In a message dated 5/17/2007 7:10:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think Eugene and others are right that evaluations of conduct as sinful
and sad don’t contribute anything useful to list discussions. Many members of
this list approach even doctrinal issues from such extraordinarily different
world views that it is sometimes difficult to engage in meaningful dialogue
about the case law. On issues of sin and sadness, I think the gulf leads
quickly to a deteriorated discourse – cheerleading for us and expressions of
contempt for them – from both sides.
If Alan is right about "deteriorated discourse" and "cheerleading,"
then I suggest we're not trying hard enough to engage in meaningful dialogue
about sin and I am confident that we can do a better job. After all, the
issue of sin defines, in part, western civilization. It cannot be that
"cheerleading for us and expressions of contempt for them" is inherent to
discussions
of "sin" and not other critically important cultural norms. Right? More
importantly, it is just when we begin from such "extraordinary different world
views" that we should put our intellectual imaginations into over-drive and
try
to replace "cheerleading" with comprehensive reflective arguments even if in
the end we fail to persuade our conversational partners to renounce their
"extraordinary different world view" and to adopt ours.
Even when we expect not to be able to provide knockdown arguments in
support of our system of beliefs and values, we can with some luck continue
to reform and refine our arguments in such a manner that precludes labeling
our claims as "cheerleading." In short, there's the Scylla of rationalist or
objectivist belief in the finality, at least in principle, of argument and the
Charbydis of cheerleading. But we can avoid both if we recognize the
possibility of refined arguments that better express our perspective just as
our
conversational partner better expresses hers. It takes intellectual commitment
and a penchant for self-consciously trying to expand our moral imagination
and conceptual scheme, and so it might not be everyone's cup of tea. But it is
in just such cases as discussing the life of someone like Jerry Falwell that
this middle course pays off but only when we recognize the danger of imposing
controversial restrictions on the scope of the examination.
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
Ratio Juris
, Contributor: _ http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_
(http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/)
Essentially Contested America, Editor:
_http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_
(http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________
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.
