish to become entangled in this increasingly ad
hominem debate; and I 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 worth, I think it should be quite obvious from my
prior posts and elsewhere that my "antennae" go neither berzerk nor "bezerk"
whenever public officials "act[] on [their] religious positions in the
political square." This case (as described in press reports, anyway -- I
make no claim about their accuracy) obviously involves something quite beyond a
public official acting in accord with his religious beliefs, no matter what one
thinks of the propriety or constitutionality of the President's
conduct.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 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, 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
|
_______________________________________________
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
