Thanks. I appreciate this.
I appreciate barbs, too, but only if they're clever.
Susan
Paul Horwitz wrote:
Pace Paul and Susan, the question is whether such a discussion, which
takes place over the body of the deceased, as it were, is likely to
elicit any actual discussion of law and religion issues, even broadly
construed, or whether it will devolve into a simple trading of barbs
over whether Falwell himself was a good or bad man, or over the
political views of the Moral Majority. I confess that I thought that
Jim Henderson's original email, although well-intended, was unlikely
to lead to such a discussion, and should best have been passed over in
respectful silence by the rest of the list. Not much I have seen
since on the list has led me to conclude otherwise.
Now, one could use the occasion to discuss matters of more moment to
the list. I could think of several such questions. First, what was
more relevant to the growth of the movement that Falwell spearheaded:
the Court's rulings in cases such as Roe v. Wade, or its rulings in
cases involving the application of antidiscrimination laws to private
schools and universities? Was the broader moral component of the MM,
including advocacy on issues like abortion, its wellspring, or was it
simply part of a decision to focus on issues that best conduced to
coalition-building among disparate religious and ideological groups?
Second, and I think related to the first question, is this: For a time
in the 1970s, Falwell advocated that evangelical Christians retire
from the political fray and concentrate on prayer and the formation of
a more perfect religious community. That position has its roots as
far back as Roger Williams' concern that the garden of religion would
be corrupted by the wilderness of politics: not that separation
(voluntary or legal) was necessary to protect politics from religion,
but in order to protect religion from politics, in the sense that
religious involvement in politics would corrupt the religious
participants. It continues to find occasional echoes in calls for
religious retirement from active involvement in politics from folks
like David Kuo. Falwell obviously ultimately took a different route.
But which was the right route? Were the MM and other such groups
salutary for both religion and politics, or is there a genuine
*spiritual* concern about the corrupting effects on religion of
political involvement? And even so, is that longstanding concern one
that has mandatory implications for the Establishment Clause, or is it
merely a statement about the risks of voluntary participation in
politics by religious individuals, and one that perforce is for
religious individuals to decide for themselves without any threat of
legal enforcement? Even if that's so, is it not cause for deep
reflection by the religious individuals themselves, and does one run
any risks in the religious/political community for saying so?
Third, one might more provocatively note the parallel between the
death of Falwell and the contemporaneous death of Yolanda King,
daughter of Martin Luther King, Jr., whose own involvement in politics
was both profound and profoundly motivated by religious concerns.
Aside from the possibility that many folks on this listserv might
praise King's positions and condemn Falwell's positions, is it not the
case that both deaths are reminders of the salutary, emancipating
effect of two leaders who gave voice to, and helped others find a
voice for, the view that religious individuals can be
paradigm-shifters when they are fully entitled to participate in
political discussion? And is it a meaningful or relevant distinction,
or even true, that the civil rights movement succeeded more deeply
than the MM, in part because it found ways to translate its concerns
into secular as well as religious language? Whatever the answer to
that question, is it fair to say that, however different their
positions might have been, we can see deep linkages between Falwell's
death and the death of a member of the King family?
Finally, although I'm not sure this is really a religionlaw
discussion, one might note that Falwell was responsible for the rise
of what might be a distinctly new and influential creature, although
others might offer earlier examples: the genuinely and openly
religious law school and, more to the point, the genuinely and openly
religious lawyer, at least of the (speaking broadly) evangelical
variety. One might fairly ask what deep conflicts face the person who
wishes to be both a good lawyer and a good Christian, or Jew, or what
have you: what conflicts there are between serving one's client, or
one's political mission, and serving a higher duty; whether all the
tools available to cunning lawyers, in both the judicial and the
political process are appropriate tools for the religious lawyer; or
whether the deeply religious lawyer is bound by obligations of
integrity and ethics that necessarily hobble him or her as a lawyer.
This, it seems to me, is the interesting question surrounding figures
such as Monica Goodling, and I've written on my blog that while I have
absolutely no problem with the mission of Regent Law School to place
its graduates in positions of power, such schools, rather than
boasting about the positions of influence its graduates have reached,
ought to ask whether they are graduating enough whistle-blowers,
enough individuals who were willing to sacrifice their influence for
the higher good of demanding integrity in the performance of public
office.
I think these are all useful questions, and am happy to offer them up
to the list for discussion. But I doubt they will occur in a context
in which we are simply asking: Falwell -- good or bad?
Paul Horwitz
Visiting Associate Professor
Notre Dame Law School
From: Susan Freiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:44:27 +0300
I would appreciate a continuation of the discussion. I lurk on this
list because I enjoy learning about this area of law.
Susan
Paul Finkelman wrote:
much of Falwell's life was dedicated to undermining the establishment
clause, and indeed quite openly working for the establishment of his
faith as the official faith of America; it seems to me that any
discussion of his career is in the end a discussion about
constitutional
law, unless Eugene, Will, and Sandy somehow think that on law, and
especially con law, is only about legal cases. If that is so then we
should just discuss Hustler.
I have always wondered why Falwell (or any of those in his church) were
reading Hustler in the first place.
Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York 12208-3494
518-445-3386 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/07 10:28 PM >>>
On this one I tend to agree with Will (unless we want to get into a
discussion of Falwell v. Hustler, one of the shining lights of our
contemporary jurisprudence!).
sandy
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Will Linden
Sent: Wed 5/16/2007 8:57 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
OK, what are the LEGAL implications of Falwell's death? Or will the
list
just become all-argue-about-Fawell, all the time?
Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
_______________________________________________
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.
