I did not "willfully misconstrue[]" anyone's statements. Ad hominem indeed.
Spelling errors? Sorry.
As for your statement that this "obviously involves something quite beyond a
public official acting in accord with his religious beliefs", I respectfully
disagree. I am a Roman Catholic and, if I were president, I would feel
compelled to further the pro-life cause in any way I could legitimately do
so (because of my faith). It is my understanding that the President is
pro-life in part because of his religious beliefs.
BTW, I was not referring to you alone, but this listserv for many years 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 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 -----
From: Amar D. Sarwal
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
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 -----
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 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
_______________________________________________
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
