I don't understand. Paul began by saying that (1) he imagined that if Bush were
condemned by Catholic bishops for his stand on the death penalty, there'd be howls
from the Bush camp about the separation of church and state, and (2) he thought it was
"fascinating" that Bush would "pick and choose which Catholic doctrine he likes."
I then suggested that item 1 was an odd argument, because it's based pretty much
entirely on imagination; there's no evidence that he gives that the "Bush people"
would behave this way, rather than disagreeing with the Catholic bishops on the
merits. I also suggested that argument 2 was equally odd, partly because even
American Catholics (both laypeople and politicians) pick and choose which Catholic
doctrine they like -- but more importantly because *of course* people who seek common
ground with other groups will "pick and choose" to ask for help on beliefs they share,
rather than for beliefs on which they disagree. That's perfectly proper, even often
laudable, politics.
Paul responds by bringing up an entirely different argument: That there "is some
irony in this," because of past Republicans' disapproval of Catholicism, dating back
to the 1850s. Well, there's about as much irony in this as in Democrats reaching out
to black leaders, given that after all Democrats are the party of slavery -- which is
to say no irony at all. Some Republicans' misdeeds in the 1850s, 1920s, or 1960
aren't terribly relevant to what other Republicans believe today.
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 for the Bush Administration, and possibly for Republicans generally, and not
terribly persuasive ways at that. What's more, they seem to me to have precious
little by way of argument about whether a President's appeal to religious leaders are
unconstitutional (whether the question is justiciable or not) or illegal.
Eugene
Paul Finkelman writes:
There is some irony in this, since the Republican Party has never nominated a Catholic
for the presidency and in two campaigns many Republicans attacked the Catholicism of
the candidate (Al Smith and John F. Kennedy) as being a tool of the Pope. I remember
Republicans arguing that if elected Kennedy would have a "hot line" to the Vatican. I
rememebr many people shaking their head in wonder, asking how anyone could support a
"Catholic" for the Presidency. Protestant, Catholic, it was all the same to this
Jewish kid! But, the Republicans have a long history of religous bigotry and
opposition to foreigners, going back to the immigration quotas of the 1920s and indeed
to some of the Party's anti-Catholic roots in the 1850s. Now we have the ironic
reversal, the Republicans *want* a hot line to the Pope so he can campaign for them.
Paul Finkelman
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
It's always hard to argue with people's imaginations, but I would assume
that at least many of Bush's supporters would simply say that the Catholic bishops
have it wrong on the merits -- they're entitled to express their religious views, but
voters should disagree with those views.
As to "picking and choosing which Catholic doctrine he likes," that's
hardly a matter of just Bush's doing it. Most American Catholics do it, in deciding
how to act, both personally and politically. Many American Catholic politicians
likewise do the same.
Nor is there anything wrong with Bush's doing it: Whenever someone asks
someone of a different religious group or political group to make common cause on
issue A, they aren't necessarily insisting on the same as to issue B. If the ACLU
asks the NRA to join them on an anti-BCRA brief, there's nothing terribly fascinating
in seeing the ACLU pick and choose which NRA beliefs they like: It's enough that they
agree on the First Amendment issue, even if they don't agree on the Second Amendment.
To tie this to the law of government and religion: The question, as I
understand it, is whether there's any constitutional problem (whether or not
justiciable) with the President seeking political help from religious groups in
pushing some aspects of his agenda, whether it's a pro-civil-rights agenda,
anti-abortion-rights agenda, pro-environmentalist agenda, anti-poverty agenda, or
whatever else. I think the answer is definitely "no," even when people who dislike
the President might imagine that the President's side would make Establishment Clause
objections had the tables 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 PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Monday, June 14, 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 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 penalty and who did not use all his powers to pardon anyone who
might be executed. I imagine we would hear howls from the Bush people about
separation of Chuch and state. Similarly, what would happen if the Bishops attacked
those executives who do not do enough to end world poverty and hunger. 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.
Paul Finkelman
_______________________________________________
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
