The President and the Pope

[Volokh, Eugene]

    I wouldn't say hypocrisy -- I'd just say that it's easy even for
well-meaning people to (1) see the conduct of those they oppose as wrong
and even unconstitutional, and think that this is so for some objective,
nonpolitical reason, but (2) then to think better of the matter when
they see similar conduct shorn of their strong political disagreement
with the actor or the actor's proposed policies.  I know this has often
happened to me; that's why considering situations where the political
polarity is reversed is often helpful.
 
    But as to Marc's suggestion, I don't quite see why the distinction
he proposes makes a difference.  Say that the stories read "Vice
President Gore today called on church leaders to join with the
administration in 'healing our land,' and to ask ministers in their
churches to do the same," or "Mr. Clinton called on religious leaders to
put the heat on Congress to approve the funding, and to work through
their ministers and congregations to turn up the heat," or "Clinton
called on the religious leaders . . . to rededicate themselves and their
churches to ethnic diversity and religious freedom, by urging their
ministers to educate their congregations about the importance of ethnic
diversity and religious freedom."  Would that really change the
constitutional analysis?
 
    More broadly, when you seek political allies among leaders of any
organization, you often don't just want the leaders' voice -- you also
want the leaders to bring with them their followers, and their
subordinate leaders.  That makes perfect sense, and seems perfectly
proper.  If Clinton had asked the national leaders of any other
hierarchical group -- say, an environmental group whose local branches
were closely integrated with the center -- to push for some measure, and
to get their local branch leaders to do the same, I doubt that we would
call it "interfer[ing] with the inner workings of a [political group]."
We'd just call it asking the national leaders to bring their entire
organization to bear on an important political, moral, or social debate.
Likewise, it seems to me, here.
 
    Eugene

	-----Original Message-----
	From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of marc stern
	Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:24 AM
	To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
	Subject: RE: The President and the Pope
	
	

	I agree with Eugene's implicit suggestion that there is a fair
amount of hypocrisy at work here. Nevertheless, is it not possible to
distinguish what Bush did, which was to interfere with the inner
workings of a church(by suggesting that the Vatican ought to get its
bishop's in line),rather than publicly calling on church leaders to join
in some public campaign?

	Marc Stern

	 

	
  _____  


	From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
	Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:21 PM
	To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
	Subject: RE: The President and the Pope

	 

	    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 policy questions.  (The abolitionist movement was of course
indeed dangerous to the republic in the short term, though good in the
long term.)  I assume that many good, smart politicians would have seen
the potential to build and strengthen such alliances, and I'd guess that
they indeed did so.

	 

	    If in 1963, a government official called on Christian
ministers to oppose racism and segretation and support civil rights, and
asked them to assert that good Christians should oppose racism and
segregation and support civil rights, would this really have been
unconstitutional?  If the official sought to strengthen the existing
political-religious alliance between civil rights forces in politics and
in churches, by bringing in some other religious groups, would that have
been impermissible?  

	 

	    It seems to me the answer must clearly be no:  Religious
groups and leaders are important sources of moral authority.  To change
people's actions and votes, one needs to appeal to their moral sense.
If one wants the civil rights movement, the anti-abortion movement, the
gay rights movement, or whatever other movement to succeed, one needs to
build alliances with people who can speak the moral language of deeply
religious people, and who can speak with moral authority to those
people.

	 

	    Incidentally, here are a few concrete examples of other
appeals to religious groups to join a political and moral fight:

	 

	Nat'l Journal, Dec. 2, 1993:

	 

	Speaking to black church leaders involved in a growing movement
to address the disproportionate impacts of pollution on low-income
minority communities, Vice President Gore today called on church leaders
to join with the administration in "healing our land." Following
passionate appeals by leaders to Gore to take steps to confront the
issue, Gore joined in condemning "the injustice of dumping on those who
are powerless." . . . .

	 

	 

	 

	Washington Times, Sept. 30, 1999:

	 

	President Clinton offered yesterday to forgive all the debt of
poor countries that work to end hunger and poverty in the next
millennium, and challenged Congress to approve $1 billion to finance the
debt relief. . . .

	 

	At a prayer breakfast this week, Mr. Clinton called on religious
leaders to put the heat on Congress to approve the funding. . . .

	 

	 

	 

	Atlanta Journal and Constitution, June 27, 1996:

	 

	The Clinton administration, under fire from the nation's largest
black church, pledged more than $ 40 million Wednesday to bolster
community efforts to prevent church fires concentrated in the South. . .
.

	 

	Clinton called on the religious leaders to speak out against
crimes of intolerance and to rededicate themselves to ethnic diversity
and religious freedom. . . .

	 

	    Eugene

	 

		 Richard Schragger writes: 

		It seems quite dangerous to a republic for its leaders
to encourage and promote the formation of political-religious alliances
on controversial public policy questions.  To assert, even obliquely,
that to be a good Catholic, one should vote Republican (for example),
seems to invite the kind of religiously-identified factionalism that can
lead to sectarian strife.  If one takes seriously the Court's
identification of government neutrality (or non-endorsement) as an
essential attribute of non-Establishment, then a Presidential appeal to
any one religious group or his efforts to create a political alliance
with any one religious group seems problematic.  It seems to me that the
President has a constitutional obligation not to make statements or
engage in conduct that encourages such alliances. 

		 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040615/a28c5ae9/attachment.htm