Massachusetts proposals to force church disclosures

[Sanford Levinson]

Vince Koven writes:
 
I suppose that depends on how you define "anti-Catholic," but the
proponents of this legislation (all Catholics, so far as I can tell) are
adopting the *political* stance of supporting the lay Catholics who have
been critical of church-closing decisions. More votes in the pews than
in the pulpits, I guess.
 
 
I think this raises a very interesting question going well beyond the
specific example.  Many people who have studied abortion note that women
are basically split on the issue, which makes it problematic to argue
that those of us who support reproductive choice (as I do) are
"pro-women" and those against are "anti."  Similarly, one of the things
that Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly have taught us is that
African-Americans do not necessarily support affirmative action and,
indeed, are willing to argue that it is functionally anti-Black to
support it.  I don't agree, but I'm not sure that I'm any longer willing
to say that opponents of affirmative action are "anti-African American."
If one accepts Catholic theology, then I suppose that the "pro-Catholic"
position is indeed the pulpit (and ultimately the Papacy) rather than
what the laity happen to profess, but that is obviously a tendentious
argument (for most of us).  With regard to almost all Protestant
denominations (or Judaism), there would certainly be no reason at all to
reject the laity in favor of ministers or rabbis.   
 
sandy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050817/41e97900/attachment.html