I agree with Sandy that *this* aspect of the redemption inquiry
is indeed related to the law of government and religion. (I anticipated
this in some measure when I wrote that "we ought to discuss [the
redemption question] only to the extent that it touches on the law of
government and religion" rather than suggesting that we ought not
discuss the question at all.)
Yet surely the answer is that it's perfectly legitimate for
people to base either their support or opposition to capital punishment
on religious justifications, just as it's legitimate for people to base
their opposition to murder, slavery, racism, and the like on religious
justification. Am I mistaken? Would some on this list argue otherwise?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Sanford Levinson
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:43 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Can a murderer ever be redeemed?
>
>
> I can understand Eugene's point, but let me try this
> response: We spend a lot of time arguing about the extent to
> which explicitly theological notions should be allowed to
> play a part in political decisionmaking. There are many
> secular arguments both for and against capital punishment.
> But it seems to me that the "possibility-of-redemption"
> argument ultimately sounds, for many people, in a religious
> sensibilty. Does that mean that it is illegitimate to base
> one's opposition to capital punishment on it (or, for that
> matter, a literal, albeit debatable, reading of "Thou Shalt
> Not Kill"), or, conversely, that it is illegitimate to base
> one's support for capital punishment on a biblical notion of
> "eye-for-an-eye" retribution?
>
> sandy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 11:23 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Can a murderer ever be redeemed?
>
> Folks: This is an interesting question, but it seems to me
> that on this list we ought to discuss it only to the extent
> that it touches on the law of government and religion. (What
> religious people should think about death penalty law
> wouldn't, I think, quite qualify.)
>
> Eugene
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others. _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,
> see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
