Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
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
Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
Unfortunately, Jean's point needs to be emphasized. Being characterized as a hater is dreadful. Being subject to hate is at least a couple of quanta beyond dreadful. That's why, in my view, the hate speech controversy always begins with the wrong baseline, an inordinate concern with the speaker and speech rather than the subject of such speech and his or her equality (and stigma) as a member of the moral/constitutional community. 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.
Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
This is from Slate. The condemnations of Falwell from people like Senator McCain illustrate that in fact he practiced a politics of hate and his desire to eliminate all public schools, his attacks on Jews, Moslems and others were in fact the practice of a kind of constitutional politics in the streets. He was very much a constitutional player and it is important not to gloss over the games he played. Paul Finkelman chatterbox Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade The right's holy fool. By Timothy Noah Posted Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at 6:56 PM ET God, they say, is love, but the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who died May 15, hit the jackpot trafficking in small-minded condemnation. The controversies Falwell generated followed a predictable loop. 1) Falwell would say something hateful or clownish about some person or group associated with liberalism. 2) A public outcry would ensue. 3) Falwell would apologize and retract the offending comment. 4) Falwell would repeat the comment, slightly rephrased. For 20 years, evangelicals have chided the mainstream media for treating Falwell's ghastly pronouncements as news; Falwell, they often confide in private, ceased being a significant figure well before he left his signature political organization, the Moral Majority, in 1987. If so, someone forgot to tell Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., who as a presidential candidate in 2000 condemned Falwell's intolerance (The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country) but last year, as a presidential candidate positioning for 2008, made peace with Falwell and gave a commencement address (We have nothing to fear from each other) to the 2006 graduating class at Falwell's Liberty University. On news of Falwell's death, McCain said in a statement, Dr. Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country. Nonsense. He was a bigot, a reactionary, a liar, and a fool. Herewith, a Falwell sampler. On Sept. 11: The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Wayâall of them who have tried to secularize AmericaâI point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' On AIDS: AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. On homosexuality: I believe that all of us are born heterosexual, physically created with a plumbing that's heterosexual, and created with the instincts and desires that are basically, fundamentally, heterosexual. But I believe that we have the ability to experiment in every direction. Experimentation can lead to habitual practice, and then to a lifestyle. But I don't believe anyone begins a homosexual. On Martin Luther King Jr.: I must personally say that I do question the sincerity and nonviolent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations. On Martin Luther King Jr., four decades later: You know, I supported Martin Luther King Jr., who did practice civil disobedience. On public education: I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again, and Christians will be running them. On the separation of church and state: There is no separation of church and state. On feminists: I listen to feminists and all these radical gals. ... These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men; that's their problem. On global warming: I can tell you, our grandchildren will laugh at those who predicted global warming. We'll be in global cooling by then, if the Lord hasn't returned. I don't believe a moment of it. The whole thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability. On Bishop Desmond Tutu: I think he's a phony, period, as far as representing the black people of South Africa. On Islam: I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough of the history of his life, written by both Muslims and non-Muslims, that he was a violent man, a man of war. On Jews: In my opinion, the Antichrist will be a counterfeit of the true Christ, which means that he will be male and Jewish, since Jesus was male and
Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
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
RE: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
In partial response to one of Professor Horwitz's interesting questions: It is certainly true that Roger Williams was concerned to protect the Garden of the Church from the wilderness of the world. That is why he insisted on a wall or hedge of separation between the two. But like Falwell, he had no problem with governments legislating morality. Although he believed that the state must have nothing to do with the first Table (matters of faith), he favored legislation that reflected the moral commitments of the second Table. And like Falwell, Williams had no problem with religious people being active in the political arena (as Gov. Williams certainly was). Where Williams would part company with Falwell is on the question of state invocation/appropriation of God. Any state action in God's name was, for Williams, blasphemy. He considered Christendom to be the filthiest word in the English language because of the corruption of the Gospel that resulted from the mixture of church and state. To the extent that Falwell rallied people of faith (and others) to work for a society and laws that reflect their moral vision, he was acting out of a long tradition of religious involvement in American politics. But when Falwell advocated a Christian America in ways that would entangle church with state, he not only parted company with Williams (and the original Baptist commitment to separation), he also (in my view) threatened our arrangement in religious liberty. Charles Haynes, First Amendment Center From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Paul Horwitz Sent: Thu 5/17/2007 9:22 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think 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
RE: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
One more difference is this: Williams was tolerant of those he disagreed with and welcomed such people into the community. It is hard to imagine Williams asserting that the Antichrist would be a Jew; Williams was tolerant of all faiths and believed the government should not be in the business of telling people what to believe or in promoting religion. Falwell opposed the very idea of separation of Church and State; Williams invented it. 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] 05/17/07 11:15 AM In partial response to one of Professor Horwitz's interesting questions: It is certainly true that Roger Williams was concerned to protect the Garden of the Church from the wilderness of the world. That is why he insisted on a wall or hedge of separation between the two. But like Falwell, he had no problem with governments legislating morality. Although he believed that the state must have nothing to do with the first Table (matters of faith), he favored legislation that reflected the moral commitments of the second Table. And like Falwell, Williams had no problem with religious people being active in the political arena (as Gov. Williams certainly was). Where Williams would part company with Falwell is on the question of state invocation/appropriation of God. Any state action in God's name was, for Williams, blasphemy. He considered Christendom to be the filthiest word in the English language because of the corruption of the Gospel that resulted from the mixture of church and state. To the extent that Falwell rallied people of faith (and others) to work for a society and laws that reflect their moral vision, he was acting out of a long tradition of religious involvement in American politics. But when Falwell advocated a Christian America in ways that would entangle church with state, he not only parted company with Williams (and the original Baptist commitment to separation), he also (in my view) threatened our arrangement in religious liberty. Charles Haynes, First Amendment Center From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Paul Horwitz Sent: Thu 5/17/2007 9:22 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think 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
Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
Shortly after Lee vs. Weisman, Jerry Falwell, two separationists, and I were invited to participate in a debate that was a feature of the annual convention of the Virginia Bar Association. In addition to the opportunity to enjoy a visit to Williamsburg, it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to meet Falwell. To facilitate the debate, the VBA arranged for a private luncheon between the four of us. And in that luncheon I got an insight into Falwell that has served as a balance to all the rancor that has been thrown toward him as a consequence of his very public stances. It seems that, as a drove to Thomas Road one day, he noticed a sign being erected in front of a small home. The sign proclaimed the opening of a Palmistry shop. Folks who think they know Falwell from his public stances, me included, may think that he would have sprung into action by organizing public protests, etc. He didn't. When he got to work, he called for the junior-most pastor on the staff at Thomas Road. When the young associate appeared, Falwell slipped him twenty dollars and instructed him to go get his palm read, meet the owner and develop a relationship. Ultimately, the woman, through that friendship, came to faith in Christ, closed her shop, and pursued further education . . . ultimately becoming a licensed counselor . . . something that she had obviously had a penchant for previously. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ** 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.
Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wed, 16 May 2007 3:19 PM Subject: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think Shortly after Lee vs. Weisman, Jerry Falwell, two separationists, and I were invited to participate in a debate that was a feature of the annual convention of the Virginia Bar Association. In addition to the opportunity to enjoy a visit to Williamsburg, it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to meet Falwell. To facilitate the debate, the VBA arranged for a private luncheon between the four of us. And in that luncheon I got an insight into Falwell that has served as a balance to all the rancor that has been thrown toward him as a consequence of his very public stances. It seems that, as a drove to Thomas Road one day, he noticed a sign being erected in front of a small home. The sign proclaimed the opening of a Palmistry shop. Folks who think they know Falwell from his public stances, me included, may think that he would have sprung into action by organizing public protests, etc. He didn't. When he got to work, he called for the junior-most pastor on the staff at Thomas Road. When the young associate appeared, Falwell slipped him twenty dollars and instructed him to go get his palm read, meet the owner and develop a relationship. Ultimately, the woman, through that friendship, came to faith in Christ, closed her shop, and pursued further education . . . ultimately becoming a licensed counselor . . . something that she had obviously had a penchant for previously. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ See what's free at 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. AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at 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.
Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
This story shows that Falwell could be strategic and intelligent. Good thing the woman wasn't selling teletubby dolls or trying to assert her constitutional right to control her own body. What is the point of this story, to show that he used guile and dishonesty (make friends with someone so you can undermine her business) and that this is something you should praise? It may not be polite to speak ill of the dead, but surely we should not allow false praise just because someone who was deeply hateful to others is no long alive. 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 4:19 PM Shortly after Lee vs. Weisman, Jerry Falwell, two separationists, and I were invited to participate in a debate that was a feature of the annual convention of the Virginia Bar Association. In addition to the opportunity to enjoy a visit to Williamsburg, it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to meet Falwell. To facilitate the debate, the VBA arranged for a private luncheon between the four of us. And in that luncheon I got an insight into Falwell that has served as a balance to all the rancor that has been thrown toward him as a consequence of his very public stances. It seems that, as a drove to Thomas Road one day, he noticed a sign being erected in front of a small home. The sign proclaimed the opening of a Palmistry shop. Folks who think they know Falwell from his public stances, me included, may think that he would have sprung into action by organizing public protests, etc. He didn't. When he got to work, he called for the junior-most pastor on the staff at Thomas Road. When the young associate appeared, Falwell slipped him twenty dollars and instructed him to go get his palm read, meet the owner and develop a relationship. Ultimately, the woman, through that friendship, came to faith in Christ, closed her shop, and pursued further education . . . ultimately becoming a licensed counselor . . . something that she had obviously had a penchant for previously. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ** 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.
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.
RE: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
I disagree, Professor. To a Christian, palm reading is a pagan practice that is as offensive to Christian tenets as is homosexual behavior or the destruction of innocent human life, both of which are implicated in your examples. Reverend Falwell's approach was to meet the lady on her own terms, not with polemic or wild threats of damnation and brimstone. Undoubtedly, the approach would have been much the same no matter what the person practiced. That was the way of Jesus and his disciples; it scarcely justifies the accusation that the man was deeply hateful. I respectfully submit that such unsubstantiated ad hominem attack is inappropriate in this forum and in a word, uncivil. Sincerely, /S/ Gary S. McCaleb Gary S. McCaleb Senior Counsel ADF -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 5:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think This story shows that Falwell could be strategic and intelligent. Good thing the woman wasn't selling teletubby dolls or trying to assert her constitutional right to control her own body. What is the point of this story, to show that he used guile and dishonesty (make friends with someone so you can undermine her business) and that this is something you should praise? It may not be polite to speak ill of the dead, but surely we should not allow false praise just because someone who was deeply hateful to others is no long alive. 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 4:19 PM Shortly after Lee vs. Weisman, Jerry Falwell, two separationists, and I were invited to participate in a debate that was a feature of the annual convention of the Virginia Bar Association. In addition to the opportunity to enjoy a visit to Williamsburg, it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to meet Falwell. To facilitate the debate, the VBA arranged for a private luncheon between the four of us. And in that luncheon I got an insight into Falwell that has served as a balance to all the rancor that has been thrown toward him as a consequence of his very public stances. It seems that, as a drove to Thomas Road one day, he noticed a sign being erected in front of a small home. The sign proclaimed the opening of a Palmistry shop. Folks who think they know Falwell from his public stances, me included, may think that he would have sprung into action by organizing public protests, etc. He didn't. When he got to work, he called for the junior-most pastor on the staff at Thomas Road. When the young associate appeared, Falwell slipped him twenty dollars and instructed him to go get his palm read, meet the owner and develop a relationship. Ultimately, the woman, through that friendship, came to faith in Christ, closed her shop, and pursued further education . . . ultimately becoming a licensed counselor . . . something that she had obviously had a penchant for previously. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ** 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. ___ 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.
RE: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
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. winmail.dat___ 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.
RE: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
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.
Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
In a message dated 5/16/2007 8:57:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This story shows that Falwell could be strategic and intelligent. Good thing the woman wasn't selling teletubby dolls or trying to assert her constitutional right to control her own body. What is the point of this story, to show that he used guile and dishonesty (make friends with someone so you can undermine her business) and that this is something you should praise? It may not be polite to speak ill of the dead, but surely we should not allow false praise just because someone who was deeply hateful to others is no long alive. Oh, please, don't confuse my message with an intention to promote false praise of someone who was deeply hateful to others. I was offering genuine praise of someone who was deeply loving kind to a person that might have seemed natural to present an instance for his powerful means of public coercion. The dialogue that will likely not occur in these circumstances may illuminate for those who wish for it to do so why there cannot be much hope for success in any dialogue between Evangelicals and Conservatives (on one side) and Secularists and Liberals on the other. Histrionic characterizations such as the one proffered about Falwell -- based on his principled disapproval of the judicial invention of the modern right to abortion and his stranger, but harmless, dislike for Tinkie or whichever Teletubby -- suggest that anyone who claims a basis in conscience for a view of opposition to legalized abortion can be expected to be recast as a hater. And God knows, as does Imus, there is almost nothing so fearful as to be subject to characterization as a hater in the current construct. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ** 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.
Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
On May 16, 2007, at 7:39 PM, 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 While I agree with Professor Finkelman about discussing the life of Falwell, I am going to gently remind him that Falwell and his friends didn't have to actually read Hustler to find out about the satirical ersatz ad. Let's face it--word gets around, often through many hands. Jean. ___ 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.
Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
On May 16, 2007, at 8:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...God knows, as does Imus, there is almost nothing so fearful as to be subject to characterization as a hater in the current construct. Wanna bet? Try being the object of such hate. Jean Yes, this is the voice of experience. ___ 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.
