>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 08:41:02 -0500 (CDT) >From: Tibor R Machan Pope Gets Unfair Treatment Tibor R. Machan It is not my practice to worry too much about religion. I was raised Roman Catholic but no longer believe it. Yet I do not concern myself much with going over the tenets of the faith. I am, instead, concerned with the most basic issues bearing on religion, namely, the possible existence and nature of God. The rest, as they say, is detail. But politics is something that concerns me a great deal since it is what shapes the laws of our society, laws that either manage or fail to promote justice. On October 5th I found myself in the middle of Manhattan, witnessing the massive traffic congestion that accompanied the Pope's visit there -- with dozens of the borough's major avenues and streets packed with cars, trucks, buses standing there, idling, using up fuel and polluting the already bad atmosphere. Facing all this -- as I was going about my business on foot and with my companion complaining of what the air is doing to her throat -- I reflected on whether a society ought to do what we do when the Pope visits. In terms of the law, who is the Pope to warrant the kind of special treatment given him whenever he visits somewhere on the face of the globe? Especially in the United States of American, which has prided itself on never favoring one religion over any other so far as its political and legal institutions are concerned -- never mind the occasional ceremonial breaches of this commitment -- this kind of treatment appears to be off base. Sure, the Pope has a large following. And sure people with large followings, such as astronauts or movie stars, often stop traffic, which then needs to be addressed by public officials who are responsible to keep public order. Yet, one may wonder whether the Reverend Moon, or some other less officially favored yet still popular religious leader might not find it justifiably annoying that he or she isn't provided with the special treatment the Pope usually receives. Indeed, while it is one thing to stop traffic for some Hollywood film crew -- which would get no special treatment because some other would not be denied the same -- it is quite another to give such deference to the leader of one faith as opposed to any other. Why, also, does the Pope get to address the United Nations Organization? Well, the Vatican is a kind of state but it that is a farce, is it not? In fact, the Pope is a religious leader and to treat him as anything else -- one among thousands of such leaders -- is unfair to the rest and betrays a bias in our political climate of opinion. When treatment from government is at issue, a central concern must be fairness. This is because government receives support from all citizens and may not ignore any segment of the population as it delivers its services. Police protection is perhaps the quintessential such service and it seems to me that the leaders of the Roman Catholics has no special claim on it. That is, I believe, one clear implication of both the spirit and letter of the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause. I am no constitutional expert but to me, a citizen who tries to keep abreast of most of the basics of the legal system, this seems quite unreasonable. One need not have anything against any of the major or minor religions of the world to see this point as valid. Indeed, just as a black or white person can see, clearly, when another black or white person is biased in judging some issue, a Roman Catholic or member of any other faith can see clearly enough when leaders of that faith are treated unfairly. The main issue is not to demean members of other faiths by elevating one to the status of a favorite, near official, religion. ------------------------------ Tibor Machan teaches philosophy at Auburn University, Alabama. ============================================================================= >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 10:45:52 -0500 (EST) >From: mkrauss@VMS1.GMU.EDU I'm afraid I don't see your argument clearly. To me it is obvious that if a visit by the Rev. Moon or anyone else was likely to draw the crows the pope drew, and if it was obvious that fanatics were likely to try to kill the Rev. Moon, equally impressive security measures would be taken. B.T.W., I say this as a non-Catholic. I find absolutely no unfairness in the state's treatment of the Pope. ***************************************************************** Michael Krauss 703-993-8024 George Mason U Law School fax: 703-993-8088 e-mail: mkrauss@vms1.gmu.edu snail-mail: 3401 North Fairfax Dr. Arlington, Virginia 22201 ***************************************************************** ============================================================================= >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 12:32:37 -0400 (EDT) >From: "Andrew Rutten" Greetings all: Students of spontaneous order will be interested in one of the ways New Yorkers developed for dealing with the papal visit. They coined a new phrase: "getting poped," which basically meant getting inconvenienced by the Pope and his entourage. Everyone who I heard use it had the same tone of annoyance that underlay Tibor's essay. ARRutten ============================================================================= >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 12:49:46 -0400 (EDT) >From: Bill Woolsey Tibor Machan writes: >keep public order. Yet, one may wonder whether the Reverend Moon, or >some other less officially favored yet still popular religious leader >might not find it justifiably annoying that he or she isn't provided with >the special treatment the Pope usually receives. Indeed, while it is one The Reverend Moon does not have millions of followers in the U.S. On the other hand, the Pope probably has a couple of million followers in in the greater New York area alone. Still, I suspect that some of the special treatment comes from the rarity of his public appearences in places other than Rome. If Billy Graham decided to have a parade through Charlotte or Atlanta, I suspect that he would be given appropriate attention by the authorities. And what do you bet that Louis Farrakan receives similar treatment for his one million man march on Washington D.C.? > Why, also, does the Pope get to address the United Nations >Organization? Well, the Vatican is a kind of state but it that is a >farce, is it not? In fact, the Pope is a religious leader and to treat >him as anything else -- one among thousands of such leaders -- is unfair >to the rest and betrays a bias in our political climate of opinion. The Pope is the leader of an international Church. Most other churches lack an international leader. For example, the Anglican communion has no international leader. There are just different leaders in different nations. The same is true of the Methodists, Lutherans, and Baptists (though many sects don't even have national leaders.) And while I suppose the Reverend Moon is the leader of an international church, his sect is quite small. The President of the Morman Church comes closer to the Pope, though again, the total membership outside the U.S. is quite small. The Pope has a significant following in many, many nations. By the way, U.S. law has little bearing on who addresses the UN. > The main issue is not to demean members of other faiths by >elevating one to the status of a favorite, near official, religion. >------------------------------ >Tibor Machan teaches philosophy at Auburn University, Alabama. Now, I do have independent evidence that Machan is actually in Alabama. Still, the notion that the Roman Catholics have near official status in the U.S. is a little bit incredible and I would think that residence in any part of Alabama would provide proof. Bill Woolsey Email: Bill.Woolsey@Citadel.edu Dept. of Business Administration Home: (803) 577-7138 The Citadel Office: (803) 953-5161 Charleston, South Carolina 29409 Fax: (803) 953-7084 U.S.A. ============================================================================= >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 12:10:49 -0500 (CDT) >From: Tibor R Machan What relevance does my being in Alabama have to anything I talked about in my piece? I may be wrong but surely not because I am living in Alabama. Tibor R. Machan ============================================================================= >From: Fred Foldvary >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 15:33:11 -0400 (EDT) Vatican City is a state, the world's smallest. It issues its own stamps. As libertarians favoring the right of small areas to be independent, should we not be glad to see such equal treatment for the heads of small states? Does sovereignty depend on size? Fred Foldvary ============================================================================= >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 12:59:45 -0700 >From: John McCarthy I'm an atheist myself. However, the Pope plays a special role in a religion professed by some tens of millions of Americans. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church played an important role in the history of Western Civilization (maybe more harmful than good, but who can actually say). Besides Catholics, many Americans suppose that the Pope is a force for world peace. (My opinion is that he will have no more effect than any previous Pope had in preventing Catholics and others from killing each other.) No-one imagines that the Pope's visit implies that Government at any level is going to give any special privileges to the Catholic religion at the expense of the others or even at the expense of us atheists. Incidentally, I heard Rush Limbaugh protesting feminist and gay churlishness aimed at the Pope, starting by saying that he was not a Catholic. Therefore, my opinion is that the fuss over the Pope's visit does no harm. Regard it as entertainment, protests and all. Jane Austen's Mr. Bennet said, For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn? ============================================================================= >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 15:40:16 -0500 (CDT) >From: Tibor R Machan Vatican City is a state and as such what of it? I have known small states or units of coercion, such as my family back between 1953-57, which were worse than some bigs states. What's size got to do with it? It's that they are states, is it not? (Or is individual liberty secured best under a federal system?) Tibor Machan ============================================================================= >From: Pierre_Lemieux@UQAH.UQuebec.CA >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 95 16:58:46 -0400 What about this idea? The pope should be protected by the state just like any other sovereign individual. This may mean that he has to basically provide for his own security if he takes a walk in Central Park. Alas! it would also mean that his bodyguards face the same restrictions as ordinary individuals on their right to bear arms. That would lead him to visit Vermont instead, where traffic congestions are not an issue. P.L. >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 95 17:04:47 -0400 Moreover, since death presumably carries a lower cost for the Pope than for a staunch individualist, he would want to pay less for his security. Why should the taxpayer supplement this? Perhaps, for some of them, indeed, the Pope's life is worth more than, say, the life of Weaver's wife. Those people could of course contribute to extra security for the pope, perhaps through the US Catholic Church. I think we just give too much importance to the security of officials. And, as was pointed out, this is what the pope is. He is a head of state, not the next door Davidian. P.L. ============================================================================= >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 13:54:05 -0800 >From: Jim Chesher >Subject: Sovereignty F. Foldvary asks, "does sovereignty depend on size?" A rhetorical question no doubt, and suggests at least one instance where politics is like sex. Question: what qualifies an entity for being a "state"? Foldvary believes that issuing stamps is a (defining?) criterion. In what (other) significant way(s) is the Vatican a state? --Jim Chesher ============================================================================= >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 14:23:31 -0700 >From: John McCarthy It occurs to me that a fundamental reason treating the Pope well and guarding him well is the U.N. being in New York. There are plenty of nominally Catholic countries that would take any unpleasantness involving the Pope as an excusing for demanding even more of a quid pro quo than usual the next time the U.S. wanted their votes in the General Assembly. Perhaps this is a reason for getting the U.N. to move. ============================================================================= >From: Fred Foldvary >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 18:21:00 -0400 (EDT) > Vatican City is a state and as such what of it? I have known small > states or units of coercion, such as my family back between 1953-57, > which were worse than some bigs states. What's size got to do with it? > It's that they are states, is it not? (Or is individual liberty secured > best under a federal system?) > Tibor Machan Good point. Liberty also requires the right of secession. Exit is normally less expensive from a small jurisdiction. Families are often extremely coercive, especially to children, precisely because of the lack of an exit option. Fred Foldvary ============================================================================= >From: Fred Foldvary >Subject: Re: Sovereignty >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 18:36:44 -0400 (EDT) > F. Foldvary asks, "does sovereignty depend on size?" A rhetorical question >no doubt, and suggests at least one instance where politics is like sex. >Question: what qualifies an entity for being a "state"? Foldvary believes >that issuing stamps is a (def> ining?) criterion. In what (other) >significant way(s) is the Vatican a state? > --Jim Chesher A state is an organization consisting of persons and territory, in which the territory is not under the coercive authority of any other organization. If it joins an international organization, it may secede from it (otherwise the international organization becomes a state). The U.N. is not a state but an agreement among states. The Vatican City state is sovereign, not under the authority of Italy or any other state. Fred Foldvary =============================================================================