Paul: You're absolutely right: bad reasoning is not improved by having the Bible as one of your premises. I once told my students at Baylor that one can prove that tennis is mentioned in the Bible since the Book of Genesis states that "Joseph served in Pharoah's court."
Take care, Frank On 6/3/04 12:06 PM, "Paul Finkelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since this is a list serve on law, I guess I misread your argument to > include the idea that gay people should not be accorded the same rights > as the rest of us, which would include the right of marriage, equal > protection of the law, etc. If your position is merely that a religious > person has a right to disapprove of gave people, that is surely true. > > As for a "disreputable tactic" -- on the contrary, it is worth recalling > that religious and biblical arguments were at the center of the > intellectual support for segregation and slavery. To this day some > churches preach that the story of Noah and the curse of Canaan as a way > of arguing for racial inferiority. Thus, I do not think it disreputable > at all to note that people of faith have often used their faith as a > rationale, and explanation, or a reason for their willingness to > discriminate against people. > > Clearly, however, as you note, you are not advocating disrciminating > against gay people, and so I welcome you to to fold of many people of > faith who support equal rights for all Americans! > > Paul Finkelman > > Francis Beckwith wrote: >> On 6/2/04 10:52 PM, "Paul Finkelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> Mr. Beckwith: >>> >>> It is hard to imagine how one can treat someone with respect and at the >>> same time believe that such a person is not entitled to the same rights >>> that you have. >> >> >> Yes, it is hard to imagine that I would hold that belief, since I don't hold >> it. >> >>> Quite frankly, your position reminds me of those southern whites who >>> treated blacks with "respect" while segregating them, denying them full >>> legal rights, and turning a blind eye to their persecution. It is worth >>> remembering that for more than 150 years Christians defended both >>> slavery and segregation with religious and biblical arguments. >> >> >> This is precisely the sort of disreputable tactic that I was talking about >> in my last post. Instead of engaging the modest case I put forth (which, by >> the way, never dealt with the legal rights of gay citizens, but rather, the >> legal rights of religious citizens), I am passive-aggressively compared to >> someone who defended segregation and/or slavery. Here's what I wrote: "I >> think that the gay rights movement has corrupted our public discourse by the >> rhetorical trick of changing the topic from the plausibility of onešs >> position to whether the one who embraces that position is a virtuous person. >> So, for example, if a concerned parent sincerely believes that homosexuality >> is immoral, and has informed himself of all the relevant arguments and >> remains unconvinced of the otheršs position, that parent is `homophobic.' >> I am not convinced that is how adults ought to conduct their disagreements >> in public." All was I suggesting is that the parent's concern is legitimate >> and ought to be treated with respect, since she, after all, has the same >> rights as the rest of us. >> >> Your slavery analogy, however, raises an interesting question that is >> outside the scope of this listserv though relevant to your view on the >> relationship between law and morality: why was slavery wrong? Was it wrong >> because the slaves did not consent to their imprisonment, or was it wrong >> because human beings are by nature the sorts of beings that are not >> property? If the latter, then there are acts between consenting >> adults--namely voluntary slavery--that the law could proscribe on clearly >> moral and metaphysical grounds. On the other hand, if the former, then >> slavery is not intrinsically wrong; it is only conditionally wrong, >> depending on whether the prospective slave consented to his servitude. >> >> Perhaps I was unclear in my posting, and for that I apologize. All I was >> doing was trying to do was humanize the predicament of the serious, caring >> citizen who feels under siege by cultural warriors who will call her names >> and marginalize her perspective simply because she is thoughtfully >> unconvinced that her critics are correct. >> >> Frank >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
