Religion & Law

In the Immanent Frame piece to which Michael links below, Michele Dillon writes:

Obama was clearly attentive to the cultural and geographical significance of the site of his speech and, fortunately for him, was able to use the words and actions of Father Ted Hesburgh, that most iconic of Notre Dame figures (and the university?s president-emeritus), to demonstrate his own thesis that common ground is achievable if and once we recognize that despite the intrusive divisions that set individuals at odds with one another, we all share a common humanity. Thus, as Obama recounted, if Ted Hesburgh could first bring together people of sharply divided opinions on race (members of the Civil Rights Commission) and then get them to talk?and fish?with one another, with the result that they formed the foundation for what became the Civil Rights Act of 1964, change on other divisive issues, though a steep challenge, is also possible. Obama?s story about Fr. Hesburgh and his fellow civil rights commissioners was a vivid reminder that once we find we have some particular everyday thing in common with others who otherwise seem strange and even threatening, that particular commonality opens the possibility that the divisions that characterize our lives might be bridged, however unevenly, so that a universal good is achieved.

This passage makes the same mistake I addressed in this earlier post, namely, it completely ignores the fact-on-the-ground that the Roe / Casey regime makes it impossible to have meaningful dialogue, and to pursue good-faith compromise and "common ground", on abortion.

When Fr. Ted gathered the members of the Commission together to talk and fish, he was doing so in a legal context that did not preclude those members from operationalizing in law the common ground at which they arrived.  It is disingenuous to suggest that Fr. Ted's good work with the Commission is analogous to Pres. Obama changing his website language or supporting improved adoption laws.  "Change" on this particular "divisive issue" -- abortion -- is, because of the Supreme Court's overreach, *not* possible, and Pres. Obama is committed (this is not, I assume, a controversial point) to making sure that this impossibility is preserved.  If the Court's caselaw actually permitted the enactment into law of the compromise at which, I am sure, the healthy majority of Americans would arrive, if asked to search for "common ground", then I would be the first to plead with Fr. Ted to invite Pres. Obama and Robby George fishing.  Given the Roe / Casey regime, though (and given Pres. Obama's clear plans with respect to judicial selections), it seems that the common-ground calls are really not much more than calls that pro-life Americans agree to re-brand the pro-choice position as "common ground".

Michael -- do you disagree?