One can take this a step further and distinguish, as Rawls does, between
constitutional /democratic contexts (where this type of public reasoning
occurs) and the cultural background (where it does not.) It becomes very
problematic when the standards of public reason are applied to cultural
background arguments or discourse.
Personally, I'm not sure I see such a bright line between the two and
believe that cultural background arguments (such as about the
religious/moral significance of redemtion) will inevitably spill over into
an influence on legal/constitutional politics.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanford Levinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:35 PM
Subject: RE: Can a murderer ever be redeemed?
A friendly amendment to Eugene's question is whether anyone on this list
subscribes to the philosopher Robert Audi's
View that conscientious citizens are required to engage in "epistemic
abstinence" by filtering out any arguments even in their own
consciousness that depend on religious presuppositions. A more moderate
version is (one understanding of) John Rawl's argument that articulated
arguments must be made in a "publicly accessible" discourse that rules
out reference to inevitable religious arguments that many members of the
audience would find "inaccessible."
Sandy
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:49 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Can a murderer ever be redeemed?
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
